Pratique du Shadowing: The Liberalism to Fascism Pipeline (Neoliberalism Explained) - Apprendre l'anglais à l'oral avec la vidéo

Choisissez un mode d'entraînement

Chaque mode ouvre une salle d'entraînement en plein écran.

230 phrases

Si les phrases sont trop courtes ou trop longues, cliquez sur Edit pour les ajuster.

We got a lot of work to do.

Americans are being squeezed out of the labor force and their jobs are taken.

But all over the world, they're coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia.

And you know who's being hurt the most by millions of people pouring into our country?

The black population and the Hispanic population.

The crime is going to be tremendous.

The unions are suffering because of it.

They're poisoning the blood of our country.

That's what they've done.

You would think that at a time when economic stratification and marginalization are running rampant, a time where the rich grow richer at the expense of everyone else,

politicians would tailor their rhetoric to tackle the real issues at hand and not just stir division amongst races, genders, creeds, and religions,

but no. Why do figures like Donald Trump point the finger

at immigrants as though they are the reason for economic instability and not oligarchs?

Will he ever mention the fact that in 2022 alone,

undocumented migrants paid nearly $100 billion in tax revenue while being shut out of the very programs they helped fund?

Why is the blame for a failing economic model rarely placed on the model itself, but instead transferred to groups who are already having a hard enough time?

Why does this economic instability lead to divisive in-group-out-group rhetoric

and not toward a productive discussion about the innate instability of the economic model we live under?

I hope I can answer that question by the end of this video, but first, we have to go back in time just a bit.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Western governments and economists alike were scratching their heads trying to come up with economic reforms

that would prevent a calamity like the war they just endured from ever occurring again.

The Great Depression still lingered in the minds of many, with unregulated capitalism widely seen as its cause and an unstable economic model.

Western governments didn't want to scrap capitalism altogether, but they believed that by guaranteeing their populations basic dignities and social safety nets,

it would prevent them from entertaining alternative economic and political ideas.

Keep in mind, it was the disillusionment

and suffering of the German citizenry post-World War I that allowed for Hitler's rhetoric and ideas to flourish.

By preventing that level of economic instability from occurring again, Western governments believed that they could prevent fascism from gaining traction in the future.

They also wished to prevent socialist or communist sentiment from strengthening.

It's important to note that post-World War II, the socialist bloc was guaranteeing employment, healthcare and housing to its citizens.

If the capitalist West didn't try to appease its populations in a similar way, it feared that revolutionary leftist movements would flourish and,

in the eyes of many liberals, fascism and socialism are totally the same level of evil.

One for one.

And that brings us to this dude, John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes was an economist who stressed the demand side.

To put it very simply, he believed that when people have more money to spend, especially workers who make up most consumers, it drives demand, keeps businesses running,

and helps the economy stay healthy.

And when that doesn't happen naturally, he argued, the government should step in to boost spending and keep things moving.

Think of it as a kinder form of capitalism that Keynes was advocating for.

One designed to prevent catastrophes like the Great Depression and keep the economically downtrodden from revolting against their governments.

After the Second World War in the 40s and 50s, Keynesian economics began to rise to prominence.

Western governments embraced Keynes' ideas and enacted policies that built the foundation for what we now call social democracies.

They were done with unfettered capitalism and knew

that a mixed social democratic type model was the way to not only keep their populations happier, but keep both fascism and socialism at bay.

Because, again, those two things are totally morally equivalent.

One for one.

I have my issues with social democracy, we'll get into that later in this video, but one thing that's for certain is

that the social democratic model was an improvement to the unregulated capitalist hellscape that preceded it.

As the Western world continued to embrace Keynesian economics and shift toward social democracies, there was a very notable man who was just not fucking with it.

This guy, Friedrich Hayek.

Hayek was an Austrian economist who believed that an overemphasis on collectivism would fast-track a society to totalitarianism.

He believed that social democracy and expansive welfare states would erode the individual and eventually morph into authoritarianism.

In 1944, Hayek published a book called The Road to Serfdom in which he made his argument,

and it did not take long before this book of his was picked up by business communities and wealthy,

powerful people who saw his ideas as a way to champion a reversal of the Keynesian era.

While Keynesian economics improved financial stability for the average person, the ultra-rich resented it because it limited their ability to maximize profits.

The business communities and the ultra-rich saw in Hayek's ideas a chance to reverse labor protections,

taxes, regulations, and usher the world back into an era where unfettered capitalism ruled supreme.

An era where they could grow their wealth exponentially without having to worry about who or what they exploited.

But convincing the world of an ideology that is objectively dogshit just

because it would be friendly to the rich and powerful wasn't easy.

This was going to take a lot of money and resources, so rich, moneyed interests immediately got to work promoting Hayek's book.

Dewitt Wallace, the anti-communist editor and founder of Reader's Digest, published a condensed version of Hayek's book in an attempt to make his ideas more digestible for casual readers.

A million reprints were ordered, many of which were at the requests of companies trying to indoctrinate their workers.

Look Magazine adapted Hayek's book into a cartoon which was distributed by General Motors to its workers,

and Hayek was being booked for well-paying speaking gigs in America so his ideas could be propagated further.

In 1947, Hayek went on to found the Mont Pelerin Society,

which was an organization where he and other like-minded individuals went on to promote his theories of free-market, deregulated capitalism.

The ideas propagated by Hayek and his organization have come to be referred to as neoliberalism,

and this doctrine of his was financially backed by some of the richest, most powerful interests on earth forces such as the Koch brothers,

William Volcker & Co., General Electric, DuPont, and many many more.

They saw in Hayek's neoliberalism a way to liberate themselves from the regulations and responsibilities that Keynesianism imposed on them.

Now neoliberalism as a term in the modern day tends to

be used mostly as a pejorative by people critical of the ideology, but it absolutely still is a real and pervasive parasitic force.

To define it can be tricky, but here are a few attempts that I think do a good job.

Historian David Harvey says, Neoliberalism is a theory of political-economic practices that proposes

that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms

and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.

The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices.

The state has to guarantee, by force if need be, the proper functioning of markets.

If markets do not exist in areas such as land, water, education, healthcare, social security, or environmental pollution, then they must be created, by state action if necessary.

But beyond these tasks, the state should not venture.

Deregulation, privatization, and withdrawal of the state from many areas of social provision have been all too common.

George Monbiot and Peter Hutchison define neoliberalism as, an ideology whose central belief is that competition is the defining feature of humankind.

It tells us that we are greedy and selfish, but that greed and selfishness light the path to social improvement, generating the wealth that will eventually enrich us all.

It casts us as consumers rather than citizens.

It seeks to persuade us that our well-being is best realized not through political choice, but through economic choice, specifically buying and selling.

It promises us that by buying and selling, we can discover a natural meritocratic hierarchy of winners and losers.

The market, it contends, will, if left to its own devices, determine who deserves to succeed and who does not.

The talented and hardworking will prevail, whereas the feckless, weak, and incompetent will fail.

The wealth the winners generate will trickle down to enrich the rest.

Neoliberals argue that an active state seeking to change social outcomes through public spending and social programs rewards failure, fuels dependency, and subsidizes the losers.

The role of governments, neoliberals claim, should be to eliminate the obstacles that prevent the discovery of the natural hierarchy.

But very simply, neoliberalism is the ideology that clears the way for unfettered capitalism to rule supreme.

As you can probably tell, this is the perfect ideology for the ultra-rich to get behind because not only does it frame financial success as purely meritocratic,

but it also paints monetary gain as some sort of moral accomplishment that the state should by no means interfere with, even if that gain is achieved through exploitation or injustice.

It treats the market as a wholly infallible force

that rewards the strong and worthy while while ignoring the fact that markets are indifferent to human suffering.

Since this market fundamentalism is a key component of the ideology, markets are often forced into sectors where they shouldn't be.

This ideology, in an almost Calvinist sense, allows for the rich and powerful to reframe their opulence and greed as moral and just.

100

It allows corporate interests to ignore those pesky market externalities, to forget about the pollution and exploitation their operations create,

101

because if the free market rewards them with riches, then they must be on the right path.

102

No wonder the ruling class jumped at the opportunity to push Hayek's ideas.

103

But again, they were faced with the obstacle of democracy.

104

Neoliberalism, to most normal people, is not a very enticing ideology and they sure as shit wouldn't vote for it if they knew what it was.

105

Despite the millions of dollars that went into promoting the ideas of Hayek and his cohort, Keynesian economics remained as the mainstream economic consensus.

106

But that was soon to change.

107

The neoliberals knew that it would be hard to implement their policies domestically without first testing them out abroad.

108

And the country that they set their sights on was Chile.

109

Throughout the Cold War, the US government was very involved in Chile.

110

They did not want it to turn communist and they did everything they could to exert economic and political influence over it.

111

The US even brought Chilean university students to America to study economics at the University of Chicago

112

because it had a reputation for being anti-left.

113

This operation came to be known as the Chile Project and, as author Naomi Klein put it, the goal of the Chile Project was to produce ideological warriors

114

who would win the battle of ideas against Latin America's pink economists.

115

As this battle was taking place on the ideological front, Chile, in 1970, had elected a socialist leader which was not going to fly with the Americans.

116

The US spent millions of dollars and used every available resource to destabilize Chile and create the conditions for a coup.

117

They wanted that pesky leftist out so they could replace him with someone else and test out neoliberalism.

118

In 1973, that wish came true.

119

Chile's Marxist president was overthrown and replaced by a military junta which eventually consolidated under the rule of Augusto Pinochet.

120

Pinochet was a brutal dictator whose fascistic regime was marked by mass murder, torture, sexual violence, kidnappings, and the persecution of leftists.

121

He rid the country of any socialist or Marxist influence, and in the eyes of the Americans, he was the perfect man to implement neoliberalism in Chile.

122

Those same students who studied economics at the University of Chicago were now fully equipped to return home

123

and put their lessons of mass privatization, deregulation, and market fundamentalism into practice.

124

University of Chicago professor Milton Friedman played a key role in indoctrinating these young men, and he was also a prominent member of Hayek's Mont Pelerin Society.

125

Remember that?

126

As the years passed under Pinochet's brutal dictatorship, Chile's wealthy elite thrived, along with American corporations

127

which were free to exploit Chilean resources without the threat of nationalization or government regulation.

128

Pinochet allowed them to operate without restrictions, and if the Chilean population had a problem with that, he would kill or torture them into compliance.

129

Nothing was to get in the way of the almighty invisible hand of the free market.

130

Friedrich Hayek even had this to say about Pinochet's Chile.

131

My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism.

132

Need I remind you, this fucking guy built his entire career by fear-mongering about how welfare programs were a slippery-sloped tyranny.

133

But as As soon as he was faced with a tyrannical despot who just so happened to promote his economics,

134

suddenly all that talk about freedom and liberty wasn't so convenient and he didn't mind a dictatorship all too much.

135

As long as it was, quote, a liberal one.

136

Unlike the corporatist blend of state and business seen in fascist regimes of old, such as Mussolini's Italy, Pinochet's regime maintained the hyper-militaristic,

137

ultra-nationalist authoritarianism intrinsic to fascism, but repurposed the state to clear the way for corporate dominance

138

model has laid the groundwork for what some have referred to as neoliberal fascism.

139

Which brings me to one of the main points of this video.

140

Free market economics and fascistic regimes are not mutually exclusive.

141

As we can see, fascistic despots like Pinochet were propped up solely to protect capital,

142

exploit labor, and enforce what Hayek would call liberalism.

143

By that point, Hayek had distanced himself from the term neoliberalism due to its negative connotations

144

and just went with liberalism or classical liberalism.

145

So now that the Chile project was complete and neoliberalism was proven to treat the ruling class quite well,

146

it was time to bring it home to the West in the forms of Reaganism in the US

147

and Thatcherism in the UK.

148

I should note that neoliberal policies did technically start up under Carter, which is why some people say Reaganism came before Reagan,

149

but it wasn't until Ronald came around that the full ferocity of neoliberalism would be unleashed in the US.

150

I think we all know what Reaganism is, the heavy emphasis on supply-side economics, mass privatizations, deregulations, attacks on labor protections,

151

and the whole neoliberal nine yards.

152

A similar set of policies was enacted in Britain, under Thatcher, when she privatized the railways and other public utilities,

153

implemented the poll tax, sold off public housing to private interests, privatized the prison system, and so on.

154

These economic reforms, by prioritizing the business communities and the rich, we were told, would deliver a tide that would lift all boats,

155

but in reality, to quote David Harvey, neither Britain nor the US achieved high levels of economic performance in the 80s,

156

suggesting that neoliberalism was not the answer to the capitalists' prayers.

157

To be sure, inflation was brought down and interest rates fell, but this was all purchased at the expense of high rates of unemployment, averaging 7.5% in the US during the Reagan years,

158

and more than 10% in Thatcher's Britain.

159

Cutbacks in state welfare and infrastructural expenditures diminished the quality of life for many.

160

The overall result was an awkward mix of low growth and increasing income inequality.

161

But none of that actually mattered

162

because the real goal in both instances was to facilitate the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top.

163

The relentless privatizations and the creation of markets any and everywhere did the trick.

164

One aspect of this neoliberal transformation

165

that often gets ignored is the think tanks funded by dark money

166

that actually come up with these policies that then get handed to governments.

167

To quote Monbiot and Hutchison, we've discovered that the Koch brothers, two of the richest people in human history,

168

developed an entire network of think tanks to lobby for extreme neoliberalism.

169

In Reagan's case, the Mandate for Leadership was a 3,000-page document written by the Heritage Foundation, the same force behind today's Project 2025,

170

that was given to Reagan and entailed thousands of policy prescriptions that ranged from mass privatizations, the the scaling back of welfare programs, massive tax cuts for the rich, and so on.

171

We begin to see how this ideology, heavily funded by the ultra-rich, serves the ultra-rich without any concern for democracy.

172

The more governments deregulate, privatize, and implement neoliberal policies, the richer the ruling class becomes and the more they can exert their influence over politicians and governments.

173

In capitalist democracies, money serves as voting power.

174

The more of it you have, the more of the vote share you effectively control.

175

Neoliberalism seeks to break the chains that restrict unfettered capitalism, and as a result it breeds plutocrats and oligarchs, not democracy.

176

It's very easy to point the finger at Reagan and Thatcher, but the idea that it started and stopped with them distracts us from the fact

177

that the same plutocratic forces behind their administrations, are still around today, and they don't just back conservatives or Republicans.

178

Everyone is a neoliberal now.

179

Some of the most grotesque displays of neoliberalism often come from Democrats, Canadian liberals, UK Labour, and similar parties.

180

From Bill Clinton's repeal of FDR's Glass-DeGaulle Act, legislation designed to regulate the financial sector,

181

the revocation of which played a role in the 2008 financial crash, to Tony Blair taking a neoliberal hatchet to the UK's beloved National Health Service,

182

these displays of neoliberalism should not go unmentioned.

183

And this brings me back to the question I asked at the start of this video.

184

Why is it that instead of blaming the neoliberals running our failing economic system, the blame always gets dumped on marginalized groups?

185

And the answer is simple.

186

Because when we're conditioned to believe that hard work guarantees success, that the so-called winners and overachievers will naturally rise and reap the rewards,

187

it's a lot easier to scapegoat and outgroup when that promise falls apart than to question the system itself.

188

It's reassuring to believe that all we need to do to live a fruitful life is work hard.

189

But those who were told to work hard did work hard, and often times found the results underwhelming.

190

This creates an opening for fascistic, divisive rhetoric and strong men to rise to power.

191

We saw this with Trump, who blamed everything on immigrants and the swamp, but once he was in office, he did nothing but serve the same corporate interests.

192

He slashed taxes for the wealthy, he boasts a horrendous anti-labor record, and, on his last day of his first presidential term,

193

he rescinded Executive Order 13770, lifting restrictions that had made it more difficult for government officials to transition between public office and the private sector,

194

particularly in terms of lobbying.

195

After all that talk about draining the swamp, we were left with an even more corrupt corporate Schill who used populist rhetoric to stoke hatred

196

and distract us from the real enemy, neoliberalism.

197

If you think this video is going to end with me calling for a return to Keynesian economics

198

or a push towards social democracy, then you would be mistaken.

199

Social democracy would undoubtedly improve the lives of many people living within it, but it does not adequately address the underlying issue.

200

It's still capitalism, and therefore it is still animated by the profit motive and not human well-being.

201

If we look back at the era where Keynesian economics ruled supreme, say in the US for instance, yes, the quality of life domestically was better.

202

However, it's very easy to forget the fact that, that way of life was paid for with the blood and sweat of the developing world.

203

Capitalism, fundamentally, is a system founded on colonial looting and the transformation of natural resources into private property.

204

As President Eisenhower was blessing his population with a 91% top marginal tax rate and a 52% corporate tax rate.

205

His administration was overthrowing democratically elected leaders in Guatemala,

206

Iran, and more, just to turn those countries into outposts where American interests could siphon away the wealth

207

and exploit the labor and resources.

208

So yes, although he was taxing the rich domestically and funding social programs, we often forget about all the exploitation abroad that Keynesianism,

209

or social democracies, not only fail to address, but often times thrive off of.

210

Social democracy is essentially a compromise.

211

It occurs when a capitalist state, often through tripartite negotiations, brings labor and capital together to strike a deal while emphasizing social programs and safety nets.

212

The issue with this is that capital is still the force with all the real political pull.

213

If capitalists decide to claw back workers' gains because their margins are looking a little thin, the state will have to side with them or else risk things like capital strikes.

214

In practice, social democracies are still beholden to private interests.

215

We can see in some of the Nordic countries today this very phenomenon occurring.

216

Sweden is clawing back a lot of its social democratic policies and spiking on the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality.

217

So although social democracies are preferable to neoliberalism, and although I consider social democrats friends of mine, I think we can do a little better.

218

Social democracy, at the end of the day, is still capitalism.

219

The plunder of the third world will be and has been at the heart of the capitalist mode of production for centuries.

220

All the neoliberal era did was bring some of that exploitation back home.

221

When I talk about liberalism leading to fascism, it's not because I think all the ideas from liberal thinkers or the Enlightenment era are bad.

222

I don't.

223

Concepts like empiricism, anti-dogmatism, rationality, and freedom are great.

224

However, the economic model that emerged from the Enlightenment era was capitalism, which I believe jeopardizes the very principles I just mentioned.

225

Whether it takes the form of Keynesian liberalism, where the majority of the burden is placed on the developing world, or neoliberalism, where that suffering makes its way back home,

226

the embrace of capitalism by liberals will lead to the demise of the very ideals of freedom

227

and democracy they claim to uphold.

228

We've seen this in Pinochet's Chile, where the interests of capital were protected by violence.

229

We've seen it during the Reagan-Thatcher era, where the will-of-moneyed interests began to brazenly take priority over the will of the majority.

230

It's not what a healthy democracy is supposed to look like.

Télécharger l'application

Tout pour parler couramment

Prononciation IAChaque phrase notée

Phonétique (IPA)Maîtrisez chaque son

VocabulaireEnrichissez votre lexique

Jeu de vocabulaireApprenez en jouant

Scanner le QR

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

Vidéo recommandée

532 phrases

Vocabulaire et conseils d’expression pour cette leçon

Cette vidéo contient 230 phrases et 3882 mots à répéter en shadowing. La partie parlée dure 21:51. Le locuteur parle à un rythme naturel d’environ 178 mots par minute, proche d’une conversation courante. Seuls 77 % des mots font partie des 3 000 mots les plus courants en anglais, le vocabulaire est donc exigeant.

Vocabulaire clé de cette vidéo

15 mots de la vidéo à retenir, avec leur prononciation et leur sens :

Mot	Prononciation	Sens
capitalism nom	/ˈkæp.ə.təlˌɪzm̩/	capitalisme
economics nom	/ˌiːkəˈnɒmɪks/	économie
ideology nom	/aɪ.diˈɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/	idéologie
liberalism nom	/ˈlɪ.b(ə.)ɹə.lɪz.əm/	libéralisme
capitalist nom	/ˈkæp.ɪ.tə.lɪst/	capitaliste
occur verbe	/əˈkɜː/	se produire, avoir lieu
welfare nom	/ˈwɛlˌfɛɚ/	bien-être m\|
reward nom	/ɹɪˈwɔɹd/	récompense, salaire
regime nom	/ɹəˈʒiːm/	régime
socialist nom	/ˈsoʊ.ʃə.lɪst/	socialiste
implement verbe	/ˈɪmpləmənt/	appliquer, exécuter
economist nom	/iˈkɑ.nə.mɪst/	économiste
exploitation nom	/ˌɛksplɔɪˈteɪʃn̩/	exploitation
instability nom	/ɪnstəˈbɪlɪti/	instabilité
communist nom	/ˈkɑ.mjə.nɪst/	communiste

Les verbes à particule que vous entendrez

Mot	Prononciation	Sens
come up with verbe		inventer, imaginer
fall apart verbe		tomber en morceaux
make up verbe	/ˌmeɪk ˈʌp/	constituer, composer
pick up verbe		soulever
sell off verbe		vendre à perte, brader

Prononciation à surveiller

Le locuteur utilise 19 contractions et formes réduites, comme didn't, wasn't, we've. Prononcez-les sous leur forme courte, telles que vous les entendez.

Les sons « th »: wealthy /ˈwɛl.θi/, thin /ˈθɪn/, worthy /ˈwɝ.ði/, altogether /ɔl.tuˈɡɛð.ɚ/
Les sons « sh » et « zh »: regime /ɹəˈʒiːm/, socialist /ˈsoʊ.ʃə.lɪst/, exploitation /ˌɛksplɔɪˈteɪʃn̩/, dictatorship /ˈdɪkteɪtəɹʃɪp/, transformation /ˌtɹæns.fɔɹˈmeɪ.ʃən/
Mots longs — placez bien l’accent: capitalism /ˈkæp.ə.təlˌɪzm̩/, economics /ˌiːkəˈnɒmɪks/, ideology /aɪ.diˈɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/, liberalism /ˈlɪ.b(ə.)ɹə.lɪz.əm/, capitalist /ˈkæp.ɪ.tə.lɪst/

Comment s’entraîner avec cette vidéo

Écoutez la vidéo en entier une fois sans parler et notez les mots que vous ne connaissez pas.
Commencez à la vitesse 0,75×, répétez phrase par phrase, puis revenez à la vitesse normale quand cela devient facile.
Enregistrez-vous et comparez avec l’original, en faisant attention à des mots comme capitalism, economics, ideology.

La grammaire de cette vidéo

Les structures que le locuteur utilise le plus, avec les mots exacts de la vidéo :

Structure	Dans la vidéo
Voix passive be + participe passé — l’accent est mis sur ce qui arrive, pas sur qui le fait	being squeezed · being hurt · being shut
Present perfect have/has + participe passé — une action passée qui compte encore maintenant	they've done · have come · have been
Propositions relatives who / which + proposition — une précision sur une personne ou une chose	man who was · people who saw · cartoon which was

Qu'est-ce que la technique du Shadowing ?

Le Shadowing est une technique d'apprentissage des langues fondée sur la science, développée à l'origine pour la formation des interprètes professionnels. Le principe est simple mais puissant : vous écoutez de l'anglais natif et le répétez immédiatement à voix haute — comme une ombre suivant le locuteur avec un décalage de 1 à 2 secondes. Les recherches montrent une amélioration significative de la précision de la prononciation, de l'intonation, du rythme, des liaisons, de la compréhension orale et de la fluidité.

Technique du shadowing : lire le guide complet étape par étape →

Pratique du Shadowing: The Liberalism to Fascism Pipeline (Neoliberalism Explained) - Apprendre l'anglais à l'oral avec la vidéo

Choisissez un mode d'entraînement

Télécharger l'application

Marxism vs libertarianism: The economic calculation problem

Why did white men conquer the world?

AI & Inequality | Daron Acemoglu: Big Tech poses risks as AI reshapes society

How America Got So Good At Buying Sh*t

SPEECH MASTERY | MARCO RUBIO: Decline Is a Choice! (English Subtitles)

Why Nihilism is Taking Over Modern Society

Should America Leave NATO?

Hitler - OverSimplified (Part 2)

How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio

She F*cked Around & Found Out

IELTS Speaking Part 3: Mass Tourism and Its Consequences

How To Become Dangerously Self-Educated (Complete Plan)