Recently, fellow Substacker, Lloyd Alter proposed corresponding and sharing our thoughts on Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism, by Guardian columnist and environmental advocate George Monbiot and filmmaker Peter Hutchison.
It really is not. Even a passing knowledge of the history of liberalism, such as one might get from reading the Encyclopedia Britannica article on liberalism, shows that neoliberalism is a direct line continuation of classical liberalism.
The problem is that the original meaning of "liberal" has been obscured. Liberalism, especially in the USA, has become synonymous with *bleeding heart liberalism*.
The actual liberals were the original proponents of small government (deregulation), low taxation (hands off our profits!), zero-sum competition, laissez faire capitalism, social Darwinism, and utilitarianism - all the same attitudes we associate with neoliberalism and with the British Empire.
The moralising and melioristic aspects of liberalism are adventitious. The bleeding heart liberals also embraced the dog-eat-dog aspects of capitalism. The difference is that they felt bad about the effects of it on the poor.
"Neoliberalism is misnamed"
It really is not. Even a passing knowledge of the history of liberalism, such as one might get from reading the Encyclopedia Britannica article on liberalism, shows that neoliberalism is a direct line continuation of classical liberalism.
The problem is that the original meaning of "liberal" has been obscured. Liberalism, especially in the USA, has become synonymous with *bleeding heart liberalism*.
The actual liberals were the original proponents of small government (deregulation), low taxation (hands off our profits!), zero-sum competition, laissez faire capitalism, social Darwinism, and utilitarianism - all the same attitudes we associate with neoliberalism and with the British Empire.
The moralising and melioristic aspects of liberalism are adventitious. The bleeding heart liberals also embraced the dog-eat-dog aspects of capitalism. The difference is that they felt bad about the effects of it on the poor.
I really like this format of a conversation. It's got me thinking.