Ship of Fools: Neoliberal

Thread: Neoliberal Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026685

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

I have heard this term used several times recently to describe our own Government, and Prof Chomsky has used it of the US Government as well, in this article;

http://www.mintpressnews.com/chomsky-describes-us-domestic-policy-two-words-pure-savagery/176802/

Can someone help me with this; what does neoliberal denote? I would prefer this not to fall into polemic; what I would like to know is what are the origins of this term, who coined it, and what is the relation of neoliberal to liberal? Is it simply a term of abuse?

Stuff like that; I am sure you get the general idea. Many thanks.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Let's see: as I understand it, the idea is that nineteenth century liberals, in between campaigning for religious toleration and free speech, wanted the Government to dismantle protectionist taxes on trade, and generally to stop interfering with trade and commerce.
After the crash and Great Depression and the Second World War, the economic consensus was that just letting the economy get on by itself with no government management was a bad idea. So governments saw their job as carefully encouraging the economy. Neoliberals, coming into power in the late seventies and eighties, believe that the government should not interfere with the economy, but should let the economy run itself (at least when it suits the financial sector and large companies). They're called 'neo' because they're new, and 'liberal' because they claim to follow the precedent of the nineteenth century liberals.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I think your link may be broken. So instead I had a quick peak at that most accurate of websites, Wikipedia which has this to say:

"Neoliberalism was an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s attempting to trace a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and collectivist central planning."

Nowadays, from what I read, it seems to be a general term for someone who supports market deregulation and a lack of state influence upon the economy.

I'm not so sure how that applies to the Obama administration, but then, I am never entirely sure what is really happening in US politics amongst all the heavily biased news sources.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let's see: as I understand it, the idea is that nineteenth century liberals, in between campaigning for religious toleration and free speech, wanted the Government to dismantle protectionist taxes on trade, and generally to stop interfering with trade and commerce.
After the crash and Great Depression and the Second World War, the economic consensus was that just letting the economy get on by itself with no government management was a bad idea. So governments saw their job as carefully encouraging the economy. Neoliberals, coming into power in the late seventies and eighties, believe that the government should not interfere with the economy, but should let the economy run itself (at least when it suits the financial sector and large companies). They're called 'neo' because they're new, and 'liberal' because they claim to follow the precedent of the nineteenth century liberals.

That all sounds reasonable, and makes sense.

It seems not to be the way it is used, however. It seems to be used of policies aimed at weak and vulnerable people. I am not sure what is liberal about those policies.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I think your link may be broken. So instead I had a quick peak at that most accurate of websites, Wikipedia which has this to say:

"Neoliberalism was an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s attempting to trace a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and collectivist central planning."

Nowadays, from what I read, it seems to be a general term for someone who supports market deregulation and a lack of state influence upon the economy.

I'm not so sure how that applies to the Obama administration, but then, I am never entirely sure what is really happening in US politics amongst all the heavily biased news sources.

Sorry about the link. A quick search for Chomsky and savagery will find the article. I would put another link, but the chances are it would be just as bad.

Once again, I understand the way you and Wiki explain it. I don't understand the way it is being used to describe policies either here or in the US aimed at non working or vulnerable people. Unless the lack of state interference extends to those starving on the streets; then perhaps I can understand a bit more.

[ 11. January 2014, 14:01: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

"Liberal" in this case denotes negative freedom, freedom from something external. Classic Liberals and Neoliberals both believe "economic freedom" from "restraint of trade" is essential to liberty.

You can trace the evolution in the Liberal Party of Canada, which was pure Gladstonian Liberal under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, dipped its toe in socialism under Mackenzie-King, went rather Socialist under Pearson and Trudeau and back to Neoliberal under Chretien.

Socialists and Social Democrats instead believe in Positive Freedom, the possession of ability and resource to achieve one's potential. Your comments about the Poor are pure Positive Liberty, Ango-Catholic Relict. [Smile]

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

The problem is that the meaning of "liberal" has changed. At first, in the late-eighteenth into the nineteenth century, it referred to the captialist individualistic free-market types who wanted to run their businesses and lives as they saw fit with no interference from government or anyone else. They believed that the "invisible hand" of the market would bring about the best results for all, and prosperity for all who worked for it. They were the emerging middle class. Charles Dickens's Scrooge was a pretty good representative of this kind of liberal.

"Conservative" at that time would refer to someone who hankered for the pre-Industrial Revolution social order where the aristocracy ruled over the peasantry, and there was no pesky middle class becoming wealthy and upsetting the natural order of things.

But in the first part of the twentieth century, "liberal" began to be applied to those who favoured some degree of government intervention in the market and the economy. "Conservative" shifted to refer to those who were "classical liberals" as described above. Why this happened, I don't know. It's one of those funny things that happens to words.

"Neoliberal" harkens back to the original meaning of "liberal", and essentially means the same as "conservative" and "neo-conservative" today. When I'm copyediting anything to do with political science or economics, I often find authors using these three terms interchangeably (and I ask them to choose one term and stick with it).

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
I don't understand the way it is being used to describe policies either here or in the US aimed at non working or vulnerable people. Unless the lack of state interference extends to those starving on the streets; then perhaps I can understand a bit more.

I think the idea is indeed that the state doesn't interfere with people starving on the streets. Or, at least, that the state doesn't interfere with big business by raising enough taxes to stop people starving on the streets.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Lothiriel: But in the first part of the twentieth century, "liberal" began to be applied to those who favoured some degree of government intervention in the market and the economy. "Conservative" shifted to refer to those who were "classical liberals" as described above. Why this happened, I don't know. It's one of those funny things that happens to words.

I think this shift happened mostly in North America. In most of Western Europe, 'liberal' still means someone who favours little government intervention in the market. Liberal political parties in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany ... are right-wing.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And the shift happened in Great Britain, too. When the Liberal Party largely fell apart in the 1920s, a lot of the New Liberals (the interventionist social liberals who, to simplify a bit, had driven a lot of the Asquith government's welfare innovations) joined the Labour Paarty, while a lot of the more classical ones joined the Conservatives.
At the end of the 1990s the Liberal Democrats were, arguably, the most left-wing of the three main British parties. Under Nick Clegg- whose mother is Dutch, whose wife is Spanish, and who had his political formation as an MEP- their leadership have moved much more towards the Continental Liberal model.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

There is truth in all these posts. Anglo-Catholic Relict - if you want to pursue what "liberal" may mean in different contexts, then following up the summary that Sober Preachers Kid suggested is a good one. That appreciation that there are different forms of liberty that may pull in opposite directions is usually ascribed to Isaiah Berlin, whose "Two Concepts of Liberty" is well worth reading. Wikipedia summary here.

It's also helpful - though it should be obvious by now - to bear in mind that "Conservative" and "Liberal" are by no means opposites.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I think it has to do with so many people not understanding that definitions change to suit the political needs of the time and place.

Try "Credo of a Conservative" for an example of the definition changing in the US

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Neo-liberalism is often associated, with not just ideological politics at the State level but at the global level, especially regarding international organizations such as the WTO and the World Bank.

Neo-liberalism is understood as the ideology pervading structural adjustment policies in which nations make policy in order to restrain inflation and enable unrestricted trade between the global north and the global south. Critics of this ideology argue that neo-liberalism does not take into account issues of power imbalance between countries. It is one thing for countries that are equal in economic power and stability to trade freely together. It is quite another thing for country X with strong economies and big corporations to trade with poorer countries with weaker infrastructure and weak controls against corruption and low wages. Neo-liberalism is also faulted for seeing that public goods such as healthcare, education, and other means of government intervention in the economy are worthless in the grand scheme of international trade.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Lothiriel wrote:

quote:
But in the first part of the twentieth century, "liberal" began to be applied to those who favoured some degree of government intervention in the market and the economy. "Conservative" shifted to refer to those who were "classical liberals" as described above. Why this happened, I don't know. It's one of those funny things that happens to words.

One can sort of detect a dim continuity between classical liberalism(eg. Gladsrone) and reform liberalism(eg. Lloyd George, FDR), but it's kind of hard to articulate exactly what it is, at least with a schematum that will find wide agreement.

I suppose one way of looking at it is to emphasize that both varieties base their vision of a good society on a strong middle class. The classical libs thought that the duty of the government was simply to get out of the way and let the middle-class do it's thing, in terms of generating wealth and the subsequent flowering of human freedom.

The reformers, by contrast, think that in the modern era unrestrained market-forces can severely hinder the maintenance of a strong middle class(by pushing its existing members down into poverty and by thwarting the upward rise of lower-class aspirants), and so advocate a modicum of state intervention to tame said forces.

Socialist parties originally had a vision that went somewhat beyond this, and was not simply content with getting as many people as possible into the middle class. These days, however, their agenda, in actual practice, pretty much amounts to doing just that.

[ 12. January 2014, 00:18: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

In Canada, at the Federal level, the change from classical liberal to "liberal-socialist" (if you will) came about due to destruction of the Two Party System and the near-death of the Liberal Party in WWI. Canada had the bitter, divisive Conscription Election of 1917. The English-speaking Liberals joined the Conservatives in the Union Government under Borden, leaving Sir Wilfrid Laurier to lead the "Laurier Liberals" against Conscription. They carried Quebec and nowhere else. It bitterly divided the country and it took years to get over the wounds. Mackenzie-King successfully rebuilt the Liberal Party nearly from scratch starting in 1920 and did so largely by throwing doctrine to the wind.

Canada has never had a straight two-party system since 1917. In 1921 the Progressives appeared, many were disaffected Liberals from the Prairies. The Progressives tried to be decentralized and "democratic" and it led to their demise. They were more of a tendency than a party. One faction, the Ginger Group, passed into the CCF, today's NDP. Another went over to Social Credit.

The Progressives one great achievement was to goad Mackenzie-King's Liberals into introducing Old Age Pensions in 1927; their support was needed in a minority Parliament, Canada's first. That legislation was the first-ever social programme at the federal level in Canada.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
"Liberal" in this case denotes negative freedom, freedom from something external. Classic Liberals and Neoliberals both believe "economic freedom" from "restraint of trade" is essential to liberty.

You can trace the evolution in the Liberal Party of Canada, which was pure Gladstonian Liberal under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, dipped its toe in socialism under Mackenzie-King, went rather Socialist under Pearson and Trudeau and back to Neoliberal under Chretien.

Socialists and Social Democrats instead believe in Positive Freedom, the possession of ability and resource to achieve one's potential. Your comments about the Poor are pure Positive Liberty, Ango-Catholic Relict.

How lovely. [Smile]

Sometimes when I ask a question the answer seems to be that it is far too complex for me to understand. I am rather ashamed of my lack of knowledge.

I know my grandfathers were both coal miners, that my dad was a builder because his mother refused to let him go down the mine, and that my two brothers and myself are/were professionals. Two of us have run our own companies; one is abroad establishing financial structures in developing countries.

I also know that this could not have been achieved without someone having a vision for education and for further education, and persuading enough other people to contribute towards paying for that. And that, left to market forces, the world would look very different indeed.

Which must mean I am indeed not neoliberal; survival of the fittest is not an economic model that I would find attractive. Free trade within a certain environment is understandable as encouraging economic activity, but I think what you describe goes further than that.

Thank you for the explanation.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

It is going to take me some time to read and understand the other replies, but I would like to thank you all.

Your thoughtful and detailed responses are very much appreciated; I think I am getting a much clearer picture.

No doubt more questions will follow, in due course ...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0