It mostly means a dedication to deregulation and free markets. More specifically, private-public partnerships. That is the difference between them and Libertarians or Anarcho-Capitalists, since Neoliberals see that the government needs to provide things like courts, military, police, etc. but want to insert private companies to provide government services (e.g. in WW2, soldiers cleaned and laundered the military’s uniforms internally, now a private company will do the laundry for a military base at a 50% markup).
As all political ideology, in its original formulation, Neoliberalism was a deviation from liberalism, in the Vienna Circle, by its rejection of “political liberalism”. It didn’t believe in formal freedom, democracy, equality, etc. Real freedom is the freedom to buy and sell on an unregulated market, real democracy is the ability to vote with your wallet, and real equality is the lack of regulations protecting one group from another. This is why neoliberals of the 1920s and 30s were pro-fascist, since the fascists were so dedicated to privatization and repressing socialists and communists. Thus preserving the freedom of the market, even if later neoliberals want to walk that back.
‘Free market,’ market-oriented reform capitalism; think Reagan, Bill Clinton, any moderate or conservative before the trump era.
It has been the sole economic theory in power in the US since the 1970s, with more or less a sliding scale between more neoliberal (republicans before 2016) and less neoliberal/more classical liberal (Biden’s and Harris’s campaign messaging, not Biden’s actual actions).
The reason it sounds confusing, especially in memes, is because you think dems and republicans have different economic theories behind their actions, when in actual legislative reality they’re just more or less neoliberal, and the minute differences get overblown in campaign rhetoric.
The reason it sounds confusing, especially in memes, is because you think dems and republicans have different economic theories behind their actions, when in actual legislative reality they’re just more or less neoliberal, and the minute differences get overblown in campaign rhetoric.
The funny thing is that it’s Trump, of all people, who represents the first genuine shift away from neoliberalism for the US in 50+ years. That fucker is downright mercantilist.
Too bad it’s a shift away from neoliberalism in the opposite of the direction the leftists wanted to go.
Also a fake populist. He says things that seem like he will work to benefit the working class, but completely lies to them and screws them over at every opportunity.
The imminent $6T tax cut for the rich and corporations will be Trump’s magnum opus.
It has been the sole economic theory in power in the US since the 1970s
I’m not American so I may be missing something, but I find it hard to say that, for example, Carter and Reagan shared the same economic policy, or Obama and Trump. Only by flattening away any nuance whatsoever would those be called identical.
First of all, Trump really is very different. All these tariffs are decidedly not neoliberal.
Trump aside, though, Carter, Reagan and Obama really did share broadly similar policy with regards to free trade treaties and whatnot. The Democrats were better on support for unions, but not so much better that they weren’t willing to throw them under the bus of cheap foreign labor.
Their idea of the rightful role of the state in everyday affairs was rather different though, wasn’t it? If support of free trade were all that’s needed to be a neoliberal, anarchists would be neoliberals too.
if you look at it in macro, you could argue this is true, but this is basically just strictly related to econ governance, which makes sense because it’s the most functional form of economy lmao.
If you look at social governance there are VAST differences.
Social governance in the US is mostly window dressing. The class oppression is the same, dems just don’t pretend poor whites are a higher class than other minorities. To the dem or republican leadership your gender, sex, nor race really matter. As long as you’re not trying to remove the class divide then you’re good enough. Even the most racist republican would happily go along with a black president as long as said president didn’t threaten the economic order. Its why Obama was allowed to do as much as he did.
White Karens who drive around with awareness ribbons on their prius and chastise you for calling black people black instead of “African American” and really think that someone needs to do something about the current social crisis as long as it doesn’t upset anyone or anything and as long as everything stays exactly the same, and as long as nobody messes with their investments. They secretly cannot stand people different than themselves and want to retire on a golf course.
Aka not a liberal. The neolibs people bitch about are not the same as a garden variety liberal who believes human rights(liberty) must take precedent over economic forces. That aligns with a lot of leftist views, but they will be ree-ing after this comment about how marx was an unfathomable god and the only path to utopia is forced authoritarianism under martial law. Eventually the dictator will give up his power when the means are seized because he was the true communist all along.
Thats all so much easier and less of a gamble than unifying the commoners amirite
Tldw; liberals still want capitalism and the class hierarchy it creates. They just want capitalism that is supportive of gay and black people and social safety nets.
In contrast, neoliberalism is sometimes constructed as an ideological antagonist of both critical theorists and progressive liberal identities. Marxist scholars conceptualize neoliberalism as a particular historical regime of capitalism, more corrosive and iniquitous than the “embedded liberalism” of the post-war era in Europe and the United States. Similarly, socially progressive liberals criticize neoliberalism for subordinating public life to market forces and for displacing the welfare state commitments of the Keynesian era. Some on the political left collapse the distinction between liberalism and neoliberalism, seeing them as simply two ways of ideologically justifying capitalist rule. Conversely, some of those most likely to be identified as neoliberals are motivated by a deep hostility to political liberals, particularly in right-wing political discourses where liberal operates as code for left-liberal, even socialist, values that are opposed to a free market identity.
An alternative to both neoclassical and Keynesian explanations and solutions for capitalist crises emanates from the Marxian tradition. Its explanation stresses neither what Keynesians focus on (destabilizing maneuvers by self-seeking individual consumers, producers, merchants, and banks facing an inherently uncertain economy and/or possessing asymmetrical information in regard to markets) nor what neoclassicists pinpoint (market-destabilizing concentrations of private power by market participants and/or public power by the state). Rather, Marxian theory pursues the connections between capitalism’s crises and its distinctive class structure (its particular juxtaposition of capitalists appropriating and distributing the surpluses workers produce). We propose to show these connections in the rest of this paper. On that basis, Marxian theory reaches very different conclusions from those of the neoclassical and Keynesian economists. Briefly, durable solutions to capitalist crises require, in the Marxian view, transition to a different class structure. That is because capitalism’s class structure has so systematically and repeatedly contributed to crises in both the regulated and deregulated forms of capitalism. That is why Marxian theory does not share the fundamental conservatism of both neoclassical and Keynesian economics vis-à-vis capitalism.
basically the meme among the left is that everybody who “dragged their feet” is a “liberal” or “neoliberal”
the left tends to have a problem where they leech off of existing parties and groups, but then immediately throw them under the bus when convenient for their party. This is just an extension of that.
The modern vernacular for liberal is, weird… To say the least, but in short, basically the average democrat is “a liberal” the average voting democrat specifically.
Historically, a liberal is someone who believes in government, and the institutions it provides, the fact that you should respect it, lest you ruin it. And the fact that you can achieve the best outcomes, for all people when everybody is represented. Liberals traditionally don’t have an issue with competing, or opposing viewpoints, they have issues with people who don’t respect institutions, or don’t want them to exist at all. A “Liberal democrat” may be fine with the republican voter, but have a problem with the way the republican base is campaigning, and running the country. Or even specific demographics of the republican voter, like MAGA for example.
Joe Biden is a good example of this, and if you look at his term, he was very, and i mean very successful, had some of the most effective legislative work in a long time. Was popular across the aisle to a significant degree (not MAGA obviously) and respected those that were.
The problem with the modern day left, is that they have outgroup problem. They want everybody who isn’t “left” and exactly in sync with their ideology to get fucked, basically. This extends further, since the left doesn’t respect the government, or it’s institutions, but i’ve yet to see any good whitepapers talking about a more effective form of government, it’s all just performative yapping about why “government bad and leftism good”
I’m not going to dive into the specifics of leftism here, because frankly, not relevant, it’s pretty similar to liberalism, minus the government stuff, and some slight differences, but the modern left doesn’t in any way shape or form adhere to that.
And before anybody yaps at me, calls me a slur or whatever, i just want to say, i’m not doing a both sides meme, i think the republican party is far, far worse. I think the democratic party is far more suited to running the country effectively, as evidenced by historical terms in office (the left would VEHEMENTLY disagree with me on this one, but the facts back me up here) The problem i think is specifically with the far left, the online far left in particular.
as you may have gleaned, i would consider myself a liberal, specifically a “governmental classical western liberal” if you want to get into the weeds of it, i think the lack of respect for government institution, and the role it plays in society has ruined our country. And there is simply no way back into a respectable position, without reinstating that within the public, i don’t care how it’s done, it needs to happen. I’m very sure most scholars on this topic would agree with me when i say that this is the most important thing to fix right now.
As a liberal should, i’m not picky about political views or ideology, as long as you respect the one thing keeping this country from grinding to a complete halt and being nothing more than a thought in the wind 20 years down the line. Unfortunately i don’t think the right even posses enough brain power or will to comprehend this, and i don’t think the far left is physically capable of comprehending this fact fully. (they are more than willing to mentally comprehend it, but they get mad the second anybody crosses them, and calls them wrong, so they never actually give it any serious thought)
Can someone who identifies as a leftist explain to me what “neoliberal” means? I have no fucking clue at this point.
The post actually explains it really well
lol you don’t even know the ideology of your prime minister?
Maybe read a book idk
Carney is a Keynesian.
An economic theory isn’t an ideology. The ideology is neoliberalism. Ya know, the idea that “economists” should run the country because money is God.
And North Korea is very democratic
It mostly means a dedication to deregulation and free markets. More specifically, private-public partnerships. That is the difference between them and Libertarians or Anarcho-Capitalists, since Neoliberals see that the government needs to provide things like courts, military, police, etc. but want to insert private companies to provide government services (e.g. in WW2, soldiers cleaned and laundered the military’s uniforms internally, now a private company will do the laundry for a military base at a 50% markup).
As all political ideology, in its original formulation, Neoliberalism was a deviation from liberalism, in the Vienna Circle, by its rejection of “political liberalism”. It didn’t believe in formal freedom, democracy, equality, etc. Real freedom is the freedom to buy and sell on an unregulated market, real democracy is the ability to vote with your wallet, and real equality is the lack of regulations protecting one group from another. This is why neoliberals of the 1920s and 30s were pro-fascist, since the fascists were so dedicated to privatization and repressing socialists and communists. Thus preserving the freedom of the market, even if later neoliberals want to walk that back.
‘Free market,’ market-oriented reform capitalism; think Reagan, Bill Clinton, any moderate or conservative before the trump era.
It has been the sole economic theory in power in the US since the 1970s, with more or less a sliding scale between more neoliberal (republicans before 2016) and less neoliberal/more classical liberal (Biden’s and Harris’s campaign messaging, not Biden’s actual actions).
The reason it sounds confusing, especially in memes, is because you think dems and republicans have different economic theories behind their actions, when in actual legislative reality they’re just more or less neoliberal, and the minute differences get overblown in campaign rhetoric.
The funny thing is that it’s Trump, of all people, who represents the first genuine shift away from neoliberalism for the US in 50+ years. That fucker is downright mercantilist.
Too bad it’s a shift away from neoliberalism in the opposite of the direction the leftists wanted to go.
Also a fake populist. He says things that seem like he will work to benefit the working class, but completely lies to them and screws them over at every opportunity.
The imminent $6T tax cut for the rich and corporations will be Trump’s magnum opus.
AKA “demagogue.” That’s the essential difference between Trump and a populist like Bernie Sanders: Trump is a demagogue; Sanders isn’t.
It’s a circle tho right. Eventually it will all spin back around? /s
I’m not American so I may be missing something, but I find it hard to say that, for example, Carter and Reagan shared the same economic policy, or Obama and Trump. Only by flattening away any nuance whatsoever would those be called identical.
First of all, Trump really is very different. All these tariffs are decidedly not neoliberal.
Trump aside, though, Carter, Reagan and Obama really did share broadly similar policy with regards to free trade treaties and whatnot. The Democrats were better on support for unions, but not so much better that they weren’t willing to throw them under the bus of cheap foreign labor.
Their idea of the rightful role of the state in everyday affairs was rather different though, wasn’t it? If support of free trade were all that’s needed to be a neoliberal, anarchists would be neoliberals too.
they shared the same broad economic policy.
They don’t share minute policy, they never will. Republicans have always been a more top down approach, while dems are usually more bottom up.
if you look at it in macro, you could argue this is true, but this is basically just strictly related to econ governance, which makes sense because it’s the most functional form of economy lmao.
If you look at social governance there are VAST differences.
Social governance in the US is mostly window dressing. The class oppression is the same, dems just don’t pretend poor whites are a higher class than other minorities. To the dem or republican leadership your gender, sex, nor race really matter. As long as you’re not trying to remove the class divide then you’re good enough. Even the most racist republican would happily go along with a black president as long as said president didn’t threaten the economic order. Its why Obama was allowed to do as much as he did.
White Karens who drive around with awareness ribbons on their prius and chastise you for calling black people black instead of “African American” and really think that someone needs to do something about the current social crisis as long as it doesn’t upset anyone or anything and as long as everything stays exactly the same, and as long as nobody messes with their investments. They secretly cannot stand people different than themselves and want to retire on a golf course.
Aka not a liberal. The neolibs people bitch about are not the same as a garden variety liberal who believes human rights(liberty) must take precedent over economic forces. That aligns with a lot of leftist views, but they will be ree-ing after this comment about how marx was an unfathomable god and the only path to utopia is forced authoritarianism under martial law. Eventually the dictator will give up his power when the means are seized because he was the true communist all along.
Thats all so much easier and less of a gamble than unifying the commoners amirite
I don’t care about labels so long as I have someone to blame!
Then blame the ilk among bezos and musk and we cant forget murdoch and koch
u ok bro
Im pretty fuckin far from ok
https://youtu.be/5luQB_yFmTM
https://youtu.be/Vjt51bMHnXA
https://youtu.be/_xAqZJTIsIA
https://youtu.be/vyl2DeKT-Vs
Tldw; liberals still want capitalism and the class hierarchy it creates. They just want capitalism that is supportive of gay and black people and social safety nets.
That’s Social Democracy. Neoliberals don’t care about safety nets.
True
Lmao @ the idea of neolibs supporting socials sfety nets.
True I almost didn’t add that. Liberals in principle do not but I know a lot of people who call themselves liberals that do.
Most of them don’t know either, but they’ll get back to you after they as that brooding cool kid in school.
On Liberalism:
Additional:
On Leftist ideologies:
Additional:
Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Communism and Revolutions
Capitalism, Global Poverty, and the Case for Democratic Socialism
basically the meme among the left is that everybody who “dragged their feet” is a “liberal” or “neoliberal”
the left tends to have a problem where they leech off of existing parties and groups, but then immediately throw them under the bus when convenient for their party. This is just an extension of that.
The modern vernacular for liberal is, weird… To say the least, but in short, basically the average democrat is “a liberal” the average voting democrat specifically.
Historically, a liberal is someone who believes in government, and the institutions it provides, the fact that you should respect it, lest you ruin it. And the fact that you can achieve the best outcomes, for all people when everybody is represented. Liberals traditionally don’t have an issue with competing, or opposing viewpoints, they have issues with people who don’t respect institutions, or don’t want them to exist at all. A “Liberal democrat” may be fine with the republican voter, but have a problem with the way the republican base is campaigning, and running the country. Or even specific demographics of the republican voter, like MAGA for example.
Joe Biden is a good example of this, and if you look at his term, he was very, and i mean very successful, had some of the most effective legislative work in a long time. Was popular across the aisle to a significant degree (not MAGA obviously) and respected those that were.
The problem with the modern day left, is that they have outgroup problem. They want everybody who isn’t “left” and exactly in sync with their ideology to get fucked, basically. This extends further, since the left doesn’t respect the government, or it’s institutions, but i’ve yet to see any good whitepapers talking about a more effective form of government, it’s all just performative yapping about why “government bad and leftism good”
I’m not going to dive into the specifics of leftism here, because frankly, not relevant, it’s pretty similar to liberalism, minus the government stuff, and some slight differences, but the modern left doesn’t in any way shape or form adhere to that.
And before anybody yaps at me, calls me a slur or whatever, i just want to say, i’m not doing a both sides meme, i think the republican party is far, far worse. I think the democratic party is far more suited to running the country effectively, as evidenced by historical terms in office (the left would VEHEMENTLY disagree with me on this one, but the facts back me up here) The problem i think is specifically with the far left, the online far left in particular.
as you may have gleaned, i would consider myself a liberal, specifically a “governmental classical western liberal” if you want to get into the weeds of it, i think the lack of respect for government institution, and the role it plays in society has ruined our country. And there is simply no way back into a respectable position, without reinstating that within the public, i don’t care how it’s done, it needs to happen. I’m very sure most scholars on this topic would agree with me when i say that this is the most important thing to fix right now.
As a liberal should, i’m not picky about political views or ideology, as long as you respect the one thing keeping this country from grinding to a complete halt and being nothing more than a thought in the wind 20 years down the line. Unfortunately i don’t think the right even posses enough brain power or will to comprehend this, and i don’t think the far left is physically capable of comprehending this fact fully. (they are more than willing to mentally comprehend it, but they get mad the second anybody crosses them, and calls them wrong, so they never actually give it any serious thought)
Anyway, inb4 people yell at me all angry like.
Perfectly said. Thank you! This needs to be required reading on the subject.