this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
403 points (98.8% liked)
Greentext
8211 readers
371 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm a dumb American and don't know who this is. He didn't really do that did he? What the fuck is going on.
He's one of the fathers of neoliberalism, and therefore a lot of the problems we all face today
I believe he is the one who coined the term, and if you read the text in which he did that, you will see that what we got is nothing even close to what he wanted.
Neoliberalism would have come one way or the other. Doesn't matter if Milton Friedman was a Jack Burner or a Jan Wouters.
That's a part of the lie that "capitalism is inevitable."
It's not. Just because the world is a certain way for a time, doesn't mean it has to be, and the world is never done changing and evolving.
The world we live in today is the result of millions of decisions that humans have made. Collective decisions, individual decisions, competing decisions, strategic decisions. It all adds up and substracts and the net result is the world we have today.
Capitalism isn't inevitable. Oligarchs only want you to believe that so you accept it as the so-called "real world."
Maybe Friedman wasn't the guy that made neoliberalism the dominant system today, but if we didn't have Reagan or Thatcher, we wouldn't have austerity for the poor and "trickle-down" supply-side economics as the main standard methods of political economy.
Incorrect. Capitalism was practically everywhere in the 70s when Neoliberalism came onto the scene. It was already there. Neoliberalism is a logical development within capitalism as capitalism reaches the highest possible productivity achievable with it.
There is nothing super special about Neoliberalism when you look at the way the world was before the new deal and Italian fascism.
Great man/woman theory.
I never claimed that neoliberalism is what gave us capitalism. What's with people arguing against points I never made?
I said claiming that "we would have neoliberalism one way or another" is a part of the lie that "capitalism is inevitable." Nothing you said refutes that.
Not at all. Heads of state of influential world superpowers absolutely have a disproportionate effect on the development of the world for decades and even generations after their time in office.
If you can't see that, then I guess you believe the world is purely deterministic and human choice doesn't matter, so then I guess you're also a nihilist who says we shouldn't vote or fight for climate action or even resist fascism, because apparently the people in power don't matter, and human choices don't matter, so why the fuck should anyone try to make a difference anyway?
I guess we can't hold anyone in power accountable for the results of their decisions, because that would be "great man/woman" fallacy, right? Let's all stay in bed and drink ourselves into comas, because capitalism and neoliberalism aren't the results of human choices, but somehow some inevitable part of existence itself.
Go home.
It was inevitable in the development of class society, at least when we look at history. So that is not a lie. If capitalism is inevitable, what is there to be afraid of? Capitalism is the state of the world. Similarly I can say, "communism is inevitable", which I adhere to.
To deepen this whole thing let's consider capitalism as historically progressive from the standpoint of a 16th century someone. Capitalism was needed to create the worker and the worker as a class. Capitalism gave us Marx, Fourier, Lafargue, Kropotkin and all the others that knew or at least felt that the story doesn't end with capitalism.
That is what it looks like. You don't see the strategizers, funders and victims that enable these decisions.
On a, well, deeper level I cannot refute determinism, but I don't believe in it as a method of considering the world as I don't know everything and everything needs to be known to be a successful determinist.
Yes, democracy as a principle does not create new structures within society but reproduces the status quo. I'd advise to look at how people actually push change forward. That happens simply by joining a cause or leaving it. No voting necessary. In addition to that there are quite a few absurdities in democracy, like letting people vote on who gets to be killed. Stalin was a democrat in that he sent goons to villages and then let the mob decide who gets sacrificed. Democracy is too despotic for my taste, it certainly fulfilled none of my needs as a prole. Please don't call me a nihilist though, I am older than 16.
Oh yes, let me resist a system like fully ramped up fascism that I have no avenue in fighting because there is no workers' movement. Genius idea.
Sure. They could be reformed if they are forcibly proletarized, fully expropriated and such. At the same time I adhere to no particular moralism around this, if they are held to account as you say then that is something people ought to do with no expectation that one ought to join in.
Codified the concept on lessaiz faire economics giving a pseudo-academic justification for the Reaganite and Thatcherite fiscal policies that are broadly responsible for the sorry state of public services in America and Britain today.
Nah it’s one of them stories that sound cool and smart and shit but it’s made up.
All stories are made up.
Nobel prize in economics back in the 70s. Wrote several books most notable being Capitalism and Freedom