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.

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
MrComradeTaco, (edited )

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

paralyze5307, (edited )

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).

jerrimu,

Many leftists ( myself included) also have started to referring to neoliberals and other slightly-left centrists as just liberals" If you go right or left enough on the spectrum, liberal is an insult.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

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.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

The saddest Catch 22 I've ever seen... Need education for money, need money for education, rinse and repeat

PhuckYou,

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

its_ur_funeral,

YSK that anyone trying to generalize your political preferences into a singular term is propaganda. FTFY

Review the people you intend to vote for and see what their votes were on important issues.

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.

Eldritch,

They're absolutely is a coherent structure. However in Western nations we are not taught them. Because knowing about them etc would inform us about other competing political ideologies. The only way in which we are informed about other competing political ideologies is through fear tactics and misinformation. And that's the big issue here. The people think that neoliberals can ever be on the left side of the spectrum.

Grant_M,
@Grant_M@lemmy.ca avatar

The term neoliberal was created to be misleading.

AlexRogansBeta,

Neoliberalism was created, as a term, to describe something real, pervasive, and problematic. It has been co-opted as an underserving boogyman by the left, and co-opted mistakenly by the right as libertarianism. Neither understand it's original formulation and what it names.

afraid_of_zombies2,

The biggest thing to mention about neoliberals is that they are strongly pro student loan debt slavery.

MiddleWeigh,
@MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world avatar

Thanks. I never knew wth these people were talking about.

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 🙂

Phantom_Engineer,
@Phantom_Engineer@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, and it sucks. Eff the neoliberals. All my homies hate neoliberals.

BeautifulMind,
@BeautifulMind@lemmy.world avatar

The thing to get about deregulation in this context is that it's a misleading term- 'deregulation' doesn't mean un-doing regulation, it means handing regulatory authority over from democratically-accountable regulators, to private regulators that are less-accountable and often have interests at odds with those of the public.

In feudal times, regulation of trade or business was left to trade associations or guilds (who got to write their own rules that were typically rubber-stamped by the local nobility's younger son) and that system more or less translated into today's modern republics, up until the guilds and trade associations became trusts and monopolies. When the democratic regulatory state emerged to regulate spheres of business like banking and polluting industry because private regulators shat the bed, that was a shot in a war that the old guard business elites haven't stopped fighting- they saw this as a taking of their power, and have sustained decades of effort to hand public authority back over to private trade associations

huge_clock,

Seems to me this argument rests on the assumption of private regulators being less accountable public regulators but i don’t think this plays out so clear cut in practice. When’s the last time you ever had a problem with FINTRAC or the New York Stock exchange for instance?

BeautifulMind,
@BeautifulMind@lemmy.world avatar

The point I wanted to make here is that it matters who has regulatory control in a given sphere, and often private regulators' interests and considerations will not be the same as those of the public at large. The democratic regulatory state exists (such as it is any more) because prior regimes of private regulation simply did not consider the public interest adequately. There is such a thing today as the EPA because congress in 1970 decided acid rain and rivers on fire wasn't cool, and all of those 'self-regulating' industries out there just weren't considering their downwind/downstream air-breathing, water-drinking neighbors enough. Likewise, regulatory controls on banking were imposed under the New Deal. The notion of public regulators is, historically speaking, a relatively recent one, and the ongoing political fighting about whether they ought to be public or private really ought to get the attention it deserves instead of being buried under abstract 'government bad' rhetoric.

menemen,
@menemen@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Spzi,

always gets repealed by the rich.

Power, uh, finds a way. It's true for any system, not specifically social democracy? Change my mind.

utopianfiat,

Globalized trade is good actually

afraid_of_zombies2,

Student loans debt slavery is bad actually.

Neoliberals hate when this is brought up.

utopianfiat,

And cheese is made of cow's milk. Non sequiturs are fun!

afraid_of_zombies2,

Yes which is why you made one just now.

Criticism of the economic policies of a group that is focused on economic policy is appropriate.

Sorry your bff's like student loans debt

KuchiKopi,
@KuchiKopi@lemmy.world avatar

Yep, the best way to prevent rich powerful assholes from getting us into huge wars is to make it extremely unprofitable. Don't want to kill your market or labor force. Don't want to disrupt your supply chain. Etc.

utopianfiat,

Literally the Ukraine war is an excellent example of this. Second most powerful army in the world fighting a much smaller and poorly equipped army. Now only the second most powerful army in Russia.

Sektor,

I wouldn't say an army with airforce, patriots, himars, bunch of javelins and now western tanks is poorly equipped.

utopianfiat,

With the exception of the air force, most of this stuff came after Russia began the invasion in 2014. The Ukranian Air Force, absent support from allies, is actually kind of a liability since it's largely Mikhoyan and Sukhoi materiel where the maintenance, modernization, and operational expertise is concentrated in Russia. Ukraine basically had to invent its own supply chain from scratch.

wclinton93,

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

kautau,

Or the workers in the nation where the work is moved, and since companies are min-maxing their profits with no regulation, you have factories with suicide nets

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.

billstickers,

Who is our/we? You’re literally in Lemmy.world.

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 serious 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.

afraid_of_zombies2,

Cough.....student loans...cough

utopianfiat,

What does that have to do with globalism?

afraid_of_zombies2,

Why are you deflecting?

queermunist, (edited )
@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, (edited )
@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.

afraid_of_zombies2,

Downplay your views on student loans

utopianfiat,

What views on student loans? What the fuck do student loans have to do with globalism?

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.world avatar

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

utopianfiat,

What does that have to do with anything?

queermunist,
@queermunist@lemmy.world avatar

Just reminding you of reality - US citizenship never looked like open borders, even before the Immigration Act during the outset of America.

Also? The very act of sending a letter to declare your intent to remain in America is, itself, a citizenship test. You needed to know how to read and write in the King's English, after all.

BeautifulMind,
@BeautifulMind@lemmy.world avatar

When you're talking about neoliberalism, 'globalism' also has a lot to do with trade and international finance- from the 1940s (after fallout of the great depression and the World Wars) Keynesian economics was 'in', and international lending agreements upheld countries' ability to conduct nation-level managed/mixed economies- but when the neoliberals swung into power, the new order of the day was to strip countries of their self-managing ability in ways that made them accessible to/exploitable by global conglomerates and corporations:

At Bretton Woods in 1944, the use of fixed exchange rates and controls on speculative private capital, plus the creation of the IMFand World Bank, were intended to allow member countries to practice national forms of managed capitalism, insulated from the destructive and deflationary influences of short-term speculative private capital flows. As doctrine and power shifted in the 1970s, the IMF, the World Bank, and later the WTO, which replaced the old GATT, mutated into their ideological opposite. Rather than instruments of support for mixed national economies, they became enforcers of neoliberal policies.

The standard package of the “Washington Consensus” of approved policies for developing nations included demands that they open their capital markets to speculative private finance, as well as cutting taxes on capital, weakening social transfers, and gutting labor regulation and public ownership. ~ https://prospect.org/economy/neoliberalism-political-success-economic-failure/

So, in this sense, 'globalization' not just the opening of borders for labor and immigration, it is the swing away from 'nationalization' of economies and of national economic sovereignty, to prevent countries from impeding the flow of capital (and corporate power) into and out of their borders on behalf of global finance and colonial power

utopianfiat,

"National economic sovereignty" meaning what, exactly?

BeautifulMind,
@BeautifulMind@lemmy.world avatar

It's the notion that by being a country you should be able to make and enforce your own economic policies for the benefit of your citizenry instead of, for example, for the benefit of outside capital.

In reality, the right of countries to do basic things like enforce their own labor regulations and put limits on outside capital's access to their resources (or to publicly own resources) has been deeply infringed upon if not outright violated; look at how United Fruit basically toppled governments that put worker's rights or land ownership rules at odds with company profits.

The rest of this conversation talks a lot about 'globalism', I brought up 'national economic sovereignty' to distinguish economic self-rule from the kind of globalized rule that turned countries into banana republics, essentially ruled by puppets on behalf of foreign corporate interests.

utopianfiat,

Do you think the economic sovereignty of a fascist dictatorship that expropriates property by ethnicity ought to be recognized? Note that I'm not asking if you're for supporting fascists, because you can be openly belligerent against a nation who you nonetheless recognize as sovereign over their economy.

If not, I'm interested to hear your standards for what economic sovereignty should be respected.

BeautifulMind,
@BeautifulMind@lemmy.world avatar

I think that 'economic sovereignty' as such is a value-neutral proposition; it can be done for good or ill. I consider it like anything else in the toolbox; a chainsaw can be helpful or terrifying, depending on who has it and what they decide to do with it. Is a federated republic a good or bad thing because some of the people with power in it might be fascists? I think those are separable notions; in my view, sovereignty and federation are useful for what they get you- for example they are means of checking power located elsewhere.

Since you're asking my views on supporting fascism, that's a hard 'no' from me and if you're trying to guess from my use of 'nationalism' and its buzzwordy association with fascists that I'm trying to carve out a toehold to legitimize fascism under the aegis of nationalism, you're reading between the lines for something I'm not arguing.

Are you suggesting that Guatemala or any of the other Banana republics were fascist dictatorships for expropriating land? If so, I have opinions about the US toppling democracies in Latin America and calling *them *fascist or racist along the way to justify it- not only is it the pot calling the kettle black, it's the opposite of what happened.

utopianfiat,

I'm referring to contemporary arguments about whether trade agreements with countries which had previously been Russian or Chinese client states are "imperialism"

BeautifulMind,
@BeautifulMind@lemmy.world avatar

Thanks for clarifying. Maybe it's the autism talking, but I did not infer that from context. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Not that you asked, I think it's usually bad-faith rhetoric to insist on reasoning in the abstract about something based on a label you've put there. I'm used to seeing this kind of rhetorical pattern as a means of changing the subject into a tangent, and then talking about that tangent issue in the abstract as if it can then be related back to the initial question outside of the original context. For example: (x policy is 'socialism', and the Russians were socialist, tHeRefoRe dOiNg x MeAns wE gEt pOgRoMs).

Too often, I see name-calling arguments like this (but that's imperialism!/nuh-uh, it's not) to be bad-faith diversions from the question at hand; is the trade agreement desirable for the country or isn't it? Does calling it 'imperialism' change its substance? (hint: it doesn't) Probably the whole point to leveling charges of 'imperialism' when someone poaches your exclusive trade relations with a former client state is so you can call them names later without having to explain why you're the good guy and they aren't.

Gabu,

Much more than globalized trade, globalized sharing of knowledge, awareness and circumstance - perhaps even globalized power, one day. The fight against capitalism will definitely require a great plan to take global communication away from private capital.

aski3252, (edited )

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 "

utopianfiat,

Yes this is actually what I meant.

I do not subscribe to neoliberal economics- if anything I'm just left of the average Keynesian.

Fried_out_Kombi,
@Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world avatar

I'm Georgist, and I agree with you that global trade is good. Why would we purposely do to ourselves what we do to our adversaries during wartime? One certainly doesn't have to subscribe to all of neoliberalism to believe global trade is good.

aski3252,

Thank you for clearifying, I have misinterpreted your comment in that case.

KuchiKopi,
@KuchiKopi@lemmy.world avatar

I love how civil everyone is being! And I appreciate that you edited your earlier comment.

regular_human,

heck u

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • youshouldknow@lemmy.world
  • Durango
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • tacticalgear
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • everett
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • cubers
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cisconetworking
  • ethstaker
  • osvaldo12
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • tester
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines