JamieThomas Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 1 hour ago, G_&_T said: That depends on one's definition of 'neo-liberal'. No it fucking doesn't, unless of course you're suggesting it's also sound to call a cat a dug. "Well my definition of a dog is any animal with four legs and a face" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Brilliant Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 I don't know what neo liberal or marxist means Died on your arse there mate. RIP 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_&_T Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 3 hours ago, JamieThomas said: No it fucking doesn't, unless of course you're suggesting it's also sound to call a cat a dug. "Well my definition of a dog is any animal with four legs and a face" Neo-liberalism is essentially a term made up by people who didn't understand what liberalism was. In the 1800s liberals espoused laissez faire economics. Classical liberalism wanted small government, that's my point. What you and many uneducated dimwits have been calling neo-liberals are in fact classical liberals. The term got hijacked by people who didn't understand it, that's my point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Neo-liberalism is essentially a term made up by people who didn't understand what liberalism was. In the 1800s liberals espoused laissez faire economics. Classical liberalism wanted small government, that's my point. What you and many uneducated dimwits have been calling neo-liberals are in fact classical liberals. The term got hijacked by people who didn't understand it, that's my point. Well clearly the neo-aspect is about folk like Hayek, Friedman, Thatcher and Pinochet attempting to rebrand and reintroduce classical liberal economics in a post-Keynesian social democratic world. You can be needlessly pedantic about what you should call it but it doesn’t detract from the fact that equating people who believe in the fundamental supremacy of the free market with “marxists” is spectacularly stupid. Like galaxy brain stuff. The sort of thing Jordan B Peterson might say despite him clearly being a Hayek enthusiast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_&_T Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, NotThePars said: Well clearly the neo-aspect is about folk like Hayek, Friedman, Thatcher and Pinochet attempting to rebrand and reintroduce classical liberal economics in a post-Keynesian social democratic world. You can be needlessly pedantic about what you should call it but it doesn’t detract from the fact that equating people who believe in the fundamental supremacy of the free market with “marxists” is spectacularly stupid. Like galaxy brain stuff. The sort of thing Jordan B Peterson might say despite him clearly being a Hayek enthusiast. Yes, I agree that classical liberalism is essentially the opposite of statism. However I have met a lot of self-proclaimed 'liberals' who are in fact neo-Marxists. I can see why someone would perhaps mistakenly classify them as neo-liberal. This is the problem with defining abstract terminology, as opposed to something tangible like a cat or a dog. Edit: I will add that Thatcher considered herself a conservative. Conservatives have always backed small government, that's nothing new. Edited February 8, 2019 by G_&_T 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 I’m not going to pretend that I have a comprehensive understanding of neoliberal economics (partially because I find the doctrine of the Austrian School to be insane) but I am baffled someone would look at neoliberalism and marxism and think anyone could get confused between the two. They’re fairly distinct and fundamentally opposed economic doctrines. I mean Hayek detested even mild social democratic reform so f**k knows how someone who agrees with him would be subconsciously supporting seizing the means of production. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 18 minutes ago, G_&_T said: Edit: I will add that Thatcher considered herself a conservative. Just as well you're here to set the record straight. I had wondered about that for a while. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_&_T Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Detournement said: Just as well you're here to set the record straight. I had wondered about that for a while. If you read the thread you will see that she has been described as neo-liberal... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 1 minute ago, G_&_T said: If you read the thread you will see that she has been described as neo-liberal... Among other things... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_&_T Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 1 hour ago, NotThePars said: I’m not going to pretend that I have a comprehensive understanding of neoliberal economics (partially because I find the doctrine of the Austrian School to be insane) but I am baffled someone would look at neoliberalism and marxism and think anyone could get confused between the two. They’re fairly distinct and fundamentally opposed economic doctrines. I mean Hayek detested even mild social democratic reform so f**k knows how someone who agrees with him would be subconsciously supporting seizing the means of production. True, but I have met plenty of self-proclaimed 'liberals' who essentially believe in a huge nanny state that interferes in all aspects of people's lives, and would bang people up for telling un-PC jokes, etc. That's where the problem lies, these people don't understand the concept of liberslism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, G_&_T said: True, but I have met plenty of self-proclaimed 'liberals' who essentially believe in a huge nanny state that interferes in all aspects of people's lives, and would bang people up for telling un-PC jokes, etc. That's where the problem lies, these people don't understand the concept of liberslism. Maybe you could explain it... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 True, but I have met plenty of self-proclaimed 'liberals' who essentially believe in a huge nanny state that interferes in all aspects of people's lives, and would bang people up for telling un-PC jokes, etc. That's where the problem lies, these people don't understand the concept of liberslism. What’s that got to do with neoliberalism though? As far as I can see, neoliberalism is an economic doctrine whereas you’re describing cultural or social liberalism which isn’t tied to any specific view on economics. There’s plenty of socially liberal fiscal conservatives and liberal marxists. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 I'm going to need to look in the Encyclopedia Britannica for this one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 I'd just like to point out that Airdrie are shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 1 hour ago, NotThePars said: What’s that got to do with neoliberalism though? As far as I can see, neoliberalism is an economic doctrine whereas you’re describing cultural or social liberalism which isn’t tied to any specific view on economics. There’s plenty of socially liberal fiscal conservatives and liberal marxists. I'm not particularly knowledgable on the finer points of differing schools of economic thought but I was under the (misguided?) impression that there's no real "neoliberal" economics, rather it's basically "Chicago" economics but delivered by Conservative political ideology: small state, efficient markets, blah blah blah. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Venom Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 I'm not particularly knowledgable on the finer points of differing schools of economic thought but I was under the (misguided?) impression that there's no real "neoliberal" economics, rather it's basically "Chicago" economics but delivered by Conservative political ideology: small state, efficient markets, blah blah blah. Basically a rebranded ideology that continues to trick people into thinking trickle down is a thing when it's actually hoover up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 39 minutes ago, Jeff Venom said: Basically a rebranded ideology that continues to trick people into thinking trickle down is a thing when it's actually hoover up. Aye, I know what it's main idea is but - and I think I quoted the wrong post of NotThePars - I'm not sure what the actual school of thought is behind it. As a side note, Dani Rodrik's article is always worth a read: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/14/the-fatal-flaw-of-neoliberalism-its-bad-economics 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 I’m not going to pretend that I have a comprehensive understanding of neoliberal economics (partially because I find the doctrine of the Austrian School to be insane) but I am baffled someone would look at neoliberalism and marxism and think anyone could get confused between the two. They’re fairly distinct and fundamentally opposed economic doctrines. I mean Hayek detested even mild social democratic reform so f**k knows how someone who agrees with him would be subconsciously supporting seizing the means of production.The Austrian School is not that insane - some of their key concepts such as Opportunity Cost are now part of mainstream economics.The biggest criticism of the Austrian School is their aversion to aggregate statistics focussing instead on the microeconomics rather than the macroeconomics.The two are not necessarily incompatible particularly in light of the split in the Austrian School between those who back Mises and those who support Hayek. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_&_T Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 I found this on what appears, from a cursory glance, to be an objective, reputable site: Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/classical_liberalism.htm Quote Classical liberalism Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy. Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, such as selected ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. The salient paragraph, which summarises the essence of liberalism is: 'It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy.' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieThomas Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 8 hours ago, G_&_T said: Neo-liberalism is essentially a term made up by people who didn't understand what liberalism was. In the 1800s liberals espoused laissez faire economics. Classical liberalism wanted small government, that's my point. What you and many uneducated dimwits have been calling neo-liberals are in fact classical liberals. The term got hijacked by people who didn't understand it, that's my point. This is a long way to say "Marxists don't believe in capitalism" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.