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.

  • 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
      3
      ·
      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? You’re just… Using globalization wrong.

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

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

            That’s basically what US citizenship looked like at the outset of America- until the Immigration Act was passed, you sent a letter to your local Justice of the Peace declaring your intent to remain in America and that commemorated your citizenship.

            As previously stated, I am a globalist and I agree with open borders.

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

                  Just reminding you of reality - US citizenship never looked like open borders, even before the Immigration Act.

                  Also? The very act of sending a letter to declare your intent to remain in America is, itself, a citizenship test. You needed to know how to read and write in the King’s English, after all.