Everyone Hates Neoliberals, So We Talked to Some

[LWolf]

12. The manipulating

of terms, the evolution of labels, is on-going. Language evolves, and sometimes specific labels evolve more quickly because they make good propaganda fodder.

I'm not completely sure what your first sentence about trickle-down and privatization is saying; are you saying folks used to call people "neo-liberal" who were against "trickle-down" and privatization? Because that's simply not accurate. "neo" meaning new, "neo-liberal" is a term tied to economic liberalism: unregulated capitalism. You know. The very policies the progressive era battled against. Neoliberalism embraces privatization and unregulated commerce.

I call the Democratic establishment neoliberal because they've been the party power holders since the 90s. The Clintons, the DLC, ushered neoliberalism into the party. I'm sure it started earlier than that, but that's when it went mainstream. That's when it became fashionable to divorce social and economic justice; to claim to be "socially liberal" and economically conservative," the latter ironically pointing out that the new political fashion trend didn't understand liberalism or conservativism when it comes to economics. The establishment is whatever group is holding power. But you are certainly correct that terms are regularly stripped of meaning.

Backlash here has much more to do with defending the losses of '16 by deflecting blame than it does the evolution of terms.

Chomsky, once a darling on DU, does a good job with neoliberalism; of course, now that he isn't toeing the approved line, he's not so much a darling here.

So there’s the two existential threats that we’ve created—which might in the case of nuclear war maybe wipe us out; in the case of environmental catastrophe, create a severe impact—and then some.

A third thing happened. Beginning around the ’70s, human intelligence dedicated itself to eliminating, or at least weakening, the main barrier against these threats. It’s called neoliberalism. There was a transition at that time from the period of what some people call “regimented capitalism,” the ’50s and ’60s, the great growth period, egalitarian growth, a lot of advances in social justice and so on—

CL: Social democracy…

NC: Social democracy, yeah. That’s sometimes called “the golden age of modern capitalism.” That changed in the ’70s with the onset of the neoliberal era that we’ve been living in since. And if you ask yourself what this era is, its crucial principle is undermining mechanisms of social solidarity and mutual support and popular engagement in determining policy.

It’s not called that. What it’s called is “freedom,” but “freedom” means a subordination to the decisions of concentrated, unaccountable, private power. That’s what it means. The institutions of governance—or other kinds of association that could allow people to participate in decision making—those are systematically weakened. Margaret Thatcher said it rather nicely in her aphorism about “there is no society, only individuals.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/

Neoliberalism is real, it has a stranglehold on the Democratic Party, and this is the best opportunity to leave it behind that we've had in decades. It would require, though, being accountable, and moving on would change the party power structure. Nobody gives up power willingly.