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.

  • Ronno@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Watching from a far (The Netherlands), it always amazed me how the political scale in the US is described. Even the democrats in the US feel more to the right, then positioned in the US. Some people go as far to call democrats communist, but I don’t think these people know what communist really is, in the same way that Americans don’t seem to know what (neo)liberal actually is. It is both entertaining and concerning to watch.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, the idea that Democrats are center-left is hilarious - by the standards in most of Europe, they’re not even center-right, just plain rightwing, whilst the Republicans are pretty much far-right (given their heavy religious, ultra-nationalis, anti-immigrant and warmongering - amongst others - rethoric).

      The Overtoon Window has moved to the Right everywhere but in the US it did way much further than in most of Europe.

      As for the whole neoliberalism stuff, it’s pretty easy to spot the neoliberal parties even when they’ve disguised themselves as leftwing or (genuine) conservatives: they’re the ones always obcessing about what’s good for businesses whilst never distinguishing between businesses which are good for people and society and those which aren’t: in other words, they don’t see businesses (and hence what’s “good for businesses”) as a means to the end of being “good for people” (i.e. “good for businesses which are good for people hence good for people”) but as an end in itself quite independently of what that does for people.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t confuse Identity Politics, aka “We care only about that inequality which doesn’t involve the priviledges of wealth” as leftwing.

          Those who disregard the biggest inequality of treatment there is by a HUGE margin (that of wealth) and only care about those inequalities which can be “fixed” without putting their own inherited priviledges (usually from being born in the high middle-class and above) at risk aren’t lefties as they’re not really fighting for the greatest good for the greatest number.

          The kind of liberalism that ignores the power of money and ownership to constraint others’ freedom of action is incompatible with getting the greatest outcome for the greatest number because they see restrictions of accumulation of wealth and resources and anti-freedom and it’s been painfully obvious for decades that maximization of the greatest good for the greatest number is the exact opposite of the direction of concentration of wealth and ownership we have been travelling on.

          • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Turning the other way while migrants drown in the Mediterranean isn’t “Identity Politics” and the insistence on cultural homogenization and labeling plurinationalism “Identity Politics” is very typical of European right-wing social ideology that pervades the parties in power.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Now you’re just using an “appeal to emotion” falacy.

              A person who genuinelly wants to help others LOGICALLY starts by the ones most in need, and those are mainly those living in horrible conditions in refugee camps, not those who have a few thousand dollars to pay a trafficker.

              Your barelly disguised neoliberal take on Equality with “oh so obvious” late XXth century marketing shaped appeals to emotion and eternaly repeated unthinking slogans which are fashionable within certain tribes (and hence social tokens of group membership amongst that crowd, who really are just in it for the sweet social ego-stroking) isn’t left-wing, it isn’t even a genuine want to do good by others, since it doesn’t obbey even the basic logic of “to do the most good you start by those in most need” something which would force looking at wealth inequality.

              The internal-inconsistencies needed to exclude wealth inequality from that bundle of easilly parroted marketing slogans that portrays to be a political theory that fights Equality are so large, that even the idea that help should be allocated by need not by “insert easilly visibly characteristice people were born with” is seen as a threat.

                • Aceticon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Your very first sentence on your post was about how those who disagree with your politics are “ignoring people dying”.

                  People making genuine, logical and well-founded arguments don’t start by claiming that those who disagree with them are closing their eyes to the death of others.

                  Yours wasn’t just an Appeal to Emotion Falacy, it was a particularly bad taste and sleazy one.

                  • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s particularly notable that you’ve spent a great deal of time accusing me of leveraging logical fallacies while you’ve spent basically no time denying my contention that across the political spectrum European parties are starkly against immigration whatsoever, with the farthest right wings of them arguing that there’s no obligation to recognize the citizenship of colonial nationals.

                    If that doesn’t work for you we can talk about how Romani are treated in Europe too.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You need to understand, our two party system is not part of the actual government as it was designed. They are basically a pack of oligarchs running a good cop-bad cop routine on the electorate.

      Our voting system naturally favors this dynamic. Anywhere you see “first past the post”, ask if the people feel like they’re voting for the leaders they’d prefer, or against the candidates that scare them the most. Oligarchic duopoly is the dominant game theoretic strategy inherent to FPTP.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I actually come from a country with a mathematically rigged voting system (not quite as much as the US, but still the current guys in power got 41% of votes and have an absolute parliamentary majority with 52% of parliamentary representatives) but lived for almost a decade in The Netherlands (which has Proportional Vote) as well as about the same in the UK (which is more like the US in that regard than the rest of Europe) and my impression is that there are 2 things pushing that dynamic in countries with such rigged voting systems vs the ones with Proportional Vote like The Netherlands:

        • People do a lot of tactical voting in FPTP and similar because they can’t find electable parties whose combination of ideas of how the country and society should be managed aligns mostly with theirs, so they vote for a “lesser evil” and often driven by “kicking the bad guys out” rather than “bring the good guys in”. This makes it seem like the parties of the de facto power duopoly are more representative than they really are - in a PV system they wouldn’t get anywhere as many votes because even people with niche takes on politics would find viable representation in parties with a much more similar take so wouldn’t vote for them and would in fact be more likelly to vote positivelly rather than negativelly.
        • The press itself in countries with the representative allocation systems rigged for power duopoly tends to present most subjects as having two sides only. This is complete total bollocks: people are complicated, social systems are complicated and almost no social/economic subject out there is so simple that there are only two reasonable ways of handling it and no more than two. This kind trains the public to look at things as two sided, reinforcing the idea that the system is representative as well as the us-vs-them mindless tribalism and even bipartisanism rather than the politics of consensus building.
      • zombuey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have two organizations that peddle in power. The GOP and The DNC. They are private “non-profit” companies. They have employees and everything and they are free to do whatever is needed to push the candidate they think will best serve their needs first. They both sell that power to clients. These days those clients are more direct and they collect through campaign donations, job guarantees, speaking fees, consulting contracts through families, trade deals, stock tips, family opportunities, Since Citizen’s United PAC money, and sometimes but rarely nowadays direct pay offs. The corruption is right in the open the difference between here and elsewhere is its all perfectly legal.

        • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re not wrong, but I’d warn against any false equivalency here. It’s a pretty simple ethical dilemma and the least we can do is minimize the harm being done by the system with our votes.

          • zombuey@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wasn’t comparing them at all. If one or the others interest happen to better align with yours then thats a happy coincidence. For all but 1% of Americans the DNC will better align with their interests and covers a far more diverse group of interests. Just don’t confuse that with your interests being priority for them outside of their need for your support.

            • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Just elaborating on your point, not disagreeing at all. One can be better while both are shamefully lacking in many structural ways.

      • Ronno@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah agreed. Last elections I wasn’t really sure what to vote on anymore, the political landscape is becoming to extreme for my taste. There are virtually no center parties anymore, especially when you exclude the religious related parties. With the recent election and the debates, the media is also trying to create a left versus right, which is a very strange thing to do in our system.

        In the end, it would be nice to just have a government that cares about its people and future, they have made way too many mistakes over the past decade, mistakes that were avoidable if only they had listened. Cases in point: reversing the student grant system, pushing important government tasks to local governments (while reducing their budget) and the whole childcare debacle. Literally for all of these f*ups, the government was warned by experts…

      • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I dunno at least we switch leaders every eight years. The Rutte government is about to hit year 14, right?

        • Ronno@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, not fond of this situation either. Would love to have the same rule of capping the number of years someone could be in office. Additionally, I would also love to see a cap on the age someone could become (minister) president, something like max 10 years above nation average. I don’t think someone at 80 could create the required policies, since that person will not have to live under them, nor will that person be connected to the average person in terms of values.

          • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not a big fan of explicit age limits encoded in law- it strikes me as a poor proxy for something you’re trying to guard against (someone who can be (re-)elected despite being physically and mentally unfit to execute the office). One could also argue that a person at 80 is a great representative for elders who are very often abused and given substandard care.