this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
643 points (94.1% liked)

You Should Know

33044 readers
659 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.



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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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 38 points 1 year ago (17 children)

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.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Most of our Dems voted to make it illegal for rail workers to strike.

[–] Martiiin 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I think our country is starting to look like the US more and more which is scary.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] utopianfiat 42 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Globalized trade is good actually

[–] aski3252 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Globalized trade has been a thing long before neo-liberalism existed, arguably longer than capitalism has existed. Equating neo-liberalism with "global/globalized trade" is incredibly reductive..

EDIT: I read the comment wrong, OP is saying that international/global trade is not inherently bad, not that neo-liberalism is the same thing as international/global trade.

[–] KuchiKopi 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't see that comment as reductive. More like pointing out a part of neo-liberalism that the commenter thought was good.

In other words, the comment is simply "globalized economy is good." The comment is not what you're inferring: "neo-liberalism is good because globalized economy is good "

[–] utopianfiat 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes this is actually what I meant.

I do not subscribe to neoliberal economics- if anything I'm just left of the average Keynesian.

[–] aski3252 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you for clearifying, I have misinterpreted your comment in that case.

[–] KuchiKopi 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I love how civil everyone is being! And I appreciate that you edited your earlier comment.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KuchiKopi 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yep, the best way to prevent rich powerful assholes from getting us into huge wars is to make it extremely unprofitable. Don't want to kill your market or labor force. Don't want to disrupt your supply chain. Etc.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Gabu 12 points 1 year ago

Much more than globalized trade, globalized sharing of knowledge, awareness and circumstance - perhaps even globalized power, one day. The fight against capitalism will definitely require a great plan to take global communication away from private capital.

[–] wclinton93 6 points 1 year ago (35 children)

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

[–] kautau 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] drmoose 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It almost feels like political labels are there to deceive and confuse people or the political science is a meme that can't be trusted to name things. I swear, majority of political conflict is just people misunderstanding each other.

[–] Sorenchu 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm writing a thesis that has significant support that the United States is and has, with the exception of about 30 years of progressive policy, been a plutocracy. The divisions in put country are by design. Division among racial lines, political affiliation, religious affiliation, professions, etc. are used to prevent the unification of the laboring class and dissuade us from collectively recognizing and challenging the status quo. The working people of this country have far more in common than not, but the political and moneyed class sow division via these wedge issues to prevent radical change - which would likely shift the US toward Scandinavian style social democracy.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BeautifulMind 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The thing to get about deregulation in this context is that it's a misleading term- 'deregulation' doesn't mean un-doing regulation, it means handing regulatory authority over from democratically-accountable regulators, to private regulators that are less-accountable and often have interests at odds with those of the public.

In feudal times, regulation of trade or business was left to trade associations or guilds (who got to write their own rules that were typically rubber-stamped by the local nobility's younger son) and that system more or less translated into today's modern republics, up until the guilds and trade associations became trusts and monopolies. When the democratic regulatory state emerged to regulate spheres of business like banking and polluting industry because private regulators shat the bed, that was a shot in a war that the old guard business elites haven't stopped fighting- they saw this as a taking of their power, and have sustained decades of effort to hand public authority back over to private trade associations

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, while you're 100% correct about neoliberalism not belonging to either the left or the right, your basic description of neoliberalism isn't correct. What you describe (deregulation, positive valuation of wealth generation, free markets, etc) is just liberal capitalism.

Neoliberalism names the extension of market-based rationalities into putatively non-market realms of life. Meaning, neoliberalism is at play when people deploy cost/benefit, investment/return, or other market-based logics when analysing options, making decisions, or trying to understand aspects of life that aren't properly markets, such as politics, morality/ethics, self-care, religion, culture, etc.

A concrete example is when people describe or rationalize self-care as a way to prepare for the workweek. Yoga, in this example, becomes of an embodiment of neoliberalism: taking part in yoga is rationalized as an investment in self that results in greater productivity.

Another example: how it seems that most every public policy decision is evaluated in terms of its economic viability, and if it isn't economically viable (in terms of profit/benefit exceeding cost/investment) then it is deemed a bad policy. This is a market rationality being applied to realms of life that didn't used to be beholden to market rationalities.

Hence the "neo" in "neoliberalism" is about employing the logics of liberalism (liberal capitalism, I should say) into new spheres of life.

A good (re)source for this would be Foucault's Birth of Biopolitics lectures, which trace the shift from Liberalism to Neoliberalism. As well, there's excellent literature coming out of anthropology about neoliberalism at work in new spheres, in particular yoga, which is why I used it as my example here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (13 children)

centre-left

This is misleading. Neoliberalism is inherently capitalist, not socialist/communist.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

All left-right political terminology is inherently subjective, so you can argue neoliberalism is promoted by center-left parties as long as you're defining the center as being to the right of that. Since this post seems to be about the United States, that center is already pretty far to the right as measured from, say, Denmark (picked a name out of a hat). I think the bigger argument here is about US-defaultism rather than whether or not it's OK for Americans to describe things in terms that relate to their political climate.

EDIT: I think the comment I'm replying to is confusing people. Replying solely to the words "center-left" makes it seem like the OP described neoliberalism as center-left, which people are objecting to. However, the OP only used the phrase center-left once, to say that American center-right and center-left parties have enacted neoliberal policy. As a statement of fact, the Democrats have enacted neoliberal policy. By American standards, the Democrats are regarded as center-left. This does not mean the OP was saying "neoliberalism is a center-left ideology." There is an argument to be made here that the Democrats are not a center-left party, but I think the issue is getting confused here because people are reacting as if the thing being described as "center-left" is neoliberalism, when it's actually the Democratic Party.

[–] CascadeDismayed 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What you said makes zero sense. Neoliberalism is distinctly NOT a left wing ideology. To even try and associate them makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Can we not bring this energy over from Reddit? You're arguing with something I didn't even say. We both agree, neoliberalism is not a left wing ideology. I didn't say that, the OP didn't say that, I don't know who you're even talking to with that remark.

What the OP said is that American center-left and center-right parties have both been proponents of neoliberalism. The only part of this that's remotely controversial is whether it's accurate to describe any American political parties as "center-left". From a global perspective, you can easily argue that that's not accurate. Go for it. From an American perspective, there are parties who are to the left of the (American) center. The Democrats are both center-left from the American perspective and proponents of neoliberalism. To restate: That does not mean that neoliberalism is a center-left or any other kind of leftist ideology. It only means what it says.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] menemen 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

It's kinda sad how classical social democracy is basically dead nowadays. Here in Europe they are almost all neoliberals and some (like in Denmark) even start to mix this with right wing social policies.

Slightly OT comment from me, so sorry.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Phantom_Engineer 20 points 1 year ago

Yeah, and it sucks. Eff the neoliberals. All my homies hate neoliberals.

[–] Candelestine 15 points 1 year ago

And tbf, the portion of the right that is legit fascist kinda actually hates all those things. They've no love at all for their more economically-oriented allies.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I would add that liberal means something different in USA vs. the rest of the world... so when a non-US progressive uses liberal as an insult someone in the USA should probably interpret that closer to what we'd call a neoliberal in the US.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

And when conservatives use it they just mean "not conservative".

The word has vanishingly little meaning at this point. Anytime you see someone using it implies ignorance or disingenuousness, more typically the former than the latter.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nah.

We mean liberal, it’s only in the US that liberal means something different.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ultranaut 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've also recently noticed people claiming to be "neoliberals" but apparently meaning something like "progressive Democrat" and it's really confusing so I appreciate this post. It's already bad enough "liberal" has a bunch of different definitions, pretending neoliberalism is something else isn't going to help anything or anyone.

[–] Nihilistic_Mystics 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Much the same way people on the left have been adopting the Republican definition of socialism, as in any time the government does anything. Like having basic welfare or some such suddenly equals socialism.

Now people have been overusing neoliberal so much that the ill informed have started using it for people that are clearly pro government spending, pro social safety net, pro regulation, etc. Discussion becomes unhelpful when people redefine the means by with we identify ideologies.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] zombuey 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sheep hear these terms from talking heads on tv and radio. Those talking heads don't know and/or don't care what those terms actually mean. They only care that the sheep don't know what they mean. That way they can apply whatever traits they need to apply to them to illicit an emotional response they need, then apply that term to the entity or event they want to target. Then the sheep regurgitate those arguments to others convincing fellow sheep and gaslighting others with their stupidity. One of the reasons arguing with these people is so pointless. You may as well be arguing with a voice recorder they have no idea what they are saying and an appeal to logic is useless as they are incapable of such a thing. I've actually broke people a few times where the just begin looping and eventually they just break and devolve into racism or some similar bigoted viewpoint these pundits latch onto for their appeal to emotion.

[–] ZapBeebz_ 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

ELI5: The difference between neoliberal (as defined above) and libertarianism.

[–] kabe 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Neoliberalism is more focused on free trade and globalism, whereas libertarianism focus more on individual liberties and minimal governmental intervention in all aspects of society, not just economically.

Sorry if that's not ELI5, but that's the gist.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] metic 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right-wing libertarians (this is another term with two very different meanings) are neoliberal absolutists. Center-right and center-left politicians usually have to compromise with other sets of ideals. Marijuana decriminalization and legalization is one area where right-wing politicians typically preference the social conservative side over the neoliberal/libertarian side. For a center-left example look at the Affordable Care Act. From the beginning Obama was never going to favor a true nationalized health care plan. He offered compromises within the existing framework like state exchanges.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

On the ACA, basing it off of Romney-care was the most "no feathers to be ruffled here" play Obama could have made for such a system. Funnier still, I believe Romney got that plan handed to him by The Heritage Foundation. It would only take the "Dem" side of the coin proposing it for it to be labeled as communism coming for America.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's a good short article about neoliberalism that helps distinguish it from libertarianism.

In short, I'd say libertarians view free markets as an end in themselves; and neoliberals view free markets as a powerful means to generate wealth and prosperity, but are realistic about the needs for state intervention either to address market failures or to distribute the wealth created (which, as the article notes, is something markets aren't always good at).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Democrats are neo-liberals, republicans are fascists, who would you like to fuck you in the ass first

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jerrimu 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Many leftists ( myself included) also have started to referring to neoliberals and other slightly-left centrists as just liberals" If you go right or left enough on the spectrum, liberal is an insult.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies2 7 points 1 year ago

The biggest thing to mention about neoliberals is that they are strongly pro student loan debt slavery.

load more comments
view more: next ›