The term "neoliberal" is being thrown around by people who are against
neoliberalism, whatever it is. But the neoliberals themselves are almost
totally silent. What's going on here?
Do a web search on "neoliberal" and you'll get plenty of websites where
the "neoliberals" are kicked around and bashed and beaten to a pulp.
One web article which tries to introduce a little sanity is What's
All This about 'Neoliberalism'?
Another good one is Global
Village or Global Pillage?
And of course, for all the hysterical neoliberal-bashing articles, just
do a "neoliberal" web search (or "neoliberalism") and you'll get dozens, no --
hundreds of them. 99% of the hits are bashers of the neoliberals. But don't
waste your time trying to find anyone who claims to be a neoliberal. They
don't seem to exist.
The two links above are not written by neoliberals. Both authors call
themselves "liberals" (classical liberals) and show clear leanings
toward a libertarian philosophy. This is about as close as we can come to
someone who presents a sympathetic presentation of "neoliberalism".
Why isn't there anyone out there who says forthrightly: "I am a
neoliberal!" and who defines "neoliberal" for us. I.e., someone who gives
us a definition other than "dirty heartless capitalist globalizers who want to
trample the poor masses underfoot and destroy everything sacred"?
The purpose of this website is to find that definition.
The two linked articles above are a bit sympathetic to "neoliberalism",
but they reject the term as unnecessary, since classical liberalism is all
we need, and the neoliberal-bashers are only engaging in some kind of semantic
game or trick, using the prefix "neo" as a way to paint their enemy (the
"globalizers") as phony liberals or pseudoliberals.
A web search of "I am a neoliberal" fails to turn up anyone who
claims to be anything other than a classical liberal. They attach the
prefix "neo" in order to distinguish themselves from the modern liberal
who is left of center or a moderate socialist.
The purpose of this website is to find a sympathetic definition of
"neoliberal" which distinguishes today's neoliberal from the modern
Left-leaning liberal, but also from the 19th-century classical liberal.
In other words, identify someone new, or a new kind of "liberalism" which
answers back to the anti-globalizers.
The neoliberal-bashers see something going on that they don't like. And it's
not 19th-century classical liberalism that's bothering them. They see an economic
system emerging that is giving them nightmares. Perhaps their fear is
similar to that of the Luddites two centuries ago, who saw something
sinister in the new machines that were eliminating their jobs.
The term "neoliberal" or "neoliberalism" implies the existence of an
ideology or doctrine, not just a trend or a pattern of behavior by certain
companies or producers in the market. What is this doctrine? Who is promoting
this doctrine and why? An ideologue promotes a doctrine because he believes
it is good or right, not just for himself, but for everyone.
Even if a doctrine is mistaken, those who promote it think they are
promoting something good for society, for people. They think that at
least most people will be made better off if this doctrine is put into
practice. They're not thinking, "Our small clique will reap a windfall
from this while everyone else will get screwed."
Some free-trade promoters know that their plan is one which will
ultimately lead to the greater economic benefit for everyone, but they
also know that popular opinion opposes them, because the average person
mainly considers his present job or business and is hypersensitive to anything
which might look threatening to his position, and he fails to look broadly
at all the benefits gained by having all producers be
put under the tough discipline of the competitive marketplace.
It is
difficult for one person to grasp the huge number of players in the
marketplace and perceive all the benefit they produce as a result of the
competitive pressures on them. Rather, it is so much easier for one person
to see only the limited place he himself plays. And so he devotes his
main energies to preserving his own place, while not caring so much to
preserve the system of competition.
So the free-trade crusader might be tempted to do an end-run around
popular opinion and go directly to the centers of power to achieve the
desired goals of opening the markets. And so "secret" sessions are held
and deals are hammered out, hidden away from popular view. This would
seem to best explain the apparent elitist nature of the globalization
pattern and the maneuvers or strategies pursued by the free-traders.
To say that these strategists are conspirators trying to destroy
people's standard of living and amass all the wealth into their elitist
hands while trampling everyone else underfoot is like saying that the
Arabs of the Mideast, especially the militants or extremists, have only
the goal of destroying the U.S. (out of envy?) and all "western" values,
and murdering everyone
who is not Muslim and imposing cruel oppression and suffering onto
everyone.
Instead of trying to attribute the most sinister and villainous
motives we can imagine to our "enemy", perhaps it is better to identify
the real differences of belief, or of thinking, and figure out who is in
error. The differences are subtle. If the difference between the
opposing camps is that one is a tender innocent victim while the other
is a vicious fire-breathing monster, then the two camps really wouldn't
exist. Everyone would simply join with the innocent side and help them
destroy the monster, and then everything would settle down and all the
conflicts would be resolved.
For now, the following is offered as a partial listing of "neoliberal"
traits or marks of identification:
--belief in free trade and a global marketplace
--belief in competition, extend competition as far as possible
--merit only, everyone should have to earn their own way, and thus
--little or no sympathy for those who are dysfunctional or noncompetitive
--minimize all costs, including labor cost
--let supply and demand determine all values, including the value of labor
--restrict government to those functions which are social (non-personal,
non-individual) and cannot be done privately
--allow the possibility that government might need to expand due to an
increase in the legitimate social needs.
This is a tentative list.
Wouldn't a philosophy like this lead to good results, to a better
world, because of the benefits of competition and self-responsibility
and the increased production of wealth?
Inherent to this philosophy is a negative side, or a side which is
unattractive, because it would leave behind those who don't measure up
to the standard of competitiveness or efficiency demanded. There is a
harshness here, a discipline which may be viewed superficially as
cruel. But perhaps this is just a part of the harshness of life which
is necessary to produce a better society, or a better overall result, or
an overall better world for everyone. "The greatest good for the greatest
number." Some are "sacrificed", but the overall result is a better world.
This is essentially a utilitarian philosophy, and thus is not to be
confused with Objectivism and libertarianism, which fanatically reject
utilitarianism and any notion of sacrifice or altruism.
It contradicts liberalism, which obsesses on "comforting the afflicted
and afflicting the comfortable" even when this ends up making both worse
off, because liberalism/Left-wingism cares more about symbolism and class
warfare than results.
And it contradicts American conservatism, because it places a higher priority
on making the world better off than on making America better off. When/if these
ever conflict, the world as a whole is more important.
If you have some ideas to suggest about the meaning of "neoliberalism"
you may have it posted in this web page (click
here).