What do they see as different between neoliberalism and classical liberalism. Neoliberalism is mostly a post-Keynesian revitalisation of classical liberal economic positions updated with modern banking practices and globalisation.
Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me?
Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 month agoHmm, everyone I know, including very left leaning liberals I know who live in Hollywood, use liberal to represent actual liberal ideologies. They use Liberal (notice the capitalization) to represent neo-liberalism.
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
To clarify my question. What do you mean ‘actually liberal’ ideologies?
Like what are their thoughts on monetarism?private property? free association? private entities in markets? Debt and paying it, both private and state held?
If they think that the state should provide the means of subsistence of the entire populus, that property should in general be held in common and private property is not sacred, that government entities in a market are often more effective than private and/or that business should be heavily regulated to serve common good, that debts should be cancelled when it is not realistic or fair to pay them etc. Or perhaps even further afield positions like questioning nation States, police, militaries and boarders… well, then they are not in fact liberals haha.
Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 month ago
We mostly discuss social issues, and not economic policies. You sound like you know way more about this stuff than me, so I believe you.
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Look ultimately words mean what they mean in the context that they’re spoken but broadly neoliberalism is highly socially permissive. Provided, that is, one does this as a responsible member of the capitalist economy and doesn’t disrupt the market.
Like you can have neoliberals that love trans kids, celebrate pride, want more black female drone pilots etc. It is, however, not a neoliberal position say compare the number of vacant properties to the number of homeless people and suggest that perhaps we should just take the unused houses and give them to homeless people? That would violate the principles of private property and free markets. After all: what freedom does one have if you can’t watch someone freeze to death on the doorstep of your vacant investment?
If your friends think that freedom to do that is utterly absurd and a society which defends that is fundamentally rotten then they are not liberals in the academic sense, however their substantially more leftist stance may be called liberalism in the political context you find yourselves in.