You Should Know

33763 readers

1097 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.

Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.

Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban.

Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

644

YSK that “neoliberal” refers to a discrete set of economic policies including deregulation, privatization, and so-called “free trade” implemented by both center-right and center-left parties (self.youshouldknow)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by metic to c/youshouldknow

198 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Aceticon 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don't think it's possible for one's definition of leftwing and rightwing to float just like that if one's politics are anchored in principles, though I can see how the tribalist unthinking parroty crowd will follow their political tribe to wherever the tribe "leaders" take it hence end up so deep rightwing (whilst thinking they're lefties) that at times they parrot fascist shit with just a few words changed.

Personally, all it takes for me is to examine what party leaders do and say in light of the "the greatest good for the greatest numbers" principle to see if a party is at least paying lip-service to leftwing ideals or not and it's quite interesting how so many self-proclaimed leftwing parties seem to have a long list of priorities far above and beyond abiding by said principle.

For example, in light of that principle it would make sense to do what's "good for business" when the businesses in question are good for people, but those two things are completelly detached in today's policy making which is purelly about maximizing outcomes for businesses and people can (and do) get screwed - something clearly not abiding by the second part of the "greatest good for the greatest number" principle. Ditto for the whole obcession with "GDP Growth" - a country's GDP going up is completelly useless if said growth doesn't actually help most people and is even a negative if it comes on the back of making life worse for many or even most (for example, all the GDP "growth" from house price inflation is screwing a lot more people than it helps).