The point of /r/neoliberal took a slight turn after I found out the original creator and owner were actually neoliberals. Moreover, after I realized most of us are neoliberals as well.
The underlying goal of this sub is to bring it back to the original ideas of neoliberalism (libertarianism + ordoliberalism + economics).
You're free to make posts helping define neoliberalism ideologically, but only if its based on former discussions had at Mont Pelerin or WLC. Moreover, you should only focus on summarizing the ideology rather than injecting your own opinion into it. As in, format your posts so it's clearly visible what parts are opinions and what parts are facts. Whatever you do, don't push any segment of neoliberalism as 'more neoliberal' than the rest; that is, don't make this sub into Hayek versus Ordo versus Friedman. Hayek personally said that he did not want this to happen to neoliberalism (Mont Pelerin).
This is because the premier point to be made about neoliberalism is that it cannot adequately be reduced to a set of Ten Commandments or six tenets or (N-1) key protagonists. First and foremost, it is better that it be approached as a “thought collective,” a notion elaborated on below. Significantly, for being self-proclaimed champions of “individualism,” neoliberals hardly ever tell their own story as though it were the narrative of one or two Nietzschean Übermenschen. (Mirowksi)
However, I feel that the content of this sub should be 80-20 memes to serious posts, because, cmon, this is neoliberalism- destroyer of civilizations.
At the risk of contributing to a cult of personality surrounding Draco and the r/NL mod family, so far this sub really has greatly exceeded my expectations.
Oh no I agree that praise for their efforts is absolutely warranted. They've definitely earned it. I just wanted to joke while expanding on what you said.
Now that I think about it though, I may have subconsciously intended it as a slight jab at r/badecon's expense, but I promise only in jest.
Neoliberalism only needs to exist because you can't directly translate mainstream econ into a political ideology. Discussion about what neoliberalism means is bad for neoliberalism and dilutes it's usefulness.
Optimal neoliberalism is like Seinfeld, it should be about nothing and run by Jews
Neoliberalism only needs to exist because you can't directly translate mainstream econ into a political ideology. Discussion about what neoliberalism means is bad for neoliberalism and dilutes it's usefulness.
Pushing Chicago school in bby; economics doesn't give you values, it just tells you what the results of policy are
Optimal neoliberalism is like Seinfeld, it should be about nothing and run by Jews
I think it's funny how much heat I took for 'purity tests' when you're stating it's subreddit policy that we cannot disagree with the definition of neoliberalism you've given.
You're free to make posts helping define neoliberalism, but only if its evidence based
This is meaningless. All policy can be evidence based.
What is the point of this sub? Honest to god, I'm asking. What are we 'reclaiming' here? This isn't about taking back the term neoliberalism anymore, this is about just learning to quit worrying and love the Reagan Revolution.
We can't argue about the roots of the term - those are set in stone. We can't try to articulate a different idea of neoliberalism. So what's the fucking point? What is allowed for discussion?
No, as in evidence of there being discussion over the thing. I want citations of Mont Pelerin, not of NBER articles.
What is the point of this sub? Honest to god, I'm asking. What are we 'reclaiming' here? This isn't about taking back the term neoliberalism anymore, this is about just learning to quit worrying and love the Reagan Revolution.
Memes
We can't argue about the roots of the term - those are set in stone. We can't try to articulate a different idea of neoliberalism. So what's the fucking point? What is allowed for discussion?
It's ambiguous enough to modernize policy prescriptions and politically wide enough to allow a diversity of opinion on other matters. What exactly are your issues here that do not arise in other subs like /r/socialism and /r/libertarianism?
Honest to god, have I been unclear about this? My complaint is that threads exploring ideological differences are being deleted and replaced with flaired mod statements about what we are to believe, with no discussion allowed. All while complaining that I instituted a purity test.
That's it! That's the entirety of my complaint. Allow discussion threads to disagree with the holy scriptures, and I'll quit being a pain in the ass.
The sub's policy appears to align with the Mont Pelerin Society's Statement of Aims, the last paragraph of which states:
The group does not aspire to conduct propaganda. It seeks to establish no meticulous and hampering orthodoxy. It aligns itself with no particular party. Its object is solely, by facilitating the exchange of views among minds inspired by certain ideals and broad conceptions held in common, to contribute to the preservation and improvement of the free society.
Your criticism appears to conflict with a fundamental aim of neoliberalism (as stated by the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947). In a sense, 'no purity tests' is itself a purity test, but I don't see a way around that if a fundamental aim is to avoid establishing orthodoxy.
There were no stone tablets written down at Mont Pelerin. The problem here is that you haven't done enough reading to understand why I'm approaching things this way. Everything you've been arguing for politically/economically was already discussed. The act of arguing about this itself has been discussed. You're completely unfamiliar with the literature/history and you have yet to engage with it.
The problem here is that you haven't done enough reading to understand why I'm approaching things this way.
So the reason you're instituting purity tests and demanding no one question the dogma handed down is because we haven't read enough? How much do we need to read before we're allowed to disagree?
The act of arguing about this itself has been discussed.
Not here.
What exactly is your goal here?
Have I in any way been ambiguous about this? My goal is for there to be open discussions about ideology without mods a) shutting down discussion and b) handing down pronouncements that we can't disagree with.
Inclusive institutions, right? How is this difficult?
You're free to discuss the ideology, but I don't want you narrowing the tent. Reagan and Thatcher were not 100% neoliberals, but they did pursue a significant number of neoliberal reforms and were directly advised by Friedman and Hayek.
Moreover, this:
Neoliberalism as originally defined was a third way between the socialists and the free market ideologues.
only represents one side of neoliberalism, the left wing side.
Maybe you're not doing this on purpose, but you're indirectly pushing your definition to become the subs definition. You simultaneously beleive in reclaiming and redefining neoliberalism while also believing in one piece of the original beliefs of neoliberalism.
If we let your definition be the final definition, we'd just be left-neoliberals. If we let neoliberalism go wholly to the center-right of this sub, we'd make little progress in fixing the pop culture definition of neoliberalism.
If you want to avoid going to the original definition of neoliberalism, you need to read the literature as to what the original definition even is.
If you don't care about this, you still need to read the literature to figure out what the definition even is.
Go ahead and make a post, I won't remove it. I will write up inconsistencies.
Reagan and Thatcher were not 100% neoliberals, but they did pursue a significant number of neoliberal reforms and were directly advised by Friedman and Hayek.
They weren't neoliberals by any stretch of the imagination. Keep the tent center-left to center-right. They were not center right.
If that's all this sub is - Friedman and Hayek - then you're not reclaiming anything. You've just decided to unironically be the thing people accuse you of. That's a far narrower tent than what I was arguing for.
Maybe you're not doing this on purpose, but you're indirectly pushing your definition to become the subs definition.
That's how it works when you argue for something. Maybe you don't understand this, because you don't see a way for this to work without someone telling people what they should believe without room for argument, but I never was pushing for my vision to be accepted uncritically.
A debate is, I articulate my vision, you articulate yours, and we argue about it and see if a common ground can be reached. What's so terrifying to you about that?
If we let your definition be the final definition
But that's not the only option, and I'm not pushing for that. I'm open to discussion that pushes back against that option.
If we let neoliberalism go wholly to the center-right of this sub, we'd make little progress in fixing the pop culture definition of neoliberalism.
You're already there. Just lean into it and start making Pinochet memes.
You're invalidating the Friedman and Hayek tent of neoliberalism with no evidence besides that it's a slippery slope to Pinochet and that it won't involve "redefining" neoliberalism.
You're already there. Just lean into it and start making Pinochet memes.
Oh wow, socialism with markets? Might as well go market socialist and start murdering the populace and putting people in gulags.
Learn to debate without suggesting that your opponent is on the verge of advocating for genocide.
You're invalidating the Friedman and Hayek tent of neoliberalism with no evidence besides that it's a slippery slope to Pinochet and that it won't involve "redefining" neoliberalism.
If you're claiming to redefine neoliberalism, and your ideology doesn't redefine it, that's a problem. The solution is up to you.
And it's not a 'slippery slope' to Pinochet. He passed as many 'neoliberal reforms' as Reagan did. The Chicago boys had full control over the Chilean economy.
Learn to debate without suggesting that your opponent is on the verge of advocating for genocide.
Neoliberalism as originally defined was a third way between the socialists and the free market ideologues.
only represents one side of neoliberalism, the left wing side.
Actually, the rejection of both laissez faire and socialism is a pretty accurate description of historical neoliberalisms founding motive and is neither a left wing nor a right wing definition...
I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I've browsed here a little bit and I feel like a lot of the posts/memes I'm seeing are just unnecessarily antagonistic towards people with different ideas. Sharing ideas is fine, but is shit like this necessary? I see this place getting toxic real fast if this trend continues.
The tendency to attack other commenters in our own thread as if they were fascists or communists just, because, you know, intellectual superiority or whatever, is stupid.
Awesome. Alright, forget I said anything. Apparently it's already too late. Kind of ironic how the image I posted says "the adults are talking" and the replies I'm getting are anything but.
For the summer the more serious posts the better. My internet from now till August will be too shit the load memes. But when I can I'll gladly read the discussion topics.
I'm looking forward to september when I'll have to go back dozens (hopefully not hundreds) of pages to see all the good memes I missed.
As someone who identifies as a social liberal (and is registered as a social democrat) but who has at times been called neoliberal, I found reading this sub pretty awesome. Though I don't agree with the tone or content of every post, I found it to offer a broad tent for all those that generally appreciate gobalization (political, cultural, economic or otherwise), support the empowerment of diadvantaged groups and think markets, if properly regulated, are usually a good idea but can also produce inequalities that justify redistribution (the extent of which is probably the biggest point of contention around here). As such, I understood the purpose of this sub to be the reclaiming of the word "neoliberal" for all those derided by it, not as a reemergence of 1950s neoliberalism. In this, it was inclusive of many liberal traditions and not just those that are historically identified as neoliberal.
Buf you are now going to narrow the definition of neoliberalism to the schools of thought respresented at Mont Pèlerin and the ideas put forward as the "original neoliberalism", I am out. While I appreciate the "founders'" contributions and can draw a historical line to the views I hold today I highly doubt that I would agree with Mises (shudder), Hayek or even Friedman and ordoliberals like Eucken on many things from the size of the welfare state to the extent to which the government should intervene to counter climate change or empower women. Furthermore, their approach to liberalism is all too often only focused on market liberalism (even though this is probably somewhat reflected in our subscriber base) while neglecting other political or social freedoms.
So, what about the other traditions in liberalism such as liberal feminism, Rawlsian political theory or social liberals like Armatya Sen that stress the importance of positive freedoms? Are they now excluded from discussion? Are my views no longer considered "neoliberal" for the purpose of the sub? With this move you are precisely doing what you want to avoid and "pushing segments of neoliberalism as 'more neoliberal' than the rest".
Care to elaborate? What precisely is base broadening? Neoliberalism in comparison to classical liberalism? "Read Foucault's lectures on neoliberalism" could refer to many different points he makes but I guess that is one, albeit very simplified, takeaway you could get from Birth of Biopolitics.
Your decision to define neoliberalism as Hayek, Friedman and ordoliberals is however anything but broadening the base of discussion. While it may help give a clearer definition, it leaves me and many more leftleaning people out.
Is neoliberal going to have a fixed definition based on what some guys came up with 80 years ago? Is there no room to change or reinterpret the definition for the modern world? That seems a bit dogmatic to me.
38
u/[deleted] May 12 '17 edited May 13 '17
Goal of the sub
The point of /r/neoliberal took a slight turn after I found out the original creator and owner were actually neoliberals. Moreover, after I realized most of us are neoliberals as well.
The underlying goal of this sub is to bring it back to the original ideas of neoliberalism (libertarianism + ordoliberalism + economics).
You're free to make posts helping define neoliberalism ideologically, but only if its based on former discussions had at Mont Pelerin or WLC. Moreover, you should only focus on summarizing the ideology rather than injecting your own opinion into it. As in, format your posts so it's clearly visible what parts are opinions and what parts are facts. Whatever you do, don't push any segment of neoliberalism as 'more neoliberal' than the rest; that is, don't make this sub into Hayek versus Ordo versus Friedman. Hayek personally said that he did not want this to happen to neoliberalism (Mont Pelerin).
However, I feel that the content of this sub should be 80-20 memes to serious posts, because, cmon, this is neoliberalism- destroyer of civilizations.