Please define Neo-Liberalism for me.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

Thank you in advance

[cprise]

1. Letting wealth do whatever it wants

...or Corporate freedom.

Think of it as the opposite of 'social responsibility'.

[WLKjr]

2. I may be wrong or get flamed for this

I think it's the point where being a neo liberal is being so liberal that it hurts. Like going further past the point of reasonable and logical thinking. Kind of like a neo-conservative Republican but exact opposite of how they act.

I think, if I'm wrong educate me too plz :D

[DBtv]

4. You are wrong, see other posts here.

I can see where you would get the idea, because "neo-liberal" is complete Orwellian newspeak.

[cprise]

12. It's not Orwellian newspeak

That free-market definition of liberal pre-dates our current American definition of the word.

[cprise]

9. I think you may be wrong

It's a kind of liberalism that takes the emphasis off freedom for the average citizen, and focuses it on freedom for corporations and the wealthy to do what they want. This, in theory, allows them to spend more money that 'trickles down' to poorer people thus keeping the economy healthy (which it doesn't).

One of the ways this corporate freedom manifests is in 'free-trade' agreements, but it impacts everything. Effective labor and evironmental standards are anathema to neo-liberals.

[WLKjr]

11. Yeah I see that now

mrmcd's post which I just read enlightend me. I feel smarter already.

[DBtv]

3. Unregulated "free" market capitalism.

Basically, give corporations rights of "citizenship" but don't require from them the responsibilities of citizenship. Also includes total destruction of workers collectivization rights.

[Mr. McD]

5. Neoliberalism

http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/nave/economic.html


Neoliberalism is a variation on the classical liberalism of the 19th Century when British and other imperialisms used the ideology of competition and "free trade" to justify their own colonialisms. Anti-colonial revolt ended the empires. Worker revolt in the 30s and anti-colonial struggles ended classical liberalism but was contained by Keynsianism: government management of the wage, the welfare state and "development." An international cycle of worker, student, peasant, woman, and pro-ecology revolt in the 60s ended Keynesianism which was replaced by neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism has been designed, pushed and implemented by some of the biggest, most powerful institutions in the world, beginning with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Think tanks, university departments and government agencies house an international army of neoliberal architects, planners and apologists --backed up by the armed might of the state in all its forms. This history suggests that defeating neoliberalism will not be enough, we must go beyond reformism to defeat all forms of capitalism.

Neoliberalism is both an ideology and a strategy. Like so many criminals, it has many aliases, "Reaganomics", "Thatcherism", "supply-side economics", "monetarism", "new classical economics", and "structural adjustment". The ideology of neoliberalism is the worship of the "market" and subordination of all other economic actors to its demands, including government and individuals. The strategy of neoliberal economics includes privatization, reduced social expenditures, union busting, land enclosure, lower wages, higher profits, free trade, free capital mobility and the accelerated commodification of nature.

[el_gato]

7. ding ding, we have a winner

[WLKjr]

10. So that's what it means

I feel smarter already :D. Thanks for clearing that up.

[TahitiNut]

27. Yup. It can also be called "neolibertarian".

What today's breed of neoliberal/neolibertarian (close kin to AynRandians) completely ignore in the works of classical libertarians (e.g. Hayek) is the adamant repudiation of 'privilege through corporatism' that's the hallmark of the anti-liberal global corporatists of today.

[Cats Against Frist]

29. These are the people that give the free market a bad name

I was just having this discussion with my boyfriend this morning -- about how every law seems not to have to be held to the standard of "life, liberty and property," but to "what's good for the corporations."

Take environmental laws, for instance. According to classical liberalism, I would think that the right to clean air and clean water would be a "inalienable right" -- since people don't "own" the major water sources, nor do they "own" the air -- and it's something of "community property." But "environmental laws" are constantly being manipulated in FAVOR of the polluters.

These things don't fulfill the tenets of classical liberalism, my friends. This is a completely different philosophy, that uses government engineering in the SAME WAY, that "just plain liberals" are accused of using the government to re-distribute wealth.

The GOP hides behind this, I think, to a HUGE extent -- their most bare-knuckled "liberty" supporters, who think that because the Assault Weapons Ban is repealed means they're getting "small government" with the GOP.

It's a lie. And neo-liberalism is something of another word for "fascism." If the government is consistently making laws in favor of corporations, particularly when the politicians themselves are CEOs or benefit from the corporations, OR are bribed by lobbyists OR are beholden to campaign contributors -- this is PATENTLY NOT the free market, and the GOP is lying when they say this.

It seems to me that for the "free market" to be free that it should not be intertwined with government, and subjected to the laws that protect peoples' individual property and freedom rights. What this kind of thing does is make corporations more free than the rest of us, as per the definition, above. That runs in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the tenets of classical liberalism. It really makes me want to puke.

[Algomas]

38. How does this differ from Neo-Conservative???

[not systems]

6. A system where capital is free to liberally do what it will...

moving freely from country to country creating
a system of universal law that usurps the
sovereignty of all peoples and nations.

[smirkymonkey]

8. Free Market Capitalism on Crack with Imperial Tendencies

Greed is Good.

Here's a link:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/Neoliberalism.asp#Neoliberalismis

[w4rma]

13. The Libertarian Party is the embodyment of neo-Liberalism.

The Republican Party (and neo-Conservatives) support only the economic values of neo-Liberalism.

[Susang]

15. Finally!

I was reading through the thread's responses, wondering when someone was going to mention libertarianism. The Neo-Liberal tag seems like a different, way to say "libertarian". Particularly since the word neo-liberal was only coined about 20-25 years ago.

[cprise]

18. Except

...that outside the US 'libertarian' is often used like 'libertine' to describe mainly social policy.

The tern neoliberal is only 25 years old because that's about how old the movement is. They are mainly Reagan Democrats, and New Democrats (and New Labor and such).

[TahitiNut]

28. It's NOT truly Libertarian.

The true libertarian perspective (e.g. F. A. Hayek) precludes and abhors the privilege of corporatism - the 'personhood' of property.

[Cats Against Frist]

31. No, no, no, no, no, no

What you're referring to would be "GOP bastardized libertarianism," which is a different thing, altogether from true libertarianism or classical liberal philosophy. Sort of like how "anarcho capitalism" isn't really anarchy, but they get lumped in with anarchists, anyway.

True libertarians are SUPPOSED to adhere to classical liberal tenets, which, I would think would mean that the individual actor has the same rights as the corporate actor, and that for the "free market" to be truly free, that it would NOT be in collusion with government. As the Tahiti person said above -- this DOES NOT have an element of corporatism, wherein the laws are being made in favor of the corporations by a corrupt government. Libertarianism should be just as uncomfortable with this, as they are with the Welfare State, or whatever.

A neo-liberal would an see environmental law imposed on a company as heresy. A libertarian would recognize that the air and the water is community property (which they do believe), and would treat management of that water and air differently than a corpo-fascist would. For instance, here is the Libertarian position on the environment:

http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.html

What they seek to do is to sell as much government property as possible, and stop the pollution by the government, including NUCLEAR TESTING, and return as much land as possible to NATIVE AMERICANS, and to relegate the management of national parks to places like the SIERRA CLUB and the AUDUBON SOCIETY. They also assume that private ownership of government land would give people the stake to take care of it -- I'm not sure that I agree.

And they also plan to use "restituion" as a deterrent -- meaning that while they don't like regulatory laws (not because of corporatism, but because of classical liberalism), they are not against imposing healthy fines when a polluter screws something up, or endangers the health (property) of free people.

This is a MUCH more sophisticated assesment of Libertarianism. This is NOT the neo-liberal solution -- which is to use government to cut a wide berth for corporate abusers.

Libertarians get a bad name, because half of their constituency are really GOPPERS who think that the Libertarian movement is just a "smaller government" form of the GOP. Quite the opposite.

Whether you agree with the Libertarians or not (and I'm not totally on board with them -- and if I am, it's where libertarianism, anarchosyndicalism and anarchy meet) they are NOT neoliberals.

[sadiesworld]

14. Well, ChavezSpeakstheTruth...

Chavez told the neo-liberals to F**k Off.

[Susang]

16. Here's a link to an actually definition

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html

Take it for what its worth. To me, it seems like basically libertarianism that doesn't want to be called libertarian for some reason; probably because of all the wackiness that has been associated with the Libertarian party (i.e. drugs, guns, zealots). These people are serious as death.

[On the Road]

17. Unrestricted International Capitalism

[camero]

19. Liberal PNACers

that want American Empire while campaigning as liberal on social issues. And the DLC.

[arcos]

23. you're way off...

neoliberalism doesn't involve many social issues, it is mostly economics

[camero]

32. Excuse me

It seems I have defined a neo-liberal and not neo-liberalism. Not that there's much difference. Both would let the wealthy do whatever they want even to the detriment of society.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

20. From what I've gathered, it is essentially

unrestrained, law-of-the-jungle capitalism. The free market solves all your problems, and any government intervention is bad for growth. I think it is an extreme revival of 19th century classical liberalism, which in economic matters was 150 percent laissez-faire. Simply put, Libertarian with a capital L.

[Swamp Rat]

21. Reagan

[rman]

22. It might be of interest to know

that over here in Europe, the term "liberal" is pretty much equivalent to "right-wing".

[klyon]

24. Neo-liberalism

neo = new
liberalism = I do not know after Rush redefined it

In this case Neo-liberalism = fascism

neo-conservatives are neo-liberals that would die if they realized they were liberal

in the end it is just a label

KL

[Michael Harrington]

25. In the American context...

I've always associated it with that strand of quasi-Liberal thought that emerged in the early 80's grouped around The Washington Monthly and exemplified by Michael Kinsley, James Fallows, Mickey Kaus and Jonathan Alter (among others.)

They tended to be Liberal on social issues like civil liberties and gender equality but tended to view most aspects of traditional Democratic Party economic populism and it's goals with skepticism (Kinsley was always almost automatically in favor of free trade when he was on Crossfire.) Along with being free traders, they usually went for balanced budgets and disdained deficits.

Paul Tsongas was a good example of an elected official who had their views, and so was Richard Lamm.

You could see the influence of this set of views in Clinton's Administration. How much power it has these days in the Party is sort of up in the air.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. The DLC version of Neo-Conservatism or the long form of Libertarianism.

Corporations are your friends...as long as you obey.

[Cats Against Frist]

30. Wrong

This has nothing to do with libertarianism. This is fascism. It DOES NOT adhere to the tenets of classical liberalism. Do not let the GOP fool you. The government engineering economic structure, and making laws in favor of corporations FIRST, doesn't have anything to do with libertarianism, and it is something that most true libertarians (not disaffected GOP numbnuts who think they're libertarians) fight against.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. What is a "true Libertarian"

The perverted term that the "Libertarians" in America stole from the libertarian Anarchists like Emma Goldman, Buenaventura Durruti, Noam Chomsky, Leo Tolstoy, Alexander Berkman, Emeliano Zapata, etc.

All of whom were committed to socialism in one form or another.

If you are a "left libertarian" then I have no quarrel with you. If you are a follower of the Libertarian Party then I do.

[Cats Against Frist]

34. I am evolving

I would say that I live somewhere where anarchosyndicalism, anarchy and libertarianism meet.

I do not support the Libertarian Party, but only because it has no bones and is made up of wannabe Republicans. HOWEVER I do not think the whole of the ideologues behind the LP are all just Republicans disaffected with the GOP. The Libertarian Party is caught in between the two. They don't know who the fuck they are.

Their problem is this: if you want to go by classical liberalism, the philosophies behind it, the writings of the federalists and anti-federalists, etc. -- and you hold firmly to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the "just society" or "virtuous society" of Thomas Jefferson, a la Rousseau, there's no way that you can claim to be a neo-liberal, an anarchocapitalist a "big L" libertarian or a Republican.

Right-wing ideologues have corrupted "classical liberalism," and changed it into the "neo-liberalism" of which this thread speaks. Right-wing thought is a crock of shit. Rand is just crazy (and really has nothing to do with "classical liberlism" either), Rothbund and Friedman and some others totally got it wrong. The only ones that I give a modicum of respect are Hayek (and he only gets about 15% of my respect) and Mises, who was definitely the best of them, by far.

The deal with classical liberalism is this: "property, freedom and peace." Place this within the context of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and what you're SUPPOSED to have -- what follows philosophically -- is a society where all people are equal, the laws are made INDEPENDENT of corporate influence, and lawmaking is much more decentralized, and the federal government has less power.

The problem with right-wing libertarianism, is that they're not really libertarians, at all, since most of them subscribe to 1. The Christian Revisionist Narrative B. And laud traditional "institutions" and constructs above actual civil liberties and C. Most of them are are too stupid to even realize that the free market means "free" and not "CEOs run the government and own the politicians and make the laws in their favor. (i.e. -- "trickle down" is not the "free market" at all, but a government engineered plan that shifts the tax burden onto the middle class).

Real libertarians, in my opinion, are much like anarchists, EXCEPT they're OK with the hierarchies and the non-collective -- BUT by definition, a real libertarian would RESPECT the collective, if it were non-coerced by the government. Remember the official Libertarian slogan, "I'm Pro-Choice Everything" CANNOT mean that one lauds a dominant cultural narrative, above all others, nor seeks to indoctrinate this narrative through the rule of law.

This is a much longer conversation -- but "small-l" libertarianism is misunderstood, and just as in the Democratic and Republican parties, the Libertarian coalition is made up of vastly different points of view on Libertarianism -- from the left "collectivist" libertarians to the right "rugged individualist" libertarians. But if you're going to be a libertarian -- I don't think you can adhere truly to either side. The groundwork, in my opinion, is there -- and it's all or nothing.

I used to seriously be a state socialist, until the GOP introduced me to "big government" GOP style, and then the "big L" libertarians helped me to see how both the Democratic and Republican parties support corporatism, or corpo-fascism, which is our REAL political designation in the United States.

As far as supporting the big-L Libertarians: only in in the sense that I hope that they welcome and join together with left libertarians and anarchists to be truly "big-L" libertarian. As far as supporting them with my vote or money: no. I've always voted Democratic, and as long as the suckhole that is the GOP: the neo-liberals and the "free marketers" (this term has nothing to do with the REAL free market), and the Christian Biblical Revisionists, Dispensationalists, Reconstructionists and Dominionists, and the corpo-fascists are out there, I have and will always support the Democratic Party -- at least until if there is ever a point where it is not the largest opposition party to the GOP. Don't worry about that. :)

****edited to add No.3 above.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. I usually vote Democrat, too. But, consider myself a "left anarchist"

As I see this election unfolding, as I thought it would, with the Birdbrain-in-chief winning with flagwaving, I think the stage is set for a breakup of the Democratic Party. The "neo-liberal" capitalist DLC wing will effectively force out the left.

After that, I think and hope, that the left will find some way to bring a sort of "Popular Front" together that will oppose the gradual drift towards corporate fascism.

As to "left" versus "right" libertarianism, I think that the difference lies in the aspirations of the old time libertarian anarchists who felt that a love of humanity as a whole was the driving force. I happen to share the belief that the way to best produce a livable society is along communitarian ideals. The economics of it can be a mixed bag...as long as power is not wielded by the few wealthy and powerful. I also believe that the Democratic Socialist countries of Europe, with all of their many flaws, are, at least, a step in the right direction.

I can accept your form of "small L libertarianism" because at least it has a heart rather than merely a bank account and at least sees the inequality, injustice, and rapciousness of laissez-faire capitalism.

[Cats Against Frist]

37. Do not mistake, however --

I arrived at my small-L libertarianism as a result of a major shift in values. I do believe in "personal responsibility" but not as the right sees it: a personal responsibility as a neighbor, a parent, an employer, a lawmaker, etc., to be socially responsible, fair and kind to the environment.

For a long time, I believed the left was doing the work of saving some poor, exploited underclass from the ultra-wealthy. Now, I believe that the directions in which the "official" (non libertarian/anarchist left) left wants to move in is that which saves a couple hundred million apathetic, ignorant, complacent middle-class consumers from themselves.

For me, there is not haves v. have nots, but those willing to exploit, and those willing to either be exploited, too stupid to know they're exploited, or those who don't care, so long as they get their "bread and circuses," and enable the exploiters.

I feel this is the real problem, and taking the responsibility away from "government" and placing it within the "individual," is the shift we need to take. My justification? The just society and virtuous society of Thomas Jefferson, a la Rousseau. The right-wing seems to think that they have a complete claim to the origins of the constitution, but they forget that there was a very strong "virtuous" sentiment, that wasn't necessarily derived solely from Christian practices, that gives claim to the "secular humanist, egalitarian" ethics of the left. It's all there. Of course, times change, and we keep evolving -- evidenced in the civil rights movement, womens' sufferage, etc.

I simply don't believe that government can do it, anymore, and that everyone has to take "personal responsibility" to steward this democracy, build their communities, and make this country a better place -- and that includes fat-cats, Christo-nitwits, and the whole of the McAmerican Fat Ass Instant Gratification Landscape.

This is a good way to debate with right-wing zealots, too, who think that they're so "small government" because they get a tax cut. Especially if they're Christian. You can both prove you're more small government with them and mock their hypocritical moral system at the same time. It has definite advantages over claiming that you're a Democrat, or that you support the welfare state.

[Cats Against Frist]

35. oh &

they were committed to "collectivism," not necessarily state socialism. Both collectivism and individualism, in my opinion, should be able to function within the U.S., if we took the tenth amendment seriously -- of course, also, we may be too far gone for this to ever work.

I understand the question you're asking, and I know the right-wing libertarians copped and bastardized a lot of stuff from the real libertarians.

Don't worry....I'm on your side. :)