| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12358 Posts
On May 31 2018 03:22 RvB wrote: So what does neoliberalism mean according to you? Austerity, privatization, deregulation, general fetishization of the market... Neoliberalism actually marries well with an anti-immigration stance, cause once the results of your policies are felt in society it's good that people can blame their problems on something external. Immigration is the perfect scapegoat to deflect to. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On May 31 2018 03:35 TheDwf wrote: But regardless of the definition taken, neoliberalism is about economic policies, so I don't see why Nyxisto postulates an automatic link with diplomacy/geopolitics or an incompatibility with nationalism or anti-immigration positions. Neoliberals like markets and globalisation a lot and closed border politics, both for goods services and people runs counter to it. Neoliberals are probably the sort of people to which borders are least important because borders both impede market function as well as individual rights. Neoliberalism is definitely about economic policies, and there are rarely any (neoliberal) economists out there who defend protectionism or anti-immigration politics. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 31 2018 03:35 TheDwf wrote: Those two definitions from the Wikipedia page should do: But regardless of the definition taken, neoliberalism is about economic policies, so I don't see why Nyxisto postulates an automatic link with diplomacy/geopolitics or an incompatibility with nationalism or anti-immigration positions. The thing is that conservatives have been abusing economic ideas from the neoliberals/liberterian intellectuals to justify measures of any kind they like. But they are absolutely not consistently following these ideas. They are pretty much just cream-skimming whatever fits their own cause. Taken from "Why I am Not a Conservative" (Friedrich A. Hayek): Connected with the conservative distrust of the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one’s self with new ideas merely deprives one of the power of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, un-British, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots. http://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 31 2018 03:48 Nyxisto wrote: Neoliberals like markets and globalisation a lot and closed border politics, both for goods services and people runs counter to it. Neoliberals are probably the sort of people to which borders are least important because borders both impede market function as well as individual rights. Well, as evidenced by reality, neoliberals have zero problem lifting borders for goods, capital and services; while closing borders for migrants deemed undesirable. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12358 Posts
On May 31 2018 03:49 Big J wrote: The thing is that conservatives have been abusing economic ideas from the neoliberals/liberterian intellectuals to justify measures of any kind they like. It's true, but is it surprising? The two work really well together. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9247 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 31 2018 03:55 TheDwf wrote: Well, as evidenced by reality, neoliberals have zero problem lifting borders for goods, capital and services; while closing borders for migrants deemed undesirable. do you have a cite/source for neoliberals closing borders to migrants frequently/significantly? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 31 2018 03:58 Nebuchad wrote: It's true, but is it surprising? The two work really well together. It's not surprising that the people in power want to keep that power and thus naturally tend towards conservativism. And it is not surprising that the powerful will play two ideologies that seek to be benefitial to the many and not the few against each other. It's a classic divide and conquer game for the conservatives. Liberalism is all about people paying their own prices. The Neo- in Neoliberalism was the idea to have a social baseline that you guarantee for (basic income, social nets) as a society. Conservativism is all about preventing that those in power will lose it, because that means change and directly challenges those in power - themselves. Conservatives will always employ liberal policies in good times and then shift power to the rich when they get challenged by change, leading in an evergrowing subventional system. With every crisis we transfer more money to postpone the change that would have happened if politicians would not have interfered. And at this point collapsing the artifical mountain they created would create such turmoil that even liberals and socialist don't want to make the rich pay their own prices, see 2008 ("because it works better"). So what happens is that we are becoming an authoritarian oligarchy in which we pay taxes for two reasons: a) prevent the poorest from starting a revolution through social nets and state subvened job creation b) indirectly transfer it upwards to increase land, capital and other intellectual values that belong to the top 1% | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 31 2018 04:03 zlefin wrote: do you have a cite/source for neoliberals closing borders to migrants frequently/significantly? Nope. I have a map of the walls built and planned in the whole world if it interests you? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 31 2018 04:13 TheDwf wrote: Nope. I have a map of the walls built and planned in the whole world if it interests you? that might be of help if you also have a map showing neoliberal influence and whether it's waxing/waning. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 31 2018 04:14 zlefin wrote: that might be of help if you also have a map showing neoliberal influence and whether it's waxing/waning. I'm afraid I don't have this | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12358 Posts
On May 31 2018 04:12 Big J wrote: Liberalism is all about people paying their own prices. The Neo- in Neoliberalism was the idea to have a social baseline that you guarantee for (basic income, social nets) as a society. Was it? Cause that's not what I've been hearing. "The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism. In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control." (here) | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 31 2018 04:20 Nebuchad wrote: Was it? Cause that's not what I've been hearing. "The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism. In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control." (here) I think in general it is safe to say that neoliberalism has been used for various philosophies. Hayek is often analyzed as a "social-democrat amongst liberals" for things like: There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [NW note: Hayek was writing not in prosperous post-war America, but in war-torn, austerity-ridden Britain in 1943] the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. https://sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/hayek-on-health-care-social-safety-nets-and-public-housing So I believe his thoughts fit my descripition of Neoliberalism rather well, though people like him usually would distance themselves from "liberal parties", which he believes to be centrists between conservatives and socialists, hence an average of two collectivist ideologies. In general the term neoliberalism used to stand for ordoliberalism in Hayek's time, which is why people like Friedman called themselves liberterian, which they believed to be true liberalism. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12358 Posts
That being said, I don't know for sure. Maybe the term has been coopted. Whichever it is, I'm under the impression that most people think of the conservative meaning when they hear neoliberalism today, and wiki seems to back that this is true... You mention Friedman, but the article says that Friedman used to identify as a neoliberal at the start (with a link that doesn't go anywhere unfortunately). | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Neoliberals aren't really Social Democrats because Social Democrats usually place institutions and regulation above individual choice when it comes to policy, but there certainly are Social Democrats and neoliberals who agree on a lot of issues and could probably work out compromises. Well, as evidenced by reality, neoliberals have zero problem lifting borders for goods, capital and services; while closing borders for migrants deemed undesirable. I don't think anybody can claim that liberalism on earth is as pure as its platonic ideal, but judging liberals this hashly for not living up to their promises coming from a left-winger is pretty funny. If we'd judge every ideology by their real-world results liberalism does better than pretty much anything else. "no real socialism" is a staple in almost every political discussion about it, have you ever heard anyone talk about 'no real liberalism'? Liberalism howerver flawed is at least measured against its actual outcomes. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 31 2018 04:47 Nebuchad wrote: I don't see how the reading that you have and the reading that was on the Guardian are compatible, I think one of them must be wrong. I haven't read Hayek obviously, so I can't tell. I find it difficult to believe that neoliberalism was invented to describe something that already existed (social democracy), and I find it difficult to believe that it would evolve to mean something so drastically opposite to what it was originally in such a small period of time... That being said, I don't know for sure. Maybe the term has been coopted. Whichever it is, I'm under the impression that most people think of the conservative meaning when they hear neoliberalism today, and wiki seems to back that this is true... You mention Friedman, but the article says that Friedman used to identify as a neoliberal at the start (with a link that doesn't go anywhere unfortunately). What you get wrong ist that early 20th century social-democracy used to be about reforming into a full-scale communist society. In Austria they called themselves "Austromarixsts". That, Keynesianism/New Deal policies is the type of social-democracy that Hayek experienced in his days with income tax rates of up to 80% and large state cooperations in producing sectors such as resource extraction, steel, coal, energy and many others. I don't think these things make the cut for what I quoted. Social-democracy only stopped being about transformation when it wasn't possible to uphold that goal, given the example of the Soviet Union (whether you believe they were socialist/communist or not is irrelevant for that point; it was just not feasable to declare yourself as someone that wants to reach communism with that picture in every Westerners head). Friedman identified as a liberal, first of all. He called Reagan a liberal. But since the American democrats identify as liberals too, and ordoliberals did as well, he often clarified what he meant and used other terms than liberal to make it clear that he wasn't a democrat. I'm sure that at one point he declared himself a neoliberal. It's a heterogenous term just like any other bigger political philosophy. Mises and Hayek/Friedman have virtually nothing in common. there's an anecdote about Mises storming out of a room accusing Hayek and Friedman of being socialists. Yes. As I said, amongst the hardcore liberals/liberterians/neoliberals (whatever you want to call them), Hayek is often regarded as a social-democrat and Friedman is frowned upon for being a monetarist. I personally believe they are all conservatives, because they force me to use money based on historicistic deductions of how money gets its value.  | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12358 Posts
On May 31 2018 05:00 Nyxisto wrote: I don't think anybody can claim that liberalism on earth is as pure as its platonic ideal, but judging liberals this hashly for not living up to their promises coming from a left-winger is pretty funny. If we'd judge every ideology by their real-world results liberalism does better than pretty much anything else. First, I'm not so sure that I couldn't do it, might be worth a try. Second, that's not what I've been doing at all. I understood neoliberalism to mean what I've explained and what wiki says it means. If it was supposed to mean something else, that's interesting. I don't know that I believe it right now, though, and I don't know the extent to which this matters given that I'm pretty sure most people follow the new definition. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Here's I think a good faith approach to the term. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12358 Posts
On May 31 2018 05:14 Nyxisto wrote: I don't think the 'new definition' is much more than a slur to be honest. It's been thrown at pretty much everything. Here's I think a good faith approach to the term. If we can agree that the type of policies described on wikipedia are insulting, that's something  | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
oh well. Then I'm simply going to disagree on the initial point on which I interjected; to my impression the neoliberals dislike closing borders to migrants. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Reynor
Maru vs SHIN
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
OSC
BSL: GosuLeague
RSL Revival
WardiTV Korean Royale
RSL Revival
WardiTV Korean Royale
IPSL
Julia vs Artosis
JDConan vs DragOn
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
