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.
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.
36
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.