What is the relationship between post-structuralism and neo-liberalism?

What is the relationship between post-structuralism and neo-liberalism?

im to dumb to pretend i know

Both use prefixes that mean after.

One suffers from AIDS, the other is AIDS

a poorly established one. While many deride Foucault as a neo-liberal (or occasionally even a reactionary) the greatest irony is that most of his influence (through selective reading and heavily politicized interpretation) has been on the Social Justice left, which while not classically leftist is inherently opposed to neo-liberalism (a nebulous term thrown around and abused by many of them) and in many ways seeks to resurrect the meta-narratives that scholars like Foucault tried to destroy. Makes me sad desu that such a brilliant thinker's work has been abused and degraded like this.

> Makes me sad desu that such a brilliant thinker's work has been abused and degraded like this.
Foucault enjoyed being degraded and abused himself, why should his work be any different?

pretty good bait

But isnt this social justice left only able to exist on the basis of a neolib system, or as a product of it?

keke love it

Richard Rorty

That is probably the case I was just making a point about how the Social Justice left likes to posture itself against an ill-defined "neoliberalism"
lmao

>That is probably the case
Any books or essays on this?

La gauche du capital

Post-structuralism is logic without a "point of reference". That is to say, it doesn't have absolutes aside from truth statements.
Neoliberalism is a weak man's god, to carve a point of reference from the state and law.

I'd like to know if this position has a name. I'm not the only one with this narrative.
Though I didn't give post-structuralism enough credit. It also acknowledges the infinity of perception, and as such, narration.

top fucking jej

Let’s settle on a definition of Neo-Liberalism before we try to think about its relationship to post-structuralism.

Monald Bumpf is a good example of a white supremacist neoliberal fascist.

Doesn't that make his detractors merely a new form of conservative? You know, those who are on the wrong side of history?

It triggers me when brainlets don't know what neoliberal means. Absolute shit thread.

Ur annoying
Pls stop

Ya know, there were probably many people like you in the Tower of Babel.

No it makes us the Resistance fighting for socialist feminist egalitarian nontoxic-black-masculine freedom for all People of Color (PoC) against toxic white hyper-masculine supremacy.

Pls

True, we don't need to ruin this thread.
>but I want to

>history
>wrong side

The Nobel peace prize winner, Obama told us that such a thing exists, and that it includes me because I can't get my goals and desires out into the world. However, let's keep Murrican politics out of this.

yeah shitlord and fascist white supremacist heteronomative cis-gendered fat shaming capitalistic toxic hypermasculine xenophobic racists like yourself are on the WRONG side of history. show me what democracy looks like THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE

It would have been fun to watch people legitimately try and define neo-liberalism. By injecting too much “irony” into the thread you just made another unfunny /pol/ debate. It’s very tired honestly.

Jokes on you, he wasn't the one to respond to you, I was. But nice try, Slick, maybe next time ;^)

Destroying something is easy and not very interesting.

>post-structuralism
you mean deconstructionism?
>neo liberalism
so fascism to fix minute racism?

>Destroying something is easy and not very interesting
Then why are there still meta-narratives?

Know that when at a loss for why you feel a lack of meaning and purpose, and wonder why those who know you don’t seem to take the time for you, it’s because you’re just another face in the crowd who chooses to destroy.

Only a fool thinks deconstruction == destruction.

Of course it does. Sure you might want to deconstruct structures I support and create those of your own, but anyone who opposes yours will do the same. Now that Pandora's Box has been opened, it's a race to the bottom in a capitalistic competition of who can deconstruct more convincingly.

You have to be a bigger fool if you think you can bring it back together. We aren't playing with Legos. Heck, thinking about your own thoughts change them in a manner that can't be undone.

Deconstruction implies recombination Destruction is total. Deconstruction is systematic
Destruction is unfocused. There are differences. Destruction is easy and not very interesting.

>Deconstruction implies recombination
No shit, did you even read what I said?

Funny thing is, before my suicide attempt, this was my goal to be done in hell. I play with the idea that it was successful.

The left thinks of history as some sort of secular afterlife.

I've had several conversations about neo liberalism niw witout knowing what it is. It's just like worshipping the free market but the government wont stop paying lipservice to feminism right? Like all the wealth is held by a multi ethnic gender equal 1%?

Yes.

>Like all the wealth is held by a multi ethnic gender equal 1%?
no

neoliberalism is just classical liberalism (like that defended by j.s. mill) combined with an emphasis on market-based solutions for social and political problems (like transportation, health care, etc.). it rose to power in the 80s and 90s and is exemplified in american and british politics by people like reagan, thatcher, clinton, and blair

underrated post

...

Honestly, this is a problem only in the american left and only became a problem worldwide once the american left bled through the other lefts. Neoliberalism is very clearly defined for anyone else, it's what became of capitalism once the USSR fell. The many consequences of that all fall under the umbrella of neoliberalism.

As for the relation between Foucault (and the rest of the post-structuralists) and neoliberalism is that neoliberalism very clearly recuperated them (some might claim their thought was the very process of recuperation), and their unique common theme (I guess, that of immanent individual potency against de-subjectivizing moral forces) has become the basis of 21st century capitalism. Everyone, don't matter how niche their identity, has a right - an obligation, even - to consume whatever suits them best.

i read somewhere that people like to shit on neoliberals because they know they're not likely to encounter anyone who will openly admit to being a neoliberal in real life. it's evolved into a term you can use as a strawman for just about anything negative you want to say about capitalism and somebody may even believe that you know what you're talking about. there isn't really any reason why post-structuralism necessarily has to imply the critique of neoliberalism (or 'capitalist realism'); it's just that, afaik, structuralism worked pretty well for a lot of writers who would have considered themselves marxist or were fairly left-leaning (i'm looking at you, france).

levi-strauss, for instance, seems to work well with freud, and the marx-freud (or hegel-lacan) protocol can be run on just about anything and will inevitably turn up a tasty signifier to write about. psychoanalysis is closely linked to saussurian structural linguistics at the beginning, but, of course, language is not stable, or objective, and depends on contexts...which are the kinds of things post-structuralists are interested in.

and context leads to economics, or sociology, and so on. more recently globalization...

then life gets really exciting with these broskis. or horrible, if you think that they haven't criticized capital at all, but have opened the floodgates entirely. down these roads lies acceleration and other interesting ways to ruin your afternoon.

Foucault realized that neoliberal / rational choice analysis of society and policymaking would ultimately condition people's thinking about politics to such an extent that they would be left unable to coherently argue for any kind of state sanctioned moral dogmayism, thus making the world a freer place for degenerate faggots like himself