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.

  • @wclinton93
    link
    English
    61 year ago

    On the whole, for sure. But that doesn’t make it any more palatable for workers when jobs are relocated from their area.

    • @kautau
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      Or the workers in the nation where the work is moved, and since companies are min-maxing their profits with no regulation, you have factories with suicide nets

      • Bill Stickers
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I won’t completely dispute your point regarding suicide nets. But I would add context that these “factories” have 200k workers that live there in dormitories away from their families. Suicide rates of the general population is about 10 per 100,000. So you’d expect 20 suicides per year from the workforce just based on statistics. Suicide nets just make sure they don’t do it that way and force trauma on bystanders.

        I have no idea if the conditions at Foxconn increase (shitty paying job that treats you like slaves including locking you in at night) or decrease (well paying job with food and accomodation taken care of, and security when you sleep) suicide rates. It really depends on your outlook, and I’m sure both views are held by people working there.

    • @utopianfiat
      link
      English
      41 year ago

      Right, but that’s less of a consequence of Globalization and more of a consequence of our national economy being structured in a way that offsets risk onto the most vulnerable working class folks. If we had universal healthcare not reliant on employment, reskilling assistance, and some kind of basic income, it would be easier to both protect people and reap the benefits of Globalization.

      • @queermunist
        link
        English
        51 year ago

        our national economy being structured in a way that offsets risk onto the most vulnerable working class folks

        i.e. neoliberalism

        Internationalism is good. Globalism is not. All globalism means is open borders for capital and hard borders for workers.

        • @utopianfiat
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          Globalism when used by like 95% of people includes dropping immigration restrictions, so I’m not sure what you’re on about here.

          • @queermunist
            link
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not really. They emphasize “legal” immigration, by which they mean a series of restrictions on how people are allowed to enter the country and what qualifies them to become citizens. The actual implementation of neoliberal policies always includes strict border controls, limited asylum seeking, 2nd class citizenship for migrants, and harsh penalties for migrating “wrong” and not jumping through all the legal and financial hoops.

            Capital moving freely while migrants die in the Mojave and drown in the Mediterranean.

            • @utopianfiat
              link
              English
              -21 year ago

              Again, 95% of people who use the term “globalist” to describe someone else associate it with open borders. I’m not sure what you’re on about here.

              • @queermunist
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                People who describe themselves as globalists generally reject the idea of open borders. Labor visas, not the free movement of labor.

                What you’re talking about is a smear, not reality.

                • @utopianfiat
                  link
                  English
                  -11 year ago

                  I describe myself as a globalist and I explicitly believe in open borders. I’m not sure what you’re on about here.

                  • @queermunist
                    link
                    English
                    4
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I think it’s pretty clear “what I’m on about.” I’ve explained it pretty thoroughly, even if you keep just repeating yourself.

                    What are you on about?

                    Do you believe in the concept of citizenship, with different legal rules for citizens vs noncitizens?

              • BeautifulMind ♾️
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                When you’re talking about neoliberalism, ‘globalism’ also has a lot to do with trade and international finance- from the 1940s (after fallout of the great depression and the World Wars) Keynesian economics was ‘in’, and international lending agreements upheld countries’ ability to conduct nation-level managed/mixed economies- but when the neoliberals swung into power, the new order of the day was to strip countries of their self-managing ability in ways that made them accessible to/exploitable by global conglomerates and corporations:

                At Bretton Woods in 1944, the use of fixed exchange rates and controls on speculative private capital, plus the creation of the IMFand World Bank, were intended to allow member countries to practice national forms of managed capitalism, insulated from the destructive and deflationary influences of short-term speculative private capital flows. As doctrine and power shifted in the 1970s, the IMF, the World Bank, and later the WTO, which replaced the old GATT, mutated into their ideological opposite. Rather than instruments of support for mixed national economies, they became enforcers of neoliberal policies.

                The standard package of the “Washington Consensus” of approved policies for developing nations included demands that they open their capital markets to speculative private finance, as well as cutting taxes on capital, weakening social transfers, and gutting labor regulation and public ownership. ~ https://prospect.org/economy/neoliberalism-political-success-economic-failure/

                So, in this sense, ‘globalization’ not just the opening of borders for labor and immigration, it is the swing away from ‘nationalization’ of economies and of national economic sovereignty, to prevent countries from impeding the flow of capital (and corporate power) into and out of their borders on behalf of global finance and colonial power

                • @utopianfiat
                  link
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  “National economic sovereignty” meaning what, exactly?

                  • BeautifulMind ♾️
                    link
                    English
                    0
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It’s the notion that by being a country you should be able to make and enforce your own economic policies for the benefit of your citizenry instead of, for example, for the benefit of outside capital.

                    In reality, the right of countries to do basic things like enforce their own labor regulations and put limits on outside capital’s access to their resources (or to publicly own resources) has been deeply infringed upon if not outright violated; look at how United Fruit basically toppled governments that put worker’s rights or land ownership rules at odds with company profits.

                    The rest of this conversation talks a lot about ‘globalism’, I brought up ‘national economic sovereignty’ to distinguish economic self-rule from the kind of globalized rule that turned countries into banana republics, essentially ruled by puppets on behalf of foreign corporate interests.