Neoliberalism’s deliberate epistemic inconsistencies enabled its long-term success

Evidence

This dappled, striated, and flickering complexion is also the face of an order replete with contradiction and disavowal, structuring markets it claims to liberate from structure, intensely governing subjects it claims to free from government, strengthening and retasking states it claims to abjure. In the economic realm, neoliberalism aims simultaneously at deregulation and control. It carries purpose and has its own futurology (and futures markets), while eschewing planning. It seeks to privatize every public enterprise, yet valorizes public-private partnerships that imbue the market with ethical potential and social responsibility and the public realm with market metrics. — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos, 81 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Neoliberals tamed many of the contending contradictory conceptions by trying to have it both ways: to warn of the perils of expanding the purview of state activity while simultaneously imagining the strong state of their liking rendered harmless through some instrumentality of “natural” regulation; to posit the free market as an ideal generator and a conveyor belt of information while simultaneously prosecuting a “war of ideas” on the ground strenuously and ruthlessly (Blundell 2003); asserting that their program would lead to unfettered economic growth and enhanced human welfare while simultaneously suggesting that no human mind could ever really know any such thing, and therefore that it was illegitimate to justify their program by its consequences (Shearmur 1996); to portray the market as the ne plus ultra of all human institutions, while simultaneously suggesting that the market is in itself insufficient to attain and nourish the transeconomic values of a political, social, religious and cultural character (Megay 1970). “Neoliberal writings on allocation shift back and forth between libertarian and utilitarian vocabularies, with the two sometimes appearing interchangeably within a paper or chapter” (Oliver 1960). — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 2142 (#expands, via linked claim)

“With a more detailed and historical analysis, it becomes evident that the neoliberalism is not singular, but plural. From basis-common elements he knows indeed very various developments. That plurality of neoliberalism is not a weakness, but constitutes a strength in the context of a Hegemony Theory standpoint” (Plehwe and Walpen 1999, 206). — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1014 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Neoliberal theories succeed as policy rhetoric despite having scant evidence — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 425; The unknowability of the world economy drove neoliberal federalist reform — Quinn Slobodian, Globalists: The End of Empire and the…, 77; Crises recurring across eras implies neoliberalism may not cause them — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 1787 (+33 more)

Related

• Neoliberalism holds together several unresolved internal contradictions by asserting both sides at once (similarity 0.89)
• Neoliberalism operates through systematic contradiction and disavowal of its own practices (similarity 0.87)
• Neoliberalism is best understood as open questions with a constant goal (similarity 0.87)
• Neoliberalism’s internal plurality is strategic strength, not weakness (similarity 0.87)
• Neoliberalism’s plasticity prevents treating its current Euro-Atlantic form as essential truth (similarity 0.86)
• Neoliberalism is internally diverse and marked by real internal conflict (similarity 0.86)
• Neoliberalism is best understood as open problems, not fixed solutions (similarity 0.86)
• Neoliberalism’s resilience rests on deliberate epistemic inconsistency across discourse levels. (similarity 0.86)
• Neoliberalism encompassed bitter internal conflicts, not a unified doctrine. (similarity 0.86)
• Neoliberalism lacks unified theory and is riven by real internal conflict (similarity 0.86)
• Neoliberalism was internally heterogeneous and institutionally embedded, not monolithic (similarity 0.84)
• Neoliberalism was a pluralist movement opposing three rival liberal traditions, not a corporate tool (similarity 0.84)
• Neoliberalism may not cohere as a unified doctrine in actual practice. (similarity 0.84)
• Neoliberalism is a contested but usable analytical category rather than a fixed ideology (similarity 0.84)
• Neoliberalism is internally plural yet not formless (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Neoliberalism holds together several unresolved internal contradictions by asserting both sides at once #expands (0.85) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 2142
• Neoliberalism operates through systematic contradiction and disavowal of its own practices #corroborates (0.85) — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos, 81
• Neoliberalism’s internal plurality is strategic strength, not weakness #expands (0.80) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1014