Re: "neo-liberal" Re: [xmca]schools-without-computers-by-choice-and-conviction-that-they-dont-help-kids

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

(moving to this thread)


On 31 October 2011 00:45, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> C'mon Huw! :) "Neo-liberal" is an extremely common term in public
> discourse here in Australia. Of course I can't answer for the US, even
> though the ideas arrived here from the US. Here's the Wikipedia entry:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism which shows its specific
> meanings in a number of different countries. I would say that the term came
> in in the wake of the failure of both Keynes and Milton Friedman, though
> the notion is very sympathetic to Milton Friedman's ideology, but not so
> closely associated with control of the macro-economic levers by central
> government. Part of the difficulty of accepting the term in the US may be
> the use of "liberal" as a term of abuse by those who are in fact
> "neo-liberals". The ideas are native to the US but the choice of word is
> somewhat "un-American." :)
>
> Andy
>
>
Yes, I briefly checked the wiki link.  Re, "As such, the term is not
associated with any definite ideology and is usually used accusingly and
derogatorily against others, rather than as a self-label."

Which is consistent with (the political) polluting of the usage of "neo"
and "liberal".  It might be more honest to say "fake liberal", only that
would be more constructive, rather than using it to accuse someone (or
something) as belonging to an ideology that is ill thought out whilst,
apparently, imputing the stupidity of the term to the target of one's woe.

If its an ill-thought name at the vanguard of thinking that cannot attain
to constructive use, why bother with it?

Huw
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca