Neoliberalism

[matt819]

Can everyone please stop using that term. Even smart people have no fucking clue what it means, and it does nothing to contribute to discussions of, well, of anything.

I'm okay with neo nazi and neo fascist. And even with respect to the latter, fascist works just as well.

And neosporin is okay.

But let's do our bit here at DU to ensure that neoliberal does not turn up on some 2016 worst words of the year list.

[comradebillyboy]

1. Thank you for saying this...

Lefties use 'neoliberal' in the same way righties use 'SJW' as meaningless generic insults.

[DemFromPittsburgh]

2. It came from Chris Hedges. Mr. Pessimism Porn.

[Rex]

3. Everyone is using that term?

I've never seen so many people upset about an economic term. How curious indeed.

[mcar]

4. Thank you!

I have no idea what it means, either.

[portlander23]

5. Reading is fundamental

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[matt819]

14. Yeah, yeah

That's not really the point.

[Yavin4]

6. How about Neolution? n/t

[MohRokTah]

7. I AM the Liberal One.

[matt819]

15. But are you the neoliberal one? Nt

[MohRokTah]

16. I've been called "Neo(liberal)" enough times on DU there can be no doubt.

I AM the LIBERAL ONE!

[florida08]

8. It says it all for me

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

[seabeckind]

10. Exactly. The quote excerpt below came from that article.

and includes this observation:

In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.

[applegrove]

19. + 100

[seabeckind]

9. If someone knows what it means, can they use it?

Or will it upset the people who don't know what it means?

Should we ban geometry for the same reason?

Actually, it has been well defined on quite a few posts. It has been well defined in quite a bit of literature. Quite a few smart people know exactly what it means.

It seems to me to be very descriptive of an economic philosophy pretending to be a political philosophy.

kristopher said it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027968836#post92

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

[Warpy]

11. It's actually a very useful term to descibe a set of policies.

Wikipedia has a pretty decent article on it, its history, the changes in the meaning of the word (which aren't as drastic as you might think), and why those policies have "liberalism" attached to them: it's liberalization of rules that constrain business, not liberalization of rules that constrain people, as in classical liberalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism should clear up some of the confusion.

[JHB]

12. On the contrary, let's use it more often so that people know what it means

A big part of the reason that after some 40 years of it being the the compass by which economic policies are set is because it's treated as if it were the natural state of affairs and not a set of policy ideas that -- like most -- don't quite work as advertised.

When "smart people" start using it in ways that are unconnected to its actual meaning, clue them in, don't just avoid the issue.

[Teamster Jeff]

13. Can we use Reagonomics instead?

[LWolf]

17. I've been using that term here

for many years.

The fucking "centrists" adopted both the words liberal and progressive a long way back. The DLC co-opted those terms and began a long, slow, Orwellian hijacking of those terms to suit their neo-liberal, yes, neo-liberal, agenda. Just read the language used by their think tank, the "Progressive Policy" Institute. It doesn't really matter what you call it. "Centrist," "New Democrat," "Third Way," "Pragmatic," etc.

The only label they HAVE stayed away from is, ironically, neo-liberal.

There's a reason for that. Meanwhile, for those who have no fucking clue, I saw a thread on the front page of this forum earlier today that explained it well; I'll go find it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027969981

[PufPuf23]

18. I have used the term neo-liberal for nearly a decade at DU as PP23

and over a decade under my 1st DU screen name.

I understand why some at DU are uncomfortable with the term neo-liberal (and neo-conservative as well).

The links offered elsewhere in this thread are simple and reasonably accurate definitions of neo-liberalism and neo-liberal policy.

Neo-liberal is a useful and descriptive term that existed long before 2016.