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

metic@lemmy.world to You Should Know@lemmy.world – 114 points –

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.

120

You are viewing a single comment

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Globalism when used by like 95% of people includes dropping immigration restrictions, so I'm not sure what you're on about here.

Not really. They emphasize "legal" immigration, by which they mean a series 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.

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.

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.

I describe myself as a globalist and I explicitly believe in open borders. I'm not sure what you're on about here.

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?

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.

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.

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.

9 more...
9 more...
9 more...
9 more...

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

1 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...

Student loans debt slavery is bad actually.

Neoliberals hate when this is brought up.

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

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

Globalism doesn't have a view on student loans buddy, sorry to break your bubble.

10 more...