Link

R2: let's start with the premise.

Firstly, I don't know if you've heard anything about this before, but Donald Trump firmly believes that America should be less in favour of immigration and allowing immigrants in. He is also skeptical of NAFTA and he's a big supporter of other countries' nationalists, e.g. in the form of the Brexit campaign and Marine le Pen. On the other hand, (at least from my understanding) a big part of neoliberalism is open borders and hiring immigrants as part of their approach to improving the economy, as well as globalism in general.

Secondly, one of Trump's economic policies is raising tariffs, and that's... the polar opposite of neoliberalism. The first, biggest main point of neoliberalism is that free market capitalism is the best option, and ergo that tariffs and regulations should not exist.

Thirdly, from browsing the subreddit I gather that Hillary is the popular candidate there.

Anyway, on to the article. Here's some of my criticisms:

Trump’s election is in some ways a neoliberal apex, an event that portends the completion of the U.S. government’s capture by wealthy corporate interests.

umm... what? I haven't heard anything about neoliberals wanting to replace the US government with the corporate elite. Neoliberalism would definitely push the government into a direction which benefits them, in a big way, but that's not the same thing as having the government taken over.

While in my opinion Trump’s election does not signal the beginning of a rapid descent into European-style fascism, it appears to be a key stage in the ongoing process of American democratic disintegration

I'm not entirely sure what "European-style fascism" means. The biggest benefit of the doubt I can think of would be assuming it refers to Mussolini's movement, but that is fascism, you wouldn't need to qualify it as European. The only other thing I can see this meaning is using fascism to mean "thing I don't like", probably referring to the EU. Whether the thing about Trump being bad for democracy is badpol is up for debate.

In terms of the political consequences of these trends in the U.S., certain thinkers have argued that the U.S. political system is not democratic at all, but rather an “inverted totalitarian” system...

certain thinkers have argued that the September 11 attacks couldn't have been orchestrated by al-Qaeda because the fuel used in the aeroplanes wasn't flammable enough to melt through the building's metallic infrastructure. I'm getting a similar vibe from this claim.

... Chris Hedges notes: “Inverted totalitarianism is different from classical forms of totalitarianism. It does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader but in the faceless anonymity of the corporate state.”

TIL the term "totalitarianism" only applies when referring to leaders who people like.

“Unlike the Nazis, who made life uncertain for the wealthy and privileged while providing social programs for the working class and poor...

Dear god, can't we have one post without this? virtually every other post on this sub explains why this is wrong, must I cover it too?

... , inverted totalitarianism exploits the poor, reducing or weakening health programs and social services, regimenting mass education for an insecure workforce threatened by the importation of low-wage workers.”

You heard it here first, folks. The (at least non-Jewish/gay/etc) poor are being mistreated by the 21st century American political system than they were in Nazi Germany. Also this seems to imply that these "inverse totalitarians" are deliberately sabotaging the economy by bringing in immigrant workers. Why they would do this beats me.

Our inverted totalitarian system is one that retains the trappings of a democratic system—e.g. it retains the appearance of loyalty to “the Constitution, civil liberties, freedom of the press, [and] the independence of the judiciary”—all the while undermining the capacity of citizens to substantively participate and exert power over the system.

Not sure if suggesting that the American public are gatekept from getting political jobs, or suggesting that it's only democracy if citizens are completely in control of everything aspect of the government. Dumb either way.

Trump gives inverted totalitarianism a persona and a face, and perhaps marks the beginning of a transformation from inverted totalitarianism to totalitarianism proper.

What are you talking about? firstly, Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Totalitarianism. secondly, I thought your inverted totalitarianism thing was supposed to be faceless? thirdly, neoliberals are not a big evil corporate illuminati. Unless this is a tangent on the main point of the article, why are you suggesting neoliberalism is totalitarian? (hey Soros, money pls)

Indeed, if the pre-Trump system of inverted totalitarianism solidified in the context of global neoliberalism, the period we are entering now seems likely to be...”

this confirms I was interpreting the last part correctly or pretty much correctly.

Trump’s election represents a triumph of neoliberal thinking and values.

NO, IT FUCKING DOESN'T. As I went into at the start, Trump and neoliberalism are about as compatible as Mr. Magoo and competitive archery.

Perhaps most importantly, we should all keep in mind the fact that Americans just elected a businessman to the presidency... [t]his configuration—in which a top-one-percenter real estate tycoon is accepted as a political “outsider”—is a hallmark of neoliberal thinking...

What this forgets is that neoliberalism is so (relatively, at least) supportive of big businesses is because they believe that big businesses are good for the economy, not just because they're big businesses. By this logic, Trump's presidency should be bad for neoliberalism because now there's the same number of presidents and one less active businessman in the world.

Trump’s plan redirects the activities of the U.S. government along the lines touted by neoliberal “market fundamentalists” like Milton Friedman, who advocate limiting government’s role to market-supportive functions like national defense [...] and domestic law and order...

what this fails to mention is that Trump wants to raise tariffs, which basically stomps on this argument: the main point Friedman was making was limiting the government's economic, so if his exceptions match up with a few of Trump's policies they're still advocating for very different things.

Trump’s plan for the first 100 days specifies “a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.”

fair point.

The nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and paranoia of Donald Trump are about to replace the significantly more cosmopolitan outlook of his post-WWII predecessors. While Trump is decidedly pro-business and pro-market, he most certainly does not see himself as a global citizen. Nor does he intend to maintain the United States’ extensive global footprint or its relatively open trading network. In other words, while neoliberalism is not dead, it is being transformed into a geographically more fragmented and localized system...

this is like a reverse no true scotsman. "If you don't drink alcohol, you can still be a drunk, because drunks are shifting away from alcohol and adopting sobriety instead".

There's a bit more, but my criticisms are the same.