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.

  • queermunist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

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

      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.

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

            Just reminding you of reality - US citizenship never looked like open borders, even before the Immigration Act during the outset of America.

            Also? The very act of sending a letter to declare your intent to remain in America is, itself, a citizenship test. You needed to know how to read and write in the King’s English, after all.

          • afraid_of_zombies2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes what does education have to do with the global economy. Clearly nothing.

            Why don’t you just admit your views on the topic?

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

              Why don’t you just admit your views on the topic?

              Because answering random trivia about my views isn’t relevant to the conversation, I have explained this over and over.

              Why are you so insistent on engaging in bad faith whataboutism? You clearly have some view in mind that you think I hold. Why don’t you say what it is first so I can tell you that you’re wrong and we can stop this masturbatory fantasy of yours before you waste any more of my free time?