Good OP and definitions.

What have I missed? — Jamal

If you don't mind, I would like to include in your characteristics of neoliberalism, taxation. I think this is another important fact of "late capitalism" or nostalgic 1980's and 1990's capitalists.
According to neoliberals, the interventionism of State through taxation should be the less possible. They stand for the fact that reducing income or firm's taxes will create more employment and then the economy will progress. So, the unemployment ratio depends on enterprises, not the state itself. If the firms assume a lot of tax pressure, it will be difficult to make money.

Neoliberals are against taxation (or at least big proportions of) because they see them as confiscation. The current governor of Madrid is a big neoliberal and she has made what a good neoliberal will always do: reducing the taxes and spending cuts. She even once said: "Erasing the wealth tax is one the best decisions made. There are not social classes here in Madrid, and that tax is irrelevant"

Only a good neoliberal would refuse the existence of social classes in a big city like Madrid.

When I talk about neoliberalism, sometimes I mean the ideology of contemporary capitalism, and sometimes I mean the economic form itself. I don’t think conflating the two is much of a problem. Neoliberalism is a development of capitalism and a justificatory intellectual movement in support of that development. In both senses, it is a partial revival of nineteenth-century free market liberalism, a reaction to the compromised capitalism of the middle decades of the twentieth century, when Keynesianism was popular. Neoliberals support globalization, deregulation and privatization, believing that the role of the private sector ought to be expanded beyond the limits traditionally adhered to in the decades following the Great Depression and the Second World War. — Jamal

This is cool, but the word is used differently in Europe vs the US. For Americans, the word is more controversial, sometimes declared meaningless, used in a derogatory fashion, or taken up as a badge of honor in spite of its negative connotations.

Reagan was a fan of Hayek and was impressed by the idea that collectivism is a path to slavery. This attitude was inextricable from his hostility to the USSR, which was viewed as an arch enemy seeking to destroy the Good. Hayek said that in principle, he believed that dictatorship was warranted in order to turn countries away from collectivism. This attitude of being willing to subvert democracy in order to save freedom is not just a typical development of capitalism. As you pointed out, it's a reaction to the far reaching progress made by leftists throughout the world as a result of the Great Depression.

The emphasis on globalization has been one of the most effective neoliberal strategies for undermining the power of labor. That gives a sense of ongoing internal conflict represented by the word (for Americans, anyway). The word might have a more benign meaning elsewhere.

Interesting, thanks. On the other hand there’s a difference between neoliberals, who want to reduce taxes, and libertarians, who might be against tax in principle.

Interesting post, but none of it goes against neoliberalism as understood in Europe, as you imply. I don’t think there’s much of a difference between US and non-US uses of the term. It has globalized itself successfully.

On the other hand there’s a difference between neoliberals, who want to reduce taxes, and libertarians, who might be against tax in principle. — Jamal

True! This is another interesting point in the debate

Interesting post, but none of it goes against neoliberalism as understood in Europe, as you imply. I don’t think there’s much of a difference between US and non-US uses of the term. It has globalized itself successfully. — Jamal

Maybe the difference is in who uses the term? In the US, if it's used at all, it's usually by leftists. I thought the use was more mainstream in Europe.

I think it’s the same here. The difference is more likely between popular and academic uses.

I think it’s the same here. The difference is more likely between popular and academic uses. — Jamal

You're straight up not believing there's a difference. I don't know. That's just what the sources I read said. I'll see if I can dig one up if you want it.

I'm happy to be persuaded, just don't see it so far.

"At some point during Bryan Singer’s genre-redefining 1995 thriller, The Usual Suspects, the elusive villain Keyser Söze shares some of his wisdom with the audience: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn’t exist.” Something similar might be said about neoliberalism even if attributing infernal implications to it might seem a little far-fetched.

"The term is as ambiguous as it is contested. While some consider it to be synonymous with the unleashed forces of turbo-capitalism (Bourdieu 1998; Chomsky 1999), others think of it as a moderate version of classical liberalism’s blunt imperative of laissez-faire. And while some note a decade-long march of victory of neoliberal policy regimes worldwide (see Harvey 2005), others disparage it as a figment of its critics’ fevered imagination that does not even exist—let alone rule the world—and the term ought to be sent into semantic retirement. The latter perspective contends that neoliberalism is not only vacuous but has also become so politically charged that it serves as little more than a polemical tool for theoretical and political smear campaigns waged with denunciatory intentions. And to be sure, this is correct insofar as there are hardly any self-proclaimed neoliberals to be found.

"Since it was (re)introduced to academic and political discourse in the early 1990s, only its critics have used the term (see Boas and Gans-Morse 2009). At present there is a growing reluctance even on their side to make use of it because it disqualifies any speaker as a potential ideologue with anticapitalist biases. If you call someone neoliberal, it suggests that you are unwilling to engage in reasoned argument and would rather resort to polemical name-calling. So even if neoliberalism ruled the world, it would be a neoliberalism without any neoliberals, and even its academic critics dare not speak its name—a truly devilish trick. I first show that neoliberalism is far more than a chimera made up by its critics. Neoliberal thought developed as a response to the crisis of liberalism in the 1930s, and there is a common denominator to this body of thought, albeit a thin one. It is not a common set of doctrines but what I call the neoliberal problematic, which concerns the preconditions of functioning markets. This problematic characterizes the work of a number of thinkers who can be referred to as neoliberals in the proper sense of the term, such as the German ordoliberals Walter Eucken, Wilhelm Röpke, and Alexander Rüstow, but also Friedrich August Hayek, Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan.1 They provide me with the reservoir of ideas that I scrutinize in part 1, the central part of the book."

The Political Theory of Neoliberalism by Biebricher

Cool, but it doesn’t show that there’s a difference between American and European uses, which is all that I objected about in your first post.

Cool, but it doesn’t show that there’s a difference between American and European uses, which is all that I objected about in your first post. — Jamal

Is it common for European academics to claim that the word is meaningless? If so, it's the same.

I have no idea, but it wouldn’t surprise me, because the word is used sometimes as a loose term of abuse—a mere “polemical tool”—everywhere as far as I can tell.

I have no idea, but it wouldn’t surprise me, because the word is used sometimes as a loose term of abuse—a mere “polemical tool”—everywhere as far as I can tell. — Jamal

Oh. I guess it does mean the same thing, then.

As far as I know hardly anyone uses the phrase to describe their own politics or ideology, which is telling, so often it is little more than a term of opprobrium.

To me the theory of neoliberalism’s global ascendancy is overblown. I have trouble believing Reaganomics and Thatcherism extended beyond Reagan and Thatcher. The author of the so-called "Washington Consensus", for example, which is often panned as a neoliberal manifesto, consciously excluded neoliberal ideology like capital account liberalization, monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state.

The background of neoliberalism's supposed rise, I think, is important. It comes at a time when we were witnessing the spectacular collapse of socialist countries on the world stage, the spectacular failure of Keynesian economics, while Thatcher and Reagan were seemingly pulling their countries out of the ruins of statist ideology.

This presented a problem for disaffected socialists after the collapse of the Soviet Union, both ideologically and politically. They could no longer deny that central planning was a failure, and that their popularity was waning. This led critics of the "neoliberalism" of Reagan and Thatcher, and newly disaffected socialists and social democrats like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Gerd Schröder, to re-brand as free market progressives. They tried to push it as a global movement. It's odd; though they were explicitly critical of the supply-side economics of Reagan and Thatcher, they are somehow considered in the same pantheon as Reagan and Thatcher, with neoliberalism flowing through them.

Personally, I take a different approach. I would call their agenda and the period since Thatcher and Reagan (and perhaps Bush Sr.) "neosocialism", because it better represents the spirit of its architects and reflects their turn away from the Old Left socialism into what Bill Clinton called the New Democrats, or what Blair called New Labour. This political triangulation flows right into "compassionate conservatism" of Bush Jr. and David Cameron. Tony Blair stood in front of the International Socialist Congress in ‘97 and pleaded for a "modernized social democracy", and this modernized social democracy prevails.

That's probably why I wanted to define it: I found myself using it a lot and it occurred to me that I might not know what I was saying.

That's probably why I wanted to define it: I found myself using it a lot and it occurred to me that I might not know what I was saying. — Jamal

I think you had it right, except you can favor capitalism without being a neoliberal. You could favor embedded liberalism, for instance.

I think it's the 20th Century war against leftism that defines it.

We seem to be in agreement. :scream:

Fascinating as always NOS. I may say more tomorrow.

Of course, I would never actually use the phrase “Neosocialism” or “neoliberalism”, unless it was a term of abuse.

Philosophically, Michel Foucault’s idea of Biopolitics and “Left Governmentality” are worth checking out. Some say he was flirting with neoliberalism in those lectures.

Well, that's what I mean by neoliberalism, anyways.

LIke any good leftist I blame Nixon. ;) Not really, Carter did it too. And I agree that it's in reaction to Keynesian economics. My reading is always eclectic so I might have missed some event prior in USian history, but the Lockheed bailouts:

Drowning in debt, in 1971 Lockheed (then the largest US defense contractor) asked the US government for a loan guarantee, to avoid insolvency. Lockheed argued that a government bailout was necessary due to the company's value for U.S. national security.[22] On May 13, 1971, the Richard Nixon administration sent a bill titled "The Emergency Loan Guarantee Act" to Congress requesting a $250 million loan guarantee for Lockheed and its L-1011 Tristar airbus program.[23] — wikipedia

really do look similar to many of what I'd term neoliberal interventions on behalf of the market. I know what you mean there, which is what really distinguishes neoliberalism from classical liberalism and the limited state types and is a reason to call it something different.

really do look similar to many of what I'd term neoliberal interventions on behalf of the market. I know what you mean there, which is what really distinguishes neoliberalism from classical liberalism and the limited state types and is a reason to call it something different. — Moliere

Yep, exactly what I was getting at.

really do look similar to many of what I'd term neoliberal interventions on behalf of the market. — Moliere

Are you talking about entities deemed to big to fail?

Yeah, though I want to clarify I mean historical events rather than from the nature of an entity so this is a perspective drawing from historical knowledge (or, at least, stuff I read) -- but that's definitely a theme of these historical events. If such and such fails then the net suffering is greater than if such and such does not fail is one form of market intervention I'd count. I'm not sure all of what I'd count. The relationship of unions to capital is another perspective I'd highlight.

One thing I wonder about including are international actions. I am uncertain that neoliberalism is international in the same way that, say, capitalism is international: Whereas capital has a way of connecting nations together into a higher order system, I'm not sure neoliberalism is quite like that -- it seems more like an ideology and its enactment, and less like a transnational system.

This being relevant because I'm not sure if one should include the various interventions in Latin and South America on the part of the US as an example, or if that's just the nature of the beast at the international level and neoliberalism is something which can only take place within a capitalist economy.

Yeah, though I want to clarify I mean historical events rather than from the nature of an entity so this is a perspective drawing from historical knowledge (or, at least, stuff I read) -- but that's definitely a theme of these historical events. If such and such fails then the net suffering is greater than if such and such does not fail is one form of market intervention I'd count. — Moliere

But in general, government assistance to private entities is not in line with neoliberal ideas. That happened in 2009, but there was absolutely no political theory in play wrt the bail outs. That was done to keep the economy from crashing due to a credit freeze.

The fact that the financial sector of NYC is so important to the US economy that they have to be bailed out is the result of Neoliberalism. The bail out itself was just survival mode.

am uncertain that neoliberalism is international in the same way that, say, capitalism is international: — Moliere

Neoliberalism is more global than national. That enhances the freedom of a capitalist from local concerns like taxation, unionization, etc.

This being relevant because I'm not sure if one should include the various interventions in Latin and South America on the part of the US as an example, or if that's just the nature of the beast at the international level and neoliberalism is something which can only take place within a capitalist economy. — Moliere

Chile was the first test case for the imposition of neoliberal ideas. Neoliberalism will tend to make an economy run hot, so when this happened to Chile, this was touted as success.

You should check out Harvey's book about it. I stayed outraged for about a week straight after I read it. Ahrrr!

But in general, government assistance to private entities is not in line with neoliberal ideas. . — frank

But it happens a lot. 2009 was not unique. And it seems to be needed when those ideas are implemented.

Chile was the first test case for the imposition of neoliberal ideas. Neoliberalism will tend to make an economy run hot, so when this happened to Chile, this was touted as success. — frank

So that'd be a reason to include it. But was the USian government assistance of Pinochet a result of neoliberalism? Or was it the result of one nation doing what nations do -- enforcing claims on resources, while picking on an ideological enemy? Or was that the result of Henry Kissinger just being himself?

In making neoliberalism more clear it seems like it's more of a prevailing ideology? So that'd indicate that these sorts of interventions are not the result of neoliberalism -- as a way of clarifying when it's appropriate to attribute something to neoliberalism. Neoliberalism came as an ideology which was later enforced by the government.

You should check out Harvey's book about it. I stayed outraged for about a week straight after I read it. Ahrrr! — frank

Yeah that's definitely the sort of thing I like to read. :D I should.

Maybe what's needed is a good distinction between Keynesian state intervention and neoliberal state intervention to make the case... I mean from my perspective there's no such thing as a market without state intervention. Markets are instantiated by states. So the notion of governments not assisting private entities is, from the standpoint of political economy, simply not possible. They make the very conditions of markets by enforcing legal claims of property.

But something is different from the times of Keynes. I agree the term is somewhat ambiguous, but there's a real phenomena there too.

But it happens a lot. 2009 was not unique. And it seems to be needed when those ideas are implemented. — Moliere

I guess I don't know what you're referring to then.

Neoliberalism came as an ideology which was later enforced by the government. — Moliere

Correct.

The definition of it leaves clear in my mind for the need of avoiding monopolistic tendencies of pretty much every corporation who going unchecked would leave the consumer a lack of choice and higher prices which could otherwise be provided by competitors.

We have well demonstrated examples of such corporations such as Amazon or Microsoft. The latter getting leveraged out by governments such as the UK who found their acquisition of activision blizzard uncompetitive (recently) and rightly so. Their end goal is of course total monopoly which they’ve enjoyed restricting consumer choice.

These large entities have to be kept in check, the natural course is of course to let them acquire until the consumer realises they’re essentially screwed for choice and alternative and most importantly price.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65407005

Their bitching is understandable, they want to own every aspect of the market, developers of videogames etc

Neoliberals support globalization, deregulation and privatization, believing that the role of the private sector ought to be expanded beyond the limits traditionally adhered to in the decades following the Great Depression and the Second World War. — Jamal

Exactly. When I talk of neoliberalism, I’m referring to the policies enacted since the late 70s. It’s a label for those policy changes, hence the neoliberal “era.”

So yeah: globalization, deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, destruction of unions, etc. We could go through the list: Carter deregulating the railroads and trucking, Reagan and the airtraffic controllers, SEC rule changes on buybacks in ‘82, fair doctrines act repeal, Clinton and NAFTA, telecommunications act, etc etc.

That’s neoliberalism to me. Often the justification for it all was flimsy and varied — usually something about free markets, trickle down economics, Friedman doctrine, capital flight, the Laffer curve, and other nonsense — but that’s somewhere different, the “justificatory” aspect you mentioned.

Incidentally, Naomi Oreskes has just released an interesting book about this latter part which is worth reading. It’s called The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market.