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.

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

    Yep, the best way to prevent rich powerful assholes from getting us into huge wars is to make it extremely unprofitable. Don’t want to kill your market or labor force. Don’t want to disrupt your supply chain. Etc.

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

      Literally the Ukraine war is an excellent example of this. Second most powerful army in the world fighting a much smaller and poorly equipped army. Now only the second most powerful army in Russia.

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

        I wouldn’t say an army with airforce, patriots, himars, bunch of javelins and now western tanks is poorly equipped.

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

          With the exception of the air force, most of this stuff came after Russia began the invasion in 2014. The Ukranian Air Force, absent support from allies, is actually kind of a liability since it’s largely Mikhoyan and Sukhoi materiel where the maintenance, modernization, and operational expertise is concentrated in Russia. Ukraine basically had to invent its own supply chain from scratch.