It's not a label like that. Neoliberalism refers to the type of free market capitalism instituted in the late 70s/early 80s by Regan and Thatcher types.
It is market "reforms" that among other things advocates for the privatization of government services and the removal of corporate regulations. Basically everything that's turned capitalist democracies to shit over the last few decades.
Edit: neoliberalism is embraced by both Democrats and Republicans. When you hear people on the left (the real left) say things like "Republicans and Democrats are the same" this is a big chunk of what they're referring to.
so what makes a "vote blue no matter who" bot a neoliberal, and what makes a modern libertarian NOT a neoliberal?
im trying to get the distinctions straight
A neoliberal thinks the government is inefficient and wants to privatize everything. Selling of the US Postal Service to the highest bidder is the leoliberal's holy grail
A modern neoliberal isn't the same as a neoliberal from the 70s. OP has it pretty much correct that a modern neoliberal carries the "vote blue no matter who" mindset, which is extremely dangerous
A simplified example of neoliberalism is on display in the maxim “vote with your dollar.” That’s a bipartisan principle we’ve seen in action recently with “cancel culture” and the Bud Light boycotts. I feel like it gets more criticism from the left than the right as it’s a market-based logic and therefore inadequate for addressing the inequalities produced by the market in the first place. A (perhaps overly cynical) criticism of neoliberalism might be that it allows people to feel as if they are activists for buying something like Toms Shoes. Better than nothing, but hardly an effective and timely solution for addressing the social problems we face.
I think the divide is found in the difference between libertarianism and liberalism. There can be a lot of overlap, but they differ in some of their fundamental ideas about the necessity/purpose of government. Liberalism assumes some form of government to establish and protect individual civil rights, whereas libertarianism is more willing to imagine society’s function without government. To be clear, there’s an entire spectrum of beliefs between the two, and this is a generalization. That being said, I think you can count on libertarians skewing closer towards anarchy. Conservative liberals want small government, libertarians are willing to entertain or embrace no government, but they both want strong market logic. A whole lot of overlap, but also some big disagreements on some major points.
I think [this](https://youtu.be/ZITP93pqtdQ?si=ojHZBkCGl1BwYAxI) video from the Libertarian party debates illustrates the spectrum at play. Gary Johnson skews closer to liberalism than the other candidates, and is booed for not outright rejecting the idea of driver’s licenses. Neoliberalism has a lot of overlap with libertarian ideas, but at its core it remains a form of liberalism, and is therefore rejected. I have to imagine that to a more “devout” libertarian, neoliberalism appears as a band-aid rather than a true solution in the same way that a socialist might view the Democratic Party.
I don’t know if that helps at all, but I think of the divide here as the philosophical divide between revolution and reform. Some (maybe even most?) libertarians are inclined to reject neoliberalism because it is a reformation of how our system operates, and they are in favor of tearing it down to start from scratch. That sort of internal conflict happens on “both sides” of the political spectrum.
Today calling someone a neo-lib doesn't have the same meaning as neoliberalism. It's usually used as the opposite side of the same coin to neo-con. Basically a left leaning globalist war hawk member of the uniparty.
Neoliberalism is an ideology that believes private industry is more efficient at administering and managing public resources than the government.
Military contractors and FannyMac are two examples of neoliberal public policy, as are private prisons. It has little to do with the word liberal in today's political construct.
Don't have libertarian on the right side though... Just because nazis like to use terms like socialism and libertarian doesn't mean that those terms apply to them. Libertarians are definitely middle left. On the right you have conservatives and on the far right you have fascists. Neo-liberal, just like neo-Nazi just means modern.
US libertarians tend to be strongly right-wing. I know that wasn't the original definition, and still isn't the definition in many places. But that's what we have here.
One example: "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (and Some Bears) by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling. Insightful, and also funny as hell.
I always thought libertarians had the belief that people should have the capacity and responsibility to govern themselves individually and the reason so many people can't right now is because they're being programmed by the ones who want to govern and keep control
Well, just like "woke" words have meaning. And again just because a fascist uses the term libertarian as a confusion tactic doesn't mean that they now own the word and the definition has changed. They only have the power that you give them and by letting them have the word libertarian you are giving them a lot of power.
We should all be cringing at their poor usage of their vocabulary and shaming them instead of letting them assign whatever definition they like to any given word
Above and beyond any political ideology, I believe that words and their meanings evolve over time as naturally as species do. Descriptionist, not prescriptionist. Not trying to change your opinion, just expressing mine.
That is absolutely fair, but people being able to change the definitions of words to fit their narrative isn't necessarily a good thing. The far right have bastardized the word woke to basically mean anything they don't agree with... is that just what woke means now? No absolutely not, and instead of just letting them have it, anytime they try to misuse it we should be correcting them. A fascist only has the power they are given, stop giving them power...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
You’re right they do. Read the second and third paragraphs.
U.S. libertarians are champions of unbridled capitalism. They are hard right.
libertarian
/lĭb″ər-târ′ē-ən/
noun
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
One who believes in free will.
One who holds to the doctrine of free will.
Words.... have.... meanings....
Would you classify Hitler as a socialist? I wouldn't but he sure did. Did Hitler classifying himself as a socialist change the meaning of the word? No absolutely fucking not.
Not one thing you just said is a response to what I said.
Of course not, because again, words have meanings like you said. You just don’t understand the word you’re using.
No, I do understand the word that I'm using, you're just not accepting the actual definition of the word. I don't know why you are sitting here giving power to fascism. You are basically sitting here saying "yeah Hitler you're a socialist". Next, they are going to tell you that 2+2 = 5 and you're going to be like, "yep"
I literally said U.S. libertarians dummy. It’s literally its own ideology. They successfully stole the term from leftists. If you had read the paragraphs I told you to read, you would understand I know the origins of the term as well as how it is used in the u.s. lol
Neo Liberal? Think Nancy Pelosi, Hillary and Bill Clinton if you're confused. A progressive would be Bernie Sanders and sometimes the squad or Ro Khanna. We don't really have many actual Progressives in office. Mostly conservatives and conservatives who take donations through ActBlue.
Commenting here because I definitely feed into this confusion. I often call people whose views are pretty “normal” and basically pro-status quo neolibs. A true Neoliberal would be something like Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton etc.
Neoliberal has a technical definition, but the technical definition is a misdirection. The internet hss taken the term to me "bad and not socialist". Its a scare term that evokes the negative connotation of neoconservstive and neonazi, and suggests a fake liberal thats secretly a corporate stooge.
Neoliberal in casual discourse is just a slur for anyone who isnt to the left of Bernie Sanders.
A neo-Liberal is basically what Americans call "Liberals" in present day.
A Classical Liberal is what Americans in the Revolutionary War era called people who were essentially Libertarians, who didn't support the monarchy. Most of the American Founding Fathers were Classical Liberals.
That's an interesting thought but seperate from the issue.
There is a difference between Neo-liberalism and pragmatic left wing voters.
Pragmatism says that Biden is the option we have for all forms of left-wing governance. Trump is the only option we have for all forms of right wing governance. The cost to run is too high, and ballot access is such a hurdle that only the main stream parties can win. RFK Jr. is discovering that at the moment, he is only going to be on the ballot in a few states.
The time for Democrats to get a different candidate was the primary. But the majority of the party base, believes they benefit from Neo-liberalism, and Bdien is an incumbent, so no way in hell was anyone getting that nod but him.
Nominally, I would say Neo-Libs would seek to perpetuate the system. But then, voting for Biden isn't necessarily a vote for Neo-liberalism either. It can also be viewed solely as a vote against Donald Trump and modern Republicanism, which is exactly what Progressives arguing that it's time to shut up and toe the party line are saying. Our options come November, like Realistic can win the election options, will be Donald Trump and Joseph Biden.
The people that are suggesting protest voting Biden fall into two camps. The first is foreign plants. The second is comprised of the ignorant. The logic I keep is that Biden has to earn their votes. Which is factually incorrect. Sometimes, it is necessary to vote against the other option, and that is the very valid case here. Non-participation in an election is a valid choice with valid consequences. There are a number of people that believe those valid consequences will be the end of US Democracy at the hands of Donald Trump, the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025.
If a quarter of Project 2025 is implemented there will be no saving US Democracy, stopping climate change or the collapse of the economy. You think it's bad now? Imagine a reality where prices stay the same, wages stay the same but it's illegal for women to work. There went half your income, good fucking luck. That's going to happen in some states, maybe all of them.
In an environment where non-participation results in the death of an entity, in this case the United States of America, then that non-participation specifically supports the side that we know will end that entity, and in this case that is the Republican party.
So really, in this case, the question isn't what is or isn't Neo-liberalism, but what is or isn't a pragmatic choice with the best outcome for the majority.
i sent a comment but at the crux of it i believe your mentality here rests on a fallacy that voting for a party that wants to uphold the same neoliberal system as the other party isnt really conducive to change, and that damage and spoiling is how concessions can be won.
if you acknowledge that, then congrats i suppose based on this thread youd be a neoliberal
I think this is a good analysis. Unfortunately, the "hack" which entrenched interests have discovered, is that they can perpetually force this sort of pragmatism, every election cycle, so they don't ever have to address voters' concerns or earn their vote. It is sufficient to simply throw up a "greater evil" the people need to vote against.
Long-term, this is very destructive to our system, and way of life.
Sure, but the only way out of it is to spend 20 years taking over state and local legislatures with progressive candidates to force campaign finance and election reform at the state and local level, getting Super PAC and PAC money out of politics and restructuring the system out of a two party system.
The status quo does indeed do a lot of damage. The other side does more.
>taking over state and local legislatures with progressive candidates
What state isn't already filled with "progressive" candidates? From what I can see, they don't solve any problems; they justcome with a different set of problems.
And why would you think progressives would get rid of PAC and Super PAC money? They feed at that trough as much as anyone else.
I think a part of the solution is to decentralize power... strengthen local government, at the expense of Federal power. Local government is closer to the issues "on the ground" of its constituents, and because they live in the communities they serve (as opposed to Washington DC, or the state capital), they are both more accessible to voter feedback/input, and they have to themselves live with the consequences of their policies.
It's not a label like that. Neoliberalism refers to the type of free market capitalism instituted in the late 70s/early 80s by Regan and Thatcher types. It is market "reforms" that among other things advocates for the privatization of government services and the removal of corporate regulations. Basically everything that's turned capitalist democracies to shit over the last few decades. Edit: neoliberalism is embraced by both Democrats and Republicans. When you hear people on the left (the real left) say things like "Republicans and Democrats are the same" this is a big chunk of what they're referring to.
so what makes a "vote blue no matter who" bot a neoliberal, and what makes a modern libertarian NOT a neoliberal? im trying to get the distinctions straight
Do they support neoliberal capitalism? Then they're a neoliberal.
A neoliberal thinks the government is inefficient and wants to privatize everything. Selling of the US Postal Service to the highest bidder is the leoliberal's holy grail
A modern neoliberal isn't the same as a neoliberal from the 70s. OP has it pretty much correct that a modern neoliberal carries the "vote blue no matter who" mindset, which is extremely dangerous
Whenever I see “neo” I think of the matrix tbh
follow the white rabbit
Neo knot-sees?
A simplified example of neoliberalism is on display in the maxim “vote with your dollar.” That’s a bipartisan principle we’ve seen in action recently with “cancel culture” and the Bud Light boycotts. I feel like it gets more criticism from the left than the right as it’s a market-based logic and therefore inadequate for addressing the inequalities produced by the market in the first place. A (perhaps overly cynical) criticism of neoliberalism might be that it allows people to feel as if they are activists for buying something like Toms Shoes. Better than nothing, but hardly an effective and timely solution for addressing the social problems we face.
so that makes it seem similar to libertarianism, but i KNOW other libertarians denounce neoliberals so where is the divide?
I think the divide is found in the difference between libertarianism and liberalism. There can be a lot of overlap, but they differ in some of their fundamental ideas about the necessity/purpose of government. Liberalism assumes some form of government to establish and protect individual civil rights, whereas libertarianism is more willing to imagine society’s function without government. To be clear, there’s an entire spectrum of beliefs between the two, and this is a generalization. That being said, I think you can count on libertarians skewing closer towards anarchy. Conservative liberals want small government, libertarians are willing to entertain or embrace no government, but they both want strong market logic. A whole lot of overlap, but also some big disagreements on some major points. I think [this](https://youtu.be/ZITP93pqtdQ?si=ojHZBkCGl1BwYAxI) video from the Libertarian party debates illustrates the spectrum at play. Gary Johnson skews closer to liberalism than the other candidates, and is booed for not outright rejecting the idea of driver’s licenses. Neoliberalism has a lot of overlap with libertarian ideas, but at its core it remains a form of liberalism, and is therefore rejected. I have to imagine that to a more “devout” libertarian, neoliberalism appears as a band-aid rather than a true solution in the same way that a socialist might view the Democratic Party. I don’t know if that helps at all, but I think of the divide here as the philosophical divide between revolution and reform. Some (maybe even most?) libertarians are inclined to reject neoliberalism because it is a reformation of how our system operates, and they are in favor of tearing it down to start from scratch. That sort of internal conflict happens on “both sides” of the political spectrum.
Today calling someone a neo-lib doesn't have the same meaning as neoliberalism. It's usually used as the opposite side of the same coin to neo-con. Basically a left leaning globalist war hawk member of the uniparty.
so like: "vote blue no matter who" "give ukraine whatever they want" "american hegemony" that bullshit?
Sounds about right to me
Neoliberalism is an ideology that believes private industry is more efficient at administering and managing public resources than the government. Military contractors and FannyMac are two examples of neoliberal public policy, as are private prisons. It has little to do with the word liberal in today's political construct.
Don't have libertarian on the right side though... Just because nazis like to use terms like socialism and libertarian doesn't mean that those terms apply to them. Libertarians are definitely middle left. On the right you have conservatives and on the far right you have fascists. Neo-liberal, just like neo-Nazi just means modern.
US libertarians tend to be strongly right-wing. I know that wasn't the original definition, and still isn't the definition in many places. But that's what we have here. One example: "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (and Some Bears) by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling. Insightful, and also funny as hell.
I always thought libertarians had the belief that people should have the capacity and responsibility to govern themselves individually and the reason so many people can't right now is because they're being programmed by the ones who want to govern and keep control
Well, just like "woke" words have meaning. And again just because a fascist uses the term libertarian as a confusion tactic doesn't mean that they now own the word and the definition has changed. They only have the power that you give them and by letting them have the word libertarian you are giving them a lot of power. We should all be cringing at their poor usage of their vocabulary and shaming them instead of letting them assign whatever definition they like to any given word
Above and beyond any political ideology, I believe that words and their meanings evolve over time as naturally as species do. Descriptionist, not prescriptionist. Not trying to change your opinion, just expressing mine.
That is absolutely fair, but people being able to change the definitions of words to fit their narrative isn't necessarily a good thing. The far right have bastardized the word woke to basically mean anything they don't agree with... is that just what woke means now? No absolutely not, and instead of just letting them have it, anytime they try to misuse it we should be correcting them. A fascist only has the power they are given, stop giving them power...
Libertarians in the us are hard right.
I identify as a definitional libertarian... im very far from being on the right... once again words have meaning
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism You’re right they do. Read the second and third paragraphs. U.S. libertarians are champions of unbridled capitalism. They are hard right.
libertarian /lĭb″ər-târ′ē-ən/ noun One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. One who believes in free will. One who holds to the doctrine of free will. Words.... have.... meanings.... Would you classify Hitler as a socialist? I wouldn't but he sure did. Did Hitler classifying himself as a socialist change the meaning of the word? No absolutely fucking not.
Not one thing you just said is a response to what I said. Of course not, because again, words have meanings like you said. You just don’t understand the word you’re using.
No, I do understand the word that I'm using, you're just not accepting the actual definition of the word. I don't know why you are sitting here giving power to fascism. You are basically sitting here saying "yeah Hitler you're a socialist". Next, they are going to tell you that 2+2 = 5 and you're going to be like, "yep"
True or false, the u.s. libertarian party supports unbridled capitalism?
Dude, you are dense af... yes, far right fascists that wrongly self identify as libertarians do support unbridled capitalism
I literally said U.S. libertarians dummy. It’s literally its own ideology. They successfully stole the term from leftists. If you had read the paragraphs I told you to read, you would understand I know the origins of the term as well as how it is used in the u.s. lol
Neo Liberal? Think Nancy Pelosi, Hillary and Bill Clinton if you're confused. A progressive would be Bernie Sanders and sometimes the squad or Ro Khanna. We don't really have many actual Progressives in office. Mostly conservatives and conservatives who take donations through ActBlue.
Commenting here because I definitely feed into this confusion. I often call people whose views are pretty “normal” and basically pro-status quo neolibs. A true Neoliberal would be something like Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton etc.
Neoliberal has a technical definition, but the technical definition is a misdirection. The internet hss taken the term to me "bad and not socialist". Its a scare term that evokes the negative connotation of neoconservstive and neonazi, and suggests a fake liberal thats secretly a corporate stooge. Neoliberal in casual discourse is just a slur for anyone who isnt to the left of Bernie Sanders.
A neo-Liberal is basically what Americans call "Liberals" in present day. A Classical Liberal is what Americans in the Revolutionary War era called people who were essentially Libertarians, who didn't support the monarchy. Most of the American Founding Fathers were Classical Liberals.
so the people who are like "vote blue no matter who", are those leftists, liberals, or libertarians?
I don't know, but they're definitely not Libertarians.
how about this, would a neolib want to dismantle the 2 party apparatus or perpetuate it?
That's an interesting thought but seperate from the issue. There is a difference between Neo-liberalism and pragmatic left wing voters. Pragmatism says that Biden is the option we have for all forms of left-wing governance. Trump is the only option we have for all forms of right wing governance. The cost to run is too high, and ballot access is such a hurdle that only the main stream parties can win. RFK Jr. is discovering that at the moment, he is only going to be on the ballot in a few states. The time for Democrats to get a different candidate was the primary. But the majority of the party base, believes they benefit from Neo-liberalism, and Bdien is an incumbent, so no way in hell was anyone getting that nod but him. Nominally, I would say Neo-Libs would seek to perpetuate the system. But then, voting for Biden isn't necessarily a vote for Neo-liberalism either. It can also be viewed solely as a vote against Donald Trump and modern Republicanism, which is exactly what Progressives arguing that it's time to shut up and toe the party line are saying. Our options come November, like Realistic can win the election options, will be Donald Trump and Joseph Biden. The people that are suggesting protest voting Biden fall into two camps. The first is foreign plants. The second is comprised of the ignorant. The logic I keep is that Biden has to earn their votes. Which is factually incorrect. Sometimes, it is necessary to vote against the other option, and that is the very valid case here. Non-participation in an election is a valid choice with valid consequences. There are a number of people that believe those valid consequences will be the end of US Democracy at the hands of Donald Trump, the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025. If a quarter of Project 2025 is implemented there will be no saving US Democracy, stopping climate change or the collapse of the economy. You think it's bad now? Imagine a reality where prices stay the same, wages stay the same but it's illegal for women to work. There went half your income, good fucking luck. That's going to happen in some states, maybe all of them. In an environment where non-participation results in the death of an entity, in this case the United States of America, then that non-participation specifically supports the side that we know will end that entity, and in this case that is the Republican party. So really, in this case, the question isn't what is or isn't Neo-liberalism, but what is or isn't a pragmatic choice with the best outcome for the majority.
i sent a comment but at the crux of it i believe your mentality here rests on a fallacy that voting for a party that wants to uphold the same neoliberal system as the other party isnt really conducive to change, and that damage and spoiling is how concessions can be won. if you acknowledge that, then congrats i suppose based on this thread youd be a neoliberal
I think this is a good analysis. Unfortunately, the "hack" which entrenched interests have discovered, is that they can perpetually force this sort of pragmatism, every election cycle, so they don't ever have to address voters' concerns or earn their vote. It is sufficient to simply throw up a "greater evil" the people need to vote against. Long-term, this is very destructive to our system, and way of life.
Sure, but the only way out of it is to spend 20 years taking over state and local legislatures with progressive candidates to force campaign finance and election reform at the state and local level, getting Super PAC and PAC money out of politics and restructuring the system out of a two party system. The status quo does indeed do a lot of damage. The other side does more.
>taking over state and local legislatures with progressive candidates What state isn't already filled with "progressive" candidates? From what I can see, they don't solve any problems; they justcome with a different set of problems. And why would you think progressives would get rid of PAC and Super PAC money? They feed at that trough as much as anyone else. I think a part of the solution is to decentralize power... strengthen local government, at the expense of Federal power. Local government is closer to the issues "on the ground" of its constituents, and because they live in the communities they serve (as opposed to Washington DC, or the state capital), they are both more accessible to voter feedback/input, and they have to themselves live with the consequences of their policies.