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.
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.
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.
The Democrats are more socially left wing than the vast majority of European parties.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think our country is starting to look like the US more and more which is scary.
I dunno at least we switch leaders every eight years. The Rutte government is about to hit year 14, right?
Yeah, not fond of this situation either. Would love to have the same rule of capping the number of years someone could be in office. Additionally, I would also love to see a cap on the age someone could become (minister) president, something like max 10 years above nation average. I don’t think someone at 80 could create the required policies, since that person will not have to live under them, nor will that person be connected to the average person in terms of values.
Yeah agreed. Last elections I wasn’t really sure what to vote on anymore, the political landscape is becoming to extreme for my taste. There are virtually no center parties anymore, especially when you exclude the religious related parties. With the recent election and the debates, the media is also trying to create a left versus right, which is a very strange thing to do in our system.
In the end, it would be nice to just have a government that cares about its people and future, they have made way too many mistakes over the past decade, mistakes that were avoidable if only they had listened. Cases in point: reversing the student grant system, pushing important government tasks to local governments (while reducing their budget) and the whole childcare debacle. Literally for all of these f*ups, the government was warned by experts…
Globalized trade is good actually
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.
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 "
Yes this is actually what I meant.
I do not subscribe to neoliberal economics- if anything I’m just left of the average Keynesian.
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.
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.
I wouldn’t say an army with airforce, patriots, himars, bunch of javelins and now western tanks is poorly equipped.
On the whole, for sure. But that doesn’t make it any more palatable for workers when jobs are relocated from their area.
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.
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.
Yes.
Pushing every poor country to invest on the same export industries because your ideology believes they are inferior people that can only ever do that, or because you want them to subsidize your local consumers of those industries is not a good thing.
But people can’t handle any complexity, and this get turned into “advocated global trading”.
Student loans debt slavery is bad actually.
Neoliberals hate when this is brought up.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
Yes! For anyone wanting more reading on the subject, Start here https://prospect.org/economy/neoliberalism-political-success-economic-failure/ Monbiot is also a good primer: https://www.astrid-online.it/static/upload/monb/monbiot_guardian_15_04_16.pdf
centre-left
This is misleading. Neoliberalism is inherently capitalist, not socialist/communist.
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.
It’s not subjective - the definitions of words has been eroded on purpose. This is orwellian destruction of language and it works
Of course it’s subjective. The terminology of the left-right political divide originally referred to 18th-century France. In the 21st century, we’re usually not defining the political center of a nation by how it compares to the French Parliament of 250 years ago. The center moves over time and space, and the left and right are relative to that center.
I do think this comment thread is confusing people, though, as noted in an above edit. For clarity, nobody is saying neoliberalism is a center-left movement.
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.
Can we not bring this energy over from Reddit? You’re arguing with something I didn’t even say. We both agree, neoliberalism is not a left wing ideology. I didn’t say that, the OP didn’t say that, I don’t know who you’re even talking to with that remark.
What the OP said is that American center-left and center-right parties have both been proponents of neoliberalism. The only part of this that’s remotely controversial is whether it’s accurate to describe any American political parties as “center-left”. From a global perspective, you can easily argue that that’s not accurate. Go for it. From an American perspective, there are parties who are to the left of the (American) center. The Democrats are both center-left from the American perspective and proponents of neoliberalism. To restate: That does not mean that neoliberalism is a center-left or any other kind of leftist ideology. It only means what it says.
It’s not a left-wing ideology, but in the US there are no left-wingers in the federal political stage (Occasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are about as left as Democrats go, and they’re considered radical left by center-Dems).
That is to say those of us with dreams of social programs and election reform are considered radical left in the US, even though we’d be centrist in the EU.
Interestingly, according to retired CIA analysts, without those social programs and election reforms, the US is destined towards civil war, but the current genocide politics might make that evident.
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.
I don’t know. If you ask me. I think asserting that everyone but you was wrong. And that you are correct because of a special America/western only definition is a height of the hypocrisy and absurdity.
Politics is not relative like your hands. They are defined and understood. Just not by westerners.
In this case, OP is clearly talking about American politics. That is what I am saying.
I was calling out a reply that purposefully distorted OP’s language, the language used in this specific post. The discussion of the American political compass versus the international political compass is beside the point. And it’s obtuse and unhelpful to derail a perfectly good discussion with insults aimed at OP’s clearly American perspective.
They don’t “think it”, as if they’re confused, they’re implicitly defining “left” as socialist, or at least anti-capitalist.
