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.

  • aski3252@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes this is actually what I meant.

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

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

          I’m Georgist, and I agree with you that global trade is good. Why would we purposely do to ourselves what we do to our adversaries during wartime? One certainly doesn’t have to subscribe to all of neoliberalism to believe global trade is good.