[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

The 'liberal' in neo-liberalism refers to 19th century liberalism's economic doctrines, essentially free trade and laissez-faire. It is 'neo' because it is not the same as the original doctrine in all respects.

It came into use to describe the pro-market, anti-public sector policies of the post-Reagan/Thatcher period and is not the same as neo-conservatism either, though the proponents of one are often proponents of the other.

Bruce R, writing from the erstwhile home of free trade liberalism which bequeathed its name to the school of economics associated with it ('the Manchester school').

----- Original Message ----- From: "Huw Lloyd" <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> To: <ablunden@mira.net>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: "neo-liberal" Re:[xmca]schools-without-computers-by-choice-and-conviction-that-they-dont-help-kids

(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." :)


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?

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list