3 ms·
I agree with you in the context of this thread, which exemplifies a very recent re-appropriation of the term (see below). That being said, neoliberalism is a fa
by jonathanstrange 6y ago
I agree with you in the context of this thread, which exemplifies a very recent re-appropriation of the term (see below). That being said, neoliberalism is a fairly well-defined descendant from classical right-wing liberalism that arose during the 80s. It's characterized by laissez-fair market economy, less taxes for the rich, and no support for welfare programs.
That it is now re-appropriated by the "alt-right" (a term coined by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer) to mean some kind of swear word against left leaning "liberals" just goes to show how uneducated and confused the US public is about politics.
Over the years I've come to believe that there is a method behind this dumbing down and distortion of political views in the US, that it's the result of the two-party system that allows elites to keep voters aligned and in check, even though they'd all have reasons to vote for a third party. In a nutshell, it seems that many people in the US are unaware of the following facts:
- Libertarianism in original form, propagated e.g. by the Friedmans, is a form of classical liberalism that arose against neo-Liberalism, which was too federal and corporate-friendly for them. It's a radical attempt to reform liberalism and bring it nearer to individual anarchism. (But individual anarchism was explicitly targetted against communism and classical liberalism, so in the end "anarcho-capitalism" is not a form of anarchism at all and really just liberalism.)
- neo-Liberalism is a right-wing form of classical liberalism
- There are many left-wing liberal traditions, but these are barely represented by the two big US parties. (Some Democrats may count as left-wing liberals but not too many of them.)
- Conservatives and liberals are principally opposed to each other. That doesn't mean they cannot be somehow combined, but for a liberal the individual freedom always overrules conservative values.
Especially the latter point has been distorted beyond recognition by Republicans who traditionally hold Christian-conservative values and communitarian/racist ideas about closed, homogeneous societies but felt a need to incorporate (neo-)liberal doctrines in economics. Obviously, this integration can only work to some extent before the views become plain incoherent. Liberalism does not allow the restriction or suppression of anyone's freedoms, let alone those of minorities.
Basically, parties in the US just grab whatever elements they need from political traditions and ignore the rest.
- creddit 6y ago> That being said, neoliberalism is a fairly well-defined descendant from classical right-wing liberalism that arose during the 80s. It's characterized by laissez-fair market economy, less taxes for the rich, and no support for welfare programs. And yet, your characterization doesn't gel very well with self-identified neoliberals! https://i.redd.it/ydvihji477a31.png https://i.redd.it/ydvihji477a31.png
- jonathanstrange 6y agoWhy? That represents exactly what I've said. Neoliberals are right-wing classical liberals. The points on the pamphlet you link are typical positions of classical liberals. They are right-wing because there is no worker's protection and social welfare on the list. Right-wing and left-wing liberals gave different answers to the "Social Question" that arose during 19th Century Manchester Capitalism. It concerned child labour, inherited debt, and the crippling of workers in factories. Left-wing liberals considered it a task of the state to protect workers and children because only with a certain level of protection they would be able to exercise their individual freedom. You're not free in this view if you have inherited debts from your grandparents, for instance. Right-wing liberals instead took these issues to be self-regulatory and did not want the state to interfere. Neoliberals stand in the second tradition.
- creddit 6y agoYou: “no support for welfare programs”, “no worker’s protection and social welfare on the list” Self-described neoliberals: “a robust social safety net” But, sure okay, represents exactly what you’ve said.
- Anthony-G 6y agoUpvoted because the term “neo-liberalism” is quite well-defined and I agree with all your points but one: “Libertarianism in original form, propagated e.g. by the Friedmans”. In Europe (the word comes from French), Libertarianism has been a synonym for Anarchism (anti-authoritarian socialism) since at least the late 19th century, long pre-dating the Chicago school. The concept of anarcho-capitalism is a much more recent phenomenon and not one that ever had the same degree of popular support as traditional, left-wing anarchism, e.g., in the 1930s, the CNT¹ had a 1½ million members. I’d suggest modifying the above phrase to say something like “right-libertarianism in its American form, propagated, e.g., by the Friedmans”. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_del_Trabajo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_de...
- jonathanstrange 6y agoThanks a lot! I was aware of anarcho-syndicalism but didn't know that they also used the term "libertarian"! I will read up on it (because this topic comes up again and again nowadays).