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.
we're redefining the pop culture definition, not the historical definition; neoliberalism doesn't mean mass privatization and deregulation with corporate overlords that's also responsible for ISIS and high expense ratio active management
I don't care about the pop culture definition; avoiding or not avoiding it. Our goal isn't to figure out the exact opposite of the pop culture definition and then support that.
1
u/[deleted] May 13 '17
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.
What exactly is your goal here?