Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "What Exactly Is Neo-liberalism? (how you lost your future)" video.

@robertjenkins6132 The use of color to signify politics is an indication that one has entered the realm of empty signifiers. Red isn’t the “proper signifier” of any political stance. It’s not just an over simplification, it’s a category error embraced by lazy minds. It supports manipulation of the many by the few. Don’t complain that conservatives have taken over the color red. Don try to take it back. Instead, point out the stupidity of such symbolism.
40
@ellengran6814 The people you’re talking about have also perverted the meaning of the word “conservative”.
6
@Simboiss I don’t think I understand your comment about America or I’m pretending not to understand. Are you mad that colonialists have appropriated the name of a colonialist? Do you feel like anyone’s cultural heritage is being infringed upon? Are you defending “Latin Culture”? Did you know it’s kind of stupid and belittling to cram all the different cultures contained in Latin America into the container of Latin Culture? (Unless you’re talking about ancient Romans, I suppose.) Try this: call someone from any country in Latin America an American. Introduce them to others as an American. Do this repeatedly until they tell you to stop. Even the name “Latin America” is a little odd. It describes a geographic area based on colonial languages. Most citizens of the various countries that make up Latin America don’t identify as Latin American. They identify as being from their country of origin (or their parents country of origin, and so on). Unless you or your ancestors are from one of these countries, maybe stop talking about it. It’s a really stupid point that falls apart when you examine it. Besides which, it’s a lame example of “American arrogance”. There is a chingo of much more egregious examples than “they stole the name America from the rest of the (Latin) Americans. And if you are from a Latin American country, I’m on to you. But seriously. Just stop. It just makes your politics look juvenile to anyone that knows better or who has learned better.
2
Neoliberalism was an appropriate response to the economic conditions of the 70s. It’s continuation was “too much of a good thing”. I think of capitalism as a tool, not merely as a structure. It’s a set of social technologies that act as a motor. As with any motor, it is used to “do work”, and should be adjusted to do that work accordingly. It must be tuned, adjusted, and regulated to do that work effectively. The idea of “pure capitalism” is a motor that doesn’t do any real work. It’s like a model of a motor, almost an abstraction. There is no “Pure Capitalism” outside of the world of ideas. It’s never existed in the real world. If you think I’m moving toward a car analogy, you’re correct. If capitalism is a motor, its purpose is moving society forward. Society is the vehicle. In a representational democratic society, the members of that society determine who drives. More importantly, they decide on the goals and the route to reach those goals. There’s a lot of good comparisons with this car analogy. To determine how you tune and tweak the engine, you must decide on the purpose of the vehicle. Should it be a bus or a sports car? What safety features are included so people don’t fall off or are injured in a crash? What level of maintenance is necessary to keep the vehicle running? Also, you don’t want a crazy or incompetent driver who will drive off a cliff. 😅 Capitalism-as-ideology turns the marketplace into a religion. (Perhaps this is a tendency of any ideology.) Capitalism-as-ideology cannot adjust to changing road conditions. When the road curves, it forces the vehicle to drive off the road (perhaps off that aforementioned cliff). Capitalism-as-engine and society-as-vehicle are pretty good analogies, but they’re not perfect. Like any tool, capitalism can be weaponized. The analogy doesn’t address social hierarchies in a meaningful way. It doesn’t account for the imperfections of democracy or how democracies can be perverted by hierarchy. It doesn’t address other forms of societal organization outside of economic organization. But it’s a useful way to think about capitalism.
2