What's the difference between classical liberalism and neoliberalism? Can you please explain...

It's a pretty wide tradition, but basically didn't exclusively refer to a free market ideology like neo-liberalism does.

So does classical liberalism just mean an early collection of early liberal ideas? Nothing solid?

The point that I was making in bringing up Chomsky was that people who tend to use classical liberal to describe their views often leave out the bits where those same "classical liberals" we're also concerned about social problems. It's only taking away the parts that fit their own free-market ideals and then leaving out the parts when those same individuals wrote about, say, the conflicts between classes of people.

Classical liberalism is proto-leftism. Before leftist ideas had really developed there was the ideology of giving regular people more freedom and power. That was called liberalism. Conservatism was the opposite idea, that things were fine as they were and should stay that way.

Neo-liberalism is to liberalism as neo-conservatism is to conservatism. Both are ideologies adapted to serve the needs of global capitalism. Neo-liberalism is the dominant ideology (most people believe it) while neo-conservatism is the controlled opposition designed to be a cartoonishly evil version of neo-liberalism/capitalism. Most issues they differ on are wedge issues like identity politics that have little effect on the average person. Where they are the same is that they serve the interests of mega-corporations while paying lip service to the proletariat in order to keep getting votes and create a semblance of a democratic system. While telling people they're going to help make their lives better and give them more freedoms, both sides will spy on their people, build the capitalist empire, and continue tightening the screws of capital to exploit the workers.

The biggest difference between classic liberalism and modern liberalism is kinda summed up here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

Classic liberals didn't put as much emphisis on 'social justice'.

Classic liberals put far higher value on freedom of thought and expression than today's 'liberals'.

Can someone give me a quick summary of the leftist argument against free trade/neoliberalism?

It depends on whose using the term. but basically, any usage of the term that would preclude Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Paine, as the current right-wing libertarian usage seems to be doing is necessarily incomplete.

Karl Marx actually and ironically wrote an essay in favor of free trade because he thought it would hasten the revolution.

Are you OP?

If you want a good classical liberal philosopher to read, I recommend my man, J.S. Mill, in particular, his book "On Liberty". (Also I think this book happens to be a good pairing with Stirner)

Strange how both here and Holla Forums try claim old school liberalism for themselves. Is this a rose tinted look at the past or was classic liberalism better? And if so, what went wrong?

Privatisation is key to neoliberalism. left no like privatisation full stop.

No, just new here.

I've always had the impression that socialism was internationalist and thus wouldn't stuff like protectionism tend toward nativism?

Free trade is bad because

It usually is. neoliberalism was borne out the idea of rolling back what its theorists thought of as an over-intrusive state and the belief that private ownership of means of production was better and more efficient than any other way.

It's more like it was a really fucking basic observation that poor people had a shit life and could have better. "What went wrong" is that people disagreed about how to put the idea of "make shit better" into practice.

See the problem here is that there were some proto-socialist thought in classical liberalism. I look at Jean-Jacques Rousseau talk about class conflict and private property as someone that would have been a socialist if he lived in the right time period.

And even a figure like John Mill, actually called himself a socialist and wrote favorably of Robert Owen's decentralized co-op movement. John Dewey would be another example.

But conservatism back then was attached to the status-quo of feudalism/monarchy.
After liberalism and capitalism took over, the conservatives came back with their traditional ideas. Today's conservatives are liberalism and liberalism, even social liberalism, is no longer the left.

How does one get around this? Imposing tariffs?

I like the idea that conservatives have no real fixed ideology and waver between not wanting changes happening too quickly and wanting things to be as they were in their idealization of the past.

Loads of people have called themselves socialist over the years. But most of them are derided here for not being pure enough. Orwell is a filthy SocDem all the way to a porky propagandist depending upon who and what ideology is commenting on him.

NATlONAL SOCIALISM!

Did not know that. I would go even so far as to say his philosophy's shared a little with post modernism, but not directly.

That is literally what I said.

That's one method. You can also have trade quotas or something. The biggest problem here is the ability to outsource and have a company based in a country where it doesn't operate. You want to use the labor of poor Bangladeshis? That's nice. You're not allowed to do that as a US company. Go start a company in Bangladesh if you want to employ those people. Remember, if you want to bring their products here, you have to pay the tariff! Of course, with socialism you wouldn't have the employer. Workers would make their own companies in different countries and their incentives to improve their local economy would stop them from buying too much shit from other places.

The latter is what they really want. The former is a compromise they make when the latter is untenable. It's the exact same mentality with religious fundies. "Oh science has found out that the universe is billions of years old? Well the time span in the Bible is metaphorical. Evolution isn't really real though. God still created everything. He… guided… 'evolution' which is just a minor change really."

You're right. It does get tricky when we start applying our modern, "scientific", understating of what socialism is to what it meant back then.

I do find it interesting though this little tidbit about John Dewey.

OP here,

the latter, as you know, are called reactionaries

Wasn't he a socialist. He called himself a democratic socialist. Talk is cheap and people abuse words (B████ ██████) but this was before socialism became slandered and strawmanned and democratic socialism is a thing.

I'm just confused. Was everything that could be considered classical liberal pre-capitalist. Thus, wasn't it just a loose collection of ideas?

Conservative liberalism is a thing too found in modern society, correct?

I'm really interested in liberalism. I think we should be well versed in liberal history to understand what is wrong with liberalism, understand what earlier socialists saw and construct better ideas for the new world.

"classical liberal" is an extremely loose term, but as long as people know what group of ideas you're talking about then it's not that big of a deal. If you're interested at all, Noam Chomsky talks about classical liberalism all the time. His latest movie, Requiem for the American Dream takes some choice quotes from Adam Smith and others in order to critique American capitalism.

That's not what a neoconservative is.
Neocons are somewhat socially liberal compared to their conservative counterparts. They were largely made up of former Trotskyists. What separates them is that their foreign policy revolves around interventionism under the guise of spreading freedom and the promotion of American interests in foreign affairs. A neocon can be described as a neoliberal. They both have similar economic goals.

Neocons: new conservatives. As you say, many were trotskyites. Most were anything but conservative back in the day.

What that user says still makes sense. As you say, neocons are about looking to secure what they say as the nation's interests in international affairs and getting involved countries to spread what they say as Western values while neoliberals tend to be much more openly against foreign involvement and wars but both greatly serve the capitalist class and are indeed put together to make a cheap opposition.

Neocons were originally anti-Stalinists leftists that agreed with conservative foreign policy. Later on, the term changed to mean someone who was domestically liberal, but favored conservative foreign policy like spreading democracy, Western values, etc. through interventionism. It's basically not really relevant anymore and the term is being applied to traditional conservatives for some reason when it should be used to refer to people like Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens.

But neoliberals aren't opposed to interventionism. He's positing a false dichotomy that doesn't exist.

I think propertarians usually are. Like Ron Paul for example.

And they make up a very small, fringe portion of neoliberalism. Most western governments are neoliberal and they certainly aren't anti-interventionism.

Well, I guess you're right.

Sam Harris is neocon? Neocons are irrelevant? you were spot on right up to here. But they are still very relevant. Hell I'd say Clinton is the next generation of neocon and she's going to be fucking prez. Even Bush wasn't himself a neocon. Just easily led. It is neocon logic that dictates Russia's old friends must be brought down. This was the '7 wars in 5 years' A four star general spilled the beans on.

Imma keep posting this article til someone reads it.

newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

RP is not neolib as he isn't a globalist. To qualify as neolib you must believe in both privatisation and globalist. RP was a right libertarian. Neolibs are generally ambivalent about intervention, I'd say leaning towards liberal interventionism on the more hawkish side.

Ben Stiller is very big on interventionism and American exceptionalism. He consistently defends the US's military adventurism in the Middle East. He's a neocon in the same vein as post-9/11 Hitchens.

And here I thought you had to be a bleeding heart liberal to be in Hollywood.

And yes, being pro-isreal is almost intrinsic to being a neocon.

By Ben Stiller I mean Harris.

I kinda wondered after hitting reply. Sam Harris hates islam but I don't think he shares much with the neocons beyond that. Hell even the neocons don't hate all islam. Just Islam that threatens Israel. They've nothing but love for the worst country on earth ever.

He was for complete deregulation and privatization of almost everything including school. You are right that he is a propertarian but he was also for free trade and all the neoliberal shit. Not all neolibs are for internationalism, so how is he not a neolib?

But also here's another misuse of the term neoconservative. Sam Harris IS a neoconservative; the republicans he agrees with on foreign issues are just regular old conservatives.

I think an argument could be made that neoliberalism refers to the hegemonic ideology that came to power as a result of the economic situation in the 70's and has now mostly lost influence and not the general ideology of "free markets" or neoclassical economics that predate the dominance of neoliberalism.

They like Muslims that fall into their secular liberal torture chamber.

But they still say shit like "Islam is at war with us" and "Muslims are your enemy" like they don't agree with any Muslims. They're kind of hypocritical faggots.

My favorite is when they say stuff like "why aren't moderate Muslims speaking out" when a terrorist attack happens. It shows a total disregard for anything that doesn't agree with their stereotypical idea of Islam and/or an unwillingness to google this stuff rather than just assume it's true.

Neoliberalism is just economic i.e. the difference between the classical economists like Smith, Ricardo and Mill and the neoclassical/Austrians like Friedman and Mises

youtube.com/watch?v=m4ylSG54i-A

The political side of things has more to do with neoconservatism as an ideology

I'm not sure if it's necessarily a good move to classify Austrian economics under neoclassical economics even though it draws heavily from that school. I think Steve Keen makes the distinction, and my economics professor did also.

But also this isn't what neoconservative means once more. Neoconservatism isn't just a catch-all term for modern, liberal or even "new" conservative politics.

Not liking Islam is not qualification for being a neocon. Come back to me when he endorses the hard line against Russia.

The ones I was thinking of were the gulf monarchies.

yeah, austrian school goes under neoliberalism.

You're also not going to find a lot of everyday conservatives talk about Russia either, especially not considering they view Islam as a more immediate threat. In the interview where Sam Harris says that he'd support Ben Carson's foreign policy over Noam Chomsky, he also endorsed some guy who literally wrote a book called "Neoconservatism: why we need it". And read any of his books where he says he'd support pre-emptive millitary attacks and even nuking the Middle East. Or his stance on Muslim refugees vs what American liberals think. The hoops some people will go through… It's fine if you agree with him, but those are conservative stances and he himself agrees more with conservatives than liberals and definitely leftists on issues of foreign policy.

Even Zizek, who is very critical of the Muslim refugee situation ultimately agrees with the left in that we should bring more of them in.

Can someone explain to me the Zizek case? I haven't read any of his books but I have checked out a couple of his recent articles. A lot of people criticise him - rightfully, i might say - of being an sophisticated fasist. But on the other hand, there is so much hype going on about him in pretty much all the leftist cycles. Is this 'read zizek' meme ironic or people really mean it?

conservative =/= neocon.

You defined it well above

then tried to back away from that definition. It is accurate. The only thing you missed was the belief that all action taken should be taken to secure and entrench the US position as the worlds leading power. This is the crux of neoconservatism. Another word for them would be 'America Firsters'. A lot of them are also extremely sympathetic to Israel, partly cause many of their thinkers were jewish, partly cause of the symbiotic relationship between the US and Israel.

...

Welcome to left/pol/. Where anything that anyone disagrees with is a fascism.

btw is there a welcome to Holla Forums.jpg?

I hate how people abuse the word fascism. Fascism is/was a real thing. It's not an insult (although it is stupid) so stop using it like one. Same with the word reactionary

I only described it as I know the term, so maybe the quoted part is crucial to understanding what it is. You could be right. Either way, I don't need to attach that particular label to Sam Harris to know that I disagree with him on certain political issues. It's not a useful word nowadays I don't think.

Sorry to keep pushing the point but I think it IS pretty important to understanding a lot of the shit going down right now.

You may have seen this video before.

youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Neocon fingerprints are all over this shit.

And I'd point you again at this article>>785649

Anyway, I'll drop it.

Here you go.

The next president might be a neocon. It's still pretty relevant.

Thanks m8. Lost it on the third panel. The whole thing is fucking hilarious.

Classical liberalism - liberalism before the 20th century
Neoliberalism - policies of privatizations and free market/free trade reforms that arose in the 70s.

The 19th Century was a pretty good case study for the point that classical liberalism couldn't achieve the sort of society classical liberals wanted, so in the first decades of the 20th century, classical liberalism died and became social liberalism.

Neoliberalism was a political movement based around reversing the many social reforms that had built up over the course of the 20th century. Unlike classical liberalism, it had no ambitions to create any sort of free and equal society, it was nothing more than economic powers destroying the labor movement and welfare state while enriching themselves.

"Zizek is a fascist" is actually more of an idpol meme that developed outside of Holla Forums