YSK that “neoliberal” refers to a discrete set of economic policies including deregulation, privatization, and so-called “free trade” implemented by both center-right and center-left parties

Why YSK: I’ve noticed in recent years more people using “neoliberal” to mean “Democrat/Labor/Social Democrat politicians I don’t like”. This confusion arises from the different meanings “liberal” has in American politics and further muddies the waters.

Neoliberalism came to the fore during the 80’s under Reagan and Thatcher and have continued mostly uninterrupted since. Clinton, both Bushs, Obama, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Johnson, and many other world leaders and national parties support neoliberal policies, despite their nominal opposition to one another at the ballot box.

It is important that people understand how neoliberalism has reshaped the world economy in the past four decades, especially people who are too young to remember what things were like before. Deregulation and privatization were touted as cost-saving measures, but the practical effect for most people is that many aspects of our lives are now run by corporations who (by law!) put profits above all else. Neoliberalism has hollowed out national economies by allowing the offshoring of general labor jobs from developed countries.

In the 80’s and 90’s there was an “anti-globalization” movement of the left that sought to oppose these changes. The consequences they warned of have come to pass. Sadly, most organized opposition to neoliberal policies these days comes from the right. Both Trump and the Brexit campaign were premised on reinvigorating national economies. Naturally, both failed, in part because they had no cohesive plan or understanding that they were going against 40 years of precedent.

So, yes, establishment Democrats are neoliberals, but so are most Republicans.

MrComradeTaco,

Democrats are neo-liberals, republicans are fascists, who would you like to fuck you in the ass first?

paralyze5307,

The decision to me is like asking whether I'd like to drink bleach or hydrochloric acid. They are both so bad that it isn't really master which of them fucks me in the ass

flagellum,

Sounds like you've bought into the "both sides" bullshit. One side is clearly, factually worse than the other by leaps and bounds, but that "both sides" bullshit has been depressingly successful at convincing large swaths of people that the other side is just as bad despite all the clear, factual evidence to the contrary.

dangblingus,

Money doesn't work unless some people have some and some people don't. The only way to actually fight globalism is with worker owned productivity becoming the norm. Otherwise you'll always be stuck with the political false dichotomy of "Right" (fascism) vs "Left" (right of center).

snek,

Take Jordan for example, a county being ruined day after day by neoliberal policies and ruthless privatization.

It's good to read what neoliberalism has done to some country in practice: https://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/jordans-protests-and-neoliberal-reforms-walking-thin-ice

afraid_of_zombies2,

Take the US for example with crippling student loan debt.

PhuckYou,

Guess trade school wasn't such a failure after all.

Sterile_Technique,
@Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world avatar

Really wish there was a coherent structure to political labeling.

Follow a prefix-root-suffix system or something - one glance at name should give you some idea of where they land on the political spectrum and what their identity is built on.

AlexRogansBeta,

So, while you're 100% correct about neoliberalism not belonging to either the left or the right, your basic description of neoliberalism isn't correct. What you describe (deregulation, positive valuation of wealth generation, free markets, etc) is just liberal capitalism.

Neoliberalism names the extension of market-based rationalities into putatively non-market realms of life. Meaning, neoliberalism is at play when people deploy cost/benefit, investment/return, or other market-based logics when analysing options, making decisions, or trying to understand aspects of life that aren't properly markets, such as politics, morality/ethics, self-care, religion, culture, etc.

A concrete example is when people describe or rationalize self-care as a way to prepare for the workweek. Yoga, in this example, becomes of an embodiment of neoliberalism: taking part in yoga is rationalized as an investment in self that results in greater productivity.

Another example: how it seems that most every public policy decision is evaluated in terms of its economic viability, and if it isn't economically viable (in terms of profit/benefit exceeding cost/investment) then it is deemed a bad policy. This is a market rationality being applied to realms of life that didn't used to be beholden to market rationalities.

Hence the "neo" in "neoliberalism" is about employing the logics of liberalism (liberal capitalism, I should say) into new spheres of life.

A good (re)source for this would be Foucault's Birth of Biopolitics lectures, which trace the shift from Liberalism to Neoliberalism. As well, there's excellent literature coming out of anthropology about neoliberalism at work in new spheres, in particular yoga, which is why I used it as my example here.

BeautifulMind,
@BeautifulMind@lemmy.world avatar

Yes! For anyone wanting more reading on the subject, Start here prospect.org/…/neoliberalism-political-success-ec…Monbiot is also a good primer: astrid-online.it/…/monbiot_guardian_15_04_16.pdf

Grant_M,
@Grant_M@lemmy.ca avatar

The term neoliberal was created to be misleading.

ultranaut,

I’ve also recently noticed people claiming to be “neoliberals” but apparently meaning something like “progressive Democrat” and it’s really confusing so I appreciate this post. It’s already bad enough “liberal” has a bunch of different definitions, pretending neoliberalism is something else isn’t going to help anything or anyone.

Nihilistic_Mystics,

Much the same way people on the left have been adopting the Republican definition of socialism, as in any time the government does anything. Like having basic welfare or some such suddenly equals socialism.

Now people have been overusing neoliberal so much that the ill informed have started using it for people that are clearly pro government spending, pro social safety net, pro regulation, etc. Discussion becomes unhelpful when people redefine the means by with we identify ideologies.

KirbyQK,

By the same token though, doesn’t socialism exactly mean basic welfare? Doesn’t socialism just boil down to looking after every member of society equally, such as with basic welfare if they aren’t working or universal healthcare to make sure anyone can access it regardless of station or wealth?

Nihilistic_Mystics,

When it comes to defining economic systems, no. Unless the workers own the means of production, it’s not socialism. Even social democracies like the Nordic countries is just capitalism with safety nets and strong unions, not socialism. Calling such a system socialism only muddies the waters, which is exactly why Republicans do it, to conflate basic welfare systems and unions with evil socialism! We shouldn’t empower Republican talking points.

KirbyQK,

I see, so what’s the difference between that and Communism, I’d always thought the difference was socialism was the, I guess goal of supporting all of society? Regardless of the economic approach that generated the money. I’m pretty unfamiliar with this kind of discussion and I want to rectify that haha

Nihilistic_Mystics,

Communism is the communal ownership of all means of production (not just the workers owning the place they work at like socialism) and communal distribution of resources based on need (ideally). A hippie commune where everyone works a job and everyone is distributed food, goods, etc. based on their needs without money being involved is a solid, small scale model of communism, though there are a lot of issues and various theoretical solutions when it’s scaled up beyond a group of like-minded individuals who all know each other. In theory such a society is classless and has no use for currency. The reality is such a society has never actually existed and things fell apart along the way, usually by someone seizing power in the transitionary period and the state becoming a dictatorship instead.

For small scale references, worker cooperatives are a good example of socialism and communes are a good example of communism.

KirbyQK,

Ok I think I understand, thank you for taking the time to write it out for me 🙂

menemen,

It’s kinda sad how classical social democracy is basically dead nowadays. Here in Europe they are almost all neoliberals and some (like in Denmark) even start to mix this with right wing social policies.

Slightly OT comment from me, so sorry.

RedMarsRepublic,

Social democracy was a false idol anyways, nothing but socialism can work in the long term, socdem always gets repealed by the rich.

huge_clock,

What socialist societies that have existed have lasted a long time?

Sektor,

Rome lasted a lot, should we get back to empire and slavery?

huge_clock,

Rome was a republic for like 500 years.

Sektor,

It was, than it wasn’t any more.

utopianfiat,

Globalized trade is good actually

wclinton93,

On the whole, for sure. But that doesn't make it any more palatable for workers when jobs are relocated from their area.

utopianfiat,

Right, but that's less of a consequence of Globalization and more of a consequence of our national economy being structured in a way that offsets risk onto the most vulnerable working class folks. If we had universal healthcare not reliant on employment, reskilling assistance, and some kind of basic income, it would be easier to both protect people and reap the benefits of Globalization.

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.world avatar

our national economy being structured in a way that offsets risk onto the most vulnerable working class folks

i.e. neoliberalism

Internationalism is good. Globalism is not. All globalism means is open borders for capital and hard borders for workers.

utopianfiat,

Globalism when used by like 95% of people includes dropping immigration restrictions, so I'm not sure what you're on about here.

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.world avatar

Not really. They emphasize "legal" immigration, by which they mean a series of restrictions on how people are allowed to enter the country and what qualifies them to become citizens. The actual implementation of neoliberal policies always includes strict border controls, limited asylum seeking, 2nd class citizenship for migrants, and harsh penalties for migrating "wrong" and not jumping through all the legal and financial hoops.

Capital moving freely while migrants die in the Mojave and drown in the Mediterranean.

utopianfiat,

Again, 95% of people who use the term "globalist" to describe someone else associate it with open borders. I'm not sure what you're on about here.

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.world avatar

People who describe themselves as globalists generally reject the idea of open borders. Labor visas, not the free movement of labor.

What you're talking about is a smear, not reality.

utopianfiat,

I describe myself as a globalist and I explicitly believe in open borders. I'm not sure what you're on about here.

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.world avatar

I think it's pretty clear "what I'm on about." I've explained it pretty thoroughly, even if you keep just repeating yourself.

What are you on about?

Do you believe in the concept of citizenship, with different legal rules for citizens vs noncitizens?

utopianfiat,

I think pragmatically you need to have some basis for taxing a subset of people, and thus those people will have to be "citizens" subject to certain different rules- but most privileges and duties should apply to residents irrespective of their citizenship status. That's basically how US state borders work and those borders are considered "open" even though there is a concept of state citizenship.

As long as states exist, citizenship has to exist, but that doesn't mean we should regulate who can enter, live, and work in our country on the basis of origin, social class, or other things that aren't like "is this person entering to escape from a crime in their country that we would have punished" or "is this person entering to start a fascist uprising" etc.

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.world avatar

Living within the US, I don't need to apply for citizenship every time I move to a different state. The law applies to me equally even if I only just crossed the border for lunch, and the only special rules are related to residency; as long as I live in a state I count as a resident, I can vote and send my kids to school and have to pay taxes etc.

That is what open borders actually looks like. That is what the free movement of labor means. Residency, not citizenship.

Globalists do not want this. They need hard borders and citizenship to control the movement of labor. Work visas can be revoked, are tied to a place of employment, and are temporary. Perfect labor units for neoliberal capitalism.

utopianfiat,

That's basically what US citizenship looked like at the outset of America- until the Immigration Act was passed, you sent a letter to your local Justice of the Peace declaring your intent to remain in America and that commemorated your citizenship.

As previously stated, I am a globalist and I agree with open borders.

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.world avatar

Surely you remember citizenship wasn't available to everyone back then.

aski3252,

Globalized trade has been a thing long before neo-liberalism existed, arguably longer than capitalism has existed. Equating neo-liberalism with "global/globalized trade" is incredibly reductive..

EDIT: I read the comment wrong, OP is saying that international/global trade is not inherently bad, not that neo-liberalism is the same thing as international/global trade.

KuchiKopi,
@KuchiKopi@lemmy.world avatar

I didn’t see that comment as reductive. More like pointing out a part of neo-liberalism that the commenter thought was good.

In other words, the comment is simply “globalized economy is good.” The comment is not what you’re inferring: "neo-liberalism is good because globalized economy is good "

SattaRIP,
@SattaRIP@kbin.social avatar

centre-left

This is misleading. Neoliberalism is inherently capitalist, not socialist/communist.

vaguerant,
@vaguerant@kbin.social avatar

All left-right political terminology is inherently subjective, so you can argue neoliberalism is promoted by center-left parties as long as you're defining the center as being to the right of that. Since this post seems to be about the United States, that center is already pretty far to the right as measured from, say, Denmark (picked a name out of a hat). I think the bigger argument here is about US-defaultism rather than whether or not it's OK for Americans to describe things in terms that relate to their political climate.

CascadeDismayed,
@CascadeDismayed@lemmy.world avatar

What you said makes zero sense. Neoliberalism is distinctly NOT a left wing ideology. To even try and associate them makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

KuchiKopi,
@KuchiKopi@lemmy.world avatar

Dude, you quoted a single word out from OP and somehow even got that wrong. Which makes me think you're being deliberately obtuse.

OP wrote about "center-left" -- the American spelling. So it's clear that OP was discussing neo-liberalism from an American point of view. And in American politics, neo-liberalism is absolutely a component of center-left politics.

Sorry if this sounds angry. I get frustrated at the constant reframing of American politics under international standards. Yes, Americans lack a true leftwing in our politics. That's well established at this point. Nitpicking language around "American left" vs "international left" derails real discussion and is not helpful.

Ronno,
@Ronno@kbin.social avatar

Watching from a far (The Netherlands), it always amazed me how the political scale in the US is described. Even the democrats in the US feel more to the right, then positioned in the US. Some people go as far to call democrats communist, but I don't think these people know what communist really is, in the same way that Americans don't seem to know what (neo)liberal actually is. It is both entertaining and concerning to watch.

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

You need to understand, our two party system is not part of the actual government as it was designed. They are basically a pack of oligarchs running a good cop-bad cop routine on the electorate.

Our voting system naturally favors this dynamic. Anywhere you see "first past the post", ask if the people feel like they're voting for the leaders they'd prefer, or against the candidates that scare them the most. Oligarchic duopoly is the dominant game theoretic strategy inherent to FPTP.

zombuey,

We have two organizations that peddle in power. The GOP and The DNC. They are private "non-profit" companies. They have employees and everything and they are free to do whatever is needed to push the candidate they think will best serve their needs first. They both sell that power to clients. These days those clients are more direct and they collect through campaign donations, job guarantees, speaking fees, consulting contracts through families, trade deals, stock tips, family opportunities, Since Citizen's United PAC money, and sometimes but rarely nowadays direct pay offs. The corruption is right in the open the difference between here and elsewhere is its all perfectly legal.

Gradually_Adjusting,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

You're not wrong, but I'd warn against any false equivalency here. It's a pretty simple ethical dilemma and the least we can do is minimize the harm being done by the system with our votes.

Aceticon,

I actually come from a country with a mathematically rigged voting system (not quite as much as the US, but still the current guys in power got 41% of votes and have an absolute parliamentary majority with 52% of parliamentary representatives) but lived for almost a decade in The Netherlands (which has Proportional Vote) as well as about the same in the UK (which is more like the US in that regard than the rest of Europe) and my impression is that there are 2 things pushing that dynamic in countries with such rigged voting systems vs the ones with Proportional Vote like The Netherlands:

  • People do a lot of tactical voting in FPTP and similar because they can't find electable parties whose combination of ideas of how the country and society should be managed aligns mostly with theirs, so they vote for a "lesser evil" and often driven by "kicking the bad guys out" rather than "bring the good guys in". This makes it seem like the parties of the de facto power duopoly are more representative than they really are - in a PV system they wouldn't get anywhere as many votes because even people with niche takes on politics would find viable representation in parties with a much more similar take so wouldn't vote for them and would in fact be more likelly to vote positivelly rather than negativelly.
  • The press itself in countries with the representative allocation systems rigged for power duopoly tends to present most subjects as having two sides only. This is complete total bollocks: people are complicated, social systems are complicated and almost no social/economic subject out there is so simple that there are only two reasonable ways of handling it and no more than two. This kind trains the public to look at things as two sided, reinforcing the idea that the system is representative as well as the us-vs-them mindless tribalism and even bipartisanism rather than the politics of consensus building.
Aceticon,

Yeah, the idea that Democrats are center-left is hilarious - by the standards in most of Europe, they're not even center-right, just plain rightwing, whilst the Republicans are pretty much far-right (given their heavy religious, ultra-nationalis, anti-immigrant and warmongering - amongst others - rethoric).

The Overtoon Window has moved to the Right everywhere but in the US it did way much further than in most of Europe.

As for the whole neoliberalism stuff, it's pretty easy to spot the neoliberal parties even when they've disguised themselves as leftwing or (genuine) conservatives: they're the ones always obcessing about what's good for businesses whilst never distinguishing between businesses which are good for people and society and those which aren't: in other words, they don't see businesses (and hence what's "good for businesses") as a means to the end of being "good for people" (i.e. "good for businesses which are good for people hence good for people") but as an end in itself quite independently of what that does for people.

utopianfiat,

The Democrats are more socially left wing than the vast majority of European parties.

Aceticon,

Don't confuse Identity Politics, aka "We care only about that inequality which doesn't involve the priviledges of wealth" as leftwing.

Those who disregard the biggest inequality of treatment there is by a HUGE margin (that of wealth) and only care about those inequalities which can be "fixed" without putting their own inherited priviledges (usually from being born in the high middle-class and above) at risk aren't lefties as they're not really fighting for the greatest good for the greatest number.

The kind of liberalism that ignores the power of money and ownership to constraint others' freedom of action is incompatible with getting the greatest outcome for the greatest number because they see restrictions of accumulation of wealth and resources and anti-freedom and it's been painfully obvious for decades that maximization of the greatest good for the greatest number is the exact opposite of the direction of concentration of wealth and ownership we have been travelling on.

volodymyr,

This is very interesting and not discussed enough, thanks for sharing. Could you refer to some materials, where did you learn it?

brahmsss,

absolutely horrid policies pushed initially by the chicago club If I’m not mistaken, the worst economic school of the last decades arguably. And tangentially is the root of the pickle the Argentinean economy is on the gutter

edit I apparently got carried away and tied the argentinean debacle with neoliberalism but that’s older than that

metic,
@metic@lemmy.world avatar

The Chicago Boys’ role in Chile’s Pinochet dictatorship really puts the lie to the whole “freedom” angle of neoliberalism. Allying with a guy who rounded up thousands of dissidents and summarily executed them shows their freedom is only for the select few.

drmoose,

It almost feels like political labels are there to deceive and confuse people or the political science is a meme that can't be trusted to name things. I swear, majority of political conflict is just people misunderstanding each other.

Sorenchu,

I'm writing a thesis that has significant support that the United States is and has, with the exception of about 30 years of progressive policy, been a plutocracy. The divisions in put country are by design. Division among racial lines, political affiliation, religious affiliation, professions, etc. are used to prevent the unification of the laboring class and dissuade us from collectively recognizing and challenging the status quo. The working people of this country have far more in common than not, but the political and moneyed class sow division via these wedge issues to prevent radical change - which would likely shift the US toward Scandinavian style social democracy.

drmoose,

It's not a unique problem to US either. Every country I lived in seems to suffer from this in some form or shape. I'd even argue that people need some sort of conflict and the manipulators are taking advantage of this.

Distracting and confusing the peasants is such a natural tool in our current society too, where outrage, click bait and manufactured conflict aligns with attention-based business (i.e. ads). So everything just works naturally.

People need to be mindful and aware of this so thanks for writing about it!

ZapBeebz_,

ELI5: The difference between neoliberal (as defined above) and libertarianism.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • [email protected]
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • oklahoma
  • feritale
  • SuperSentai
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines