Why YSK: I’ve noticed in recent years more people using “neoliberal” to mean “Democrat/Labor/Social Democrat politicians I don’t like”. This confusion arises from the different meanings “liberal” has in American politics and further muddies the waters.

Neoliberalism came to the fore during the 80’s under Reagan and Thatcher and have continued mostly uninterrupted since. Clinton, both Bushs, Obama, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Johnson, and many other world leaders and national parties support neoliberal policies, despite their nominal opposition to one another at the ballot box.

It is important that people understand how neoliberalism has reshaped the world economy in the past four decades, especially people who are too young to remember what things were like before. Deregulation and privatization were touted as cost-saving measures, but the practical effect for most people is that many aspects of our lives are now run by corporations who (by law!) put profits above all else. Neoliberalism has hollowed out national economies by allowing the offshoring of general labor jobs from developed countries.

In the 80’s and 90’s there was an “anti-globalization” movement of the left that sought to oppose these changes. The consequences they warned of have come to pass. Sadly, most organized opposition to neoliberal policies these days comes from the right. Both Trump and the Brexit campaign were premised on reinvigorating national economies. Naturally, both failed, in part because they had no cohesive plan or understanding that they were going against 40 years of precedent.

So, yes, establishment Democrats are neoliberals, but so are most Republicans.

  • queermunist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    our national economy being structured in a way that offsets risk onto the most vulnerable working class folks

    i.e. neoliberalism

    Internationalism is good. Globalism is not. All globalism means is open borders for capital and hard borders for workers.

    • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Globalism when used by like 95% of people includes dropping immigration restrictions, so I’m not sure what you’re on about here.

      • queermunist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not really. They emphasize “legal” immigration, by which they mean a series of restrictions on how people are allowed to enter the country and what qualifies them to become citizens. The actual implementation of neoliberal policies always includes strict border controls, limited asylum seeking, 2nd class citizenship for migrants, and harsh penalties for migrating “wrong” and not jumping through all the legal and financial hoops.

        Capital moving freely while migrants die in the Mojave and drown in the Mediterranean.

        • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Again, 95% of people who use the term “globalist” to describe someone else associate it with open borders. I’m not sure what you’re on about here.

          • queermunist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            People who describe themselves as globalists generally reject the idea of open borders. Labor visas, not the free movement of labor.

            What you’re talking about is a smear, not reality.

            • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I describe myself as a globalist and I explicitly believe in open borders. I’m not sure what you’re on about here.

              • queermunist@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I think it’s pretty clear “what I’m on about.” I’ve explained it pretty thoroughly, even if you keep just repeating yourself.

                What are you on about?

                Do you believe in the concept of citizenship, with different legal rules for citizens vs noncitizens?

                • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think pragmatically you need to have some basis for taxing a subset of people, and thus those people will have to be “citizens” subject to certain different rules- but most privileges and duties should apply to residents irrespective of their citizenship status. That’s basically how US state borders work and those borders are considered “open” even though there is a concept of state citizenship.

                  As long as states exist, citizenship has to exist, but that doesn’t mean we should regulate who can enter, live, and work in our country on the basis of origin, social class, or other things that aren’t like “is this person entering to escape from a crime in their country that we would have punished” or “is this person entering to start a fascist uprising” etc.

                  • queermunist@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Living within the US, I don’t need to apply for citizenship every time I move to a different state. The law applies to me equally even if I only just crossed the border for lunch, and the only special rules are related to residency; as long as I live in a state I count as a resident, I can vote and send my kids to school and have to pay taxes etc.

                    That is what open borders actually looks like. That is what the free movement of labor means. Residency, not citizenship.

                    Globalists do not want this. They need hard borders and citizenship to control the movement of labor. Work visas can be revoked, are tied to a place of employment, and are temporary. Perfect labor units for neoliberal capitalism.