What is neoliberalism?
1. Sometimes the term is used to mean the revival of classical liberalism, and so is roughly equivalent to a broad sense of “libertarianism.”
2. Sometimes the term is used to mean the contemporary, welfare-state liberalism that displaced classical liberalism.
3. Sometimes the term is used to mean a corporatist strategy of government intervention on behalf of big business but cloaked in deceptive free-market rhetoric.
4. Most often, it’s used for a confused amalgamation of (1) and (3), despite the fact that (1) and (3) are of course deeply incompatible. (This is a sign that the free-market rhetoric in (3) is successful; thus those who might like (1) are tricked into supporting (3) [result: “vulgar libertarianism”], while those who might wish to oppose (3) are tricked into opposing (1) [result: “vulgar liberalism”].)
I now learn of a fifth definition: neoliberalism is “the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action.”
It looks like this guy is one of those who confusedly glops (1) and (3) together into (4) and then attacks this nonexistent construct. But he seems to have added a new chimera on top of the old one. Even among the most wild-eyed fans of markets I have yet to meet anyone who actually thinks market exchange is “capable of acting as a guide for all human action.” (Not even Walter Block!)
Strangely enough, I’ve often wondered how Walter Block would do as a cabinet member under a hypothetical Paul presidency. So far, I can envision him as Secretary of Labor – firing striking transportation workers. Or head of the Treasury – telling Americans to go get a job. 🙂
I love the way you say “confusedly glops.” Points one, two and four use weighty terms that make me want to send all my money to Nigeria for some reason.
Good post! (as is one following this one!)
Yes, the American left has been fearlessly and swiftly defeating this strawman for decades now, and the felt smart doing it.
I am immediately reminded of this textbook example of mental clumsiness.
Although I must say that I’ve never heard anyone use the the term “neoliberalism” for (2). “New liberalism,” yes, but “neoliberalism” is most often associated with whatever the hell they’re protesting on the streets of Latin America and during G8 Conventions, at Davos, at the World Social Forum, etc. etc.
(Think “Washington Consensus.”)
Neoliberalismo is a package deal concept. But that doesn´t mean we can´t priviledge one of the definitions, or two. I take it is a mix between 2 and 3
Wait. I thought “neoliberalism” was what Bill Clinton did (with Tony Blair’s eager help): subvert liberty domestically, engage in foreign wars of aggression for the good of the people being attacked, and always, benefit politically connected corporations.
Whereas “neoconservatism” is what George W. Bush did (with Tony Blair’s eager help): subvert liberty domestically, engage in foreign wars of aggression for the good of the people being attacked, and always, benefit politically connected corporations.
That’s pretty much it, Victor.
Conservatism: Burke, Nozick, Bush, Blair?
LOL!
Isn’t Honderich that clown who wrote that essay about ‘terrorism for humanity’ or some such nonsense? Glad to see that wasn’t indicative of the general quality of his thought. [/sarcasm]
JOR,
The same. The original essay is available online; cf. also GT 2003-09-30: Why There Are No Arguments for Terrorism for my responding to Honderich with a certain gesture of the hands.