[segfaultbuserr]

> the West enjoyed an extraordinary period of peace, prosperity, and technological progress, all under the guidance of Enlightenment [...] But then there was [...] great political instability [...] In addition modern developments such as radio and the automobile produced considerably cultural disruption. All this produced great confusion and despair among much of the intellectual class, and a great many abandoned Liberalism and Enlightenment philosophy.

What will happen in the 2020s-2030s? What will become the new replacement of Neoliberalism? From time to time, I find myself considering this question. The historical background now is remarkably similar. I bet some Hacker News headlines (e.g. "UK votes to leave EU") we've seen has already appeared in a 2060 exam on the early 2010s-2030s, not unlike the our impression of early 1910s-1930s history.

[tim333]

Brexit and Trump don't really compare to WW1. The big change that I think is coming is AGI which will change things more than WW1. Not quite sure how it'll play out.

[sdfin]

What's the difference between liberalism and neoliberalism? I'd like to read something about that.

[Kednicma]

Wikipedia has a fine overview on all of this.

All liberals, from classical liberals to metaliberals, believe in basic tenets of freedom which are required to have a consenting and aware government, like free speech and freedom to keep private property. Neoliberals are right-of-center liberals who focus on fiscal power, consumerist economy, and free markets.

The main distinction worth highlighting is that neoliberalism does not view it as a problem when large piles of money participate in politics. After all, free markets imply that market leaders must know something about something and aren't merely lucky; therefore they are worth putting in charge of government. In Hong Kong, we see this taken to an extreme, with banks directly voting to choose legislators, but we also see variants all over the world, like the infamous Citizens United vs FEC decision in the USA which allows corporations to directly steer political action committees.

Liberalism is the ACLU; neoliberalism is Disney. The ACLU works to defend everybody's rights; Disney just wants to make money.

[leephillips]

Thank you for that rundown; I found it useful, because I’m also hazy about this terminology.

I hesitate to take this into what might be an irrelevant and contentious side road, but I just want to remark that the ACLU is not considered an organization that defends “everybody’s“ rights by everybody. They’ve historically done a fantastic job at defending freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and also 4th amendment rights. Aside from that, it depends on the cultural background of whatever lawyers happen to have influence in the organization. I don’t think most gun owners would say the the ACLU is interested in defending them against the government’s infringement of their rights to keep and bear arms, for example. And, more recently, they’ve taken stances that some people consider misogynistic, by telling women that they have no right to women-only spaces, for example. Women have increasing reason to feel that the ACLU is not defending their rights, in this sphere. So are they a good example of Liberalism? I guess it’s complicated.

[dalbasal]

These things are never clean.

In the context of 20th century liberalism, some rights are more broadly accepted than others. Freedom of speech, press, free assembly, political association, rule of law, religion, property etc... these are the core freedoms.. the liberties liberalism refers to. Gun rights are somewhat unique to America so IDK how to treat them.

Other rights... these are not necessarily "liberal" rights. Socialism, for example, always criticised liberals for leaving workers rights and economic rights out of the equation. The ones that exist in law came about later, from socialist (progressives in US terms) agitations that came from "left" of the liberals.

Women only spaces, other such rights... I'm not sure how they relate to liberalism. Feminism generally has not been a purely liberal movement. It had/has many camps and influences.

Liberalism does not mean support for every right. In fact, early liberalism opposed the "rights and privileges" of monarchs, clergy and the aristocracy. Those rights, for example, are part of the UK constitution, but liberals are against them.

[leephillips]

I think that clarifies something. Any right, even a basic human right, is in conflict with something that someone else might consider an opposing right. So Liberalism is more specific than recognition of rights of man, or something like that. It is the elevation of a particular set of rights. It is a taking of sides. Would you agree with that?

[dalbasal]

That's one way of looking at it.

I personally think political ideologies are just less complete than their self perception. Liberalism, as a political/historical phenomenon just is what it is. It recognised certain things as "rights of man." Some evolved, others got added. Mostly though, what they invented then is what liberalism is today.

Much of liberalism was related to politics of the day. Monarchism, clericalism, etc. Freedom of religion, association, speech and such were issues of the day. Feminism's boom years were still hundreds of years away. I can't really think of any (old) liberals who even talked about women's issues.

It's not necessarily a question of opposing rights. It's about what rights you recognise or don't.

In Scotland, the "right to roam" exists... which allows you to access private property like farms. In the US, "gun rights" exist.

You could theoretically have any political rights in your version of liberalism. It just happens to have happened, that liberalism converged on a certain set of rights early on and stuck with that.

[Kednicma]

No, the entire conception of rights is tied to liberalism, and itself is not the end of human moral ideology. Rights are good compromises: If we all broadly agree that humans are entitled to some right R, then R will become a social institution which we enshrine and protect, and that is good enough for society to make progress and people to get on with their lives.

For a deeper look, try this Marxist approach, "The Problem With Human Rights" [0]. As both they and I want to emphasize, the goal isn't to take away rights or to disenfranchise people, but to explore exactly what we mean when we say that people are endowed with inalienable rights and what we want governments to do about it.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q

[roodgead]

um ...Maybe 1st they splitted "Freedom" in 'economical freedom' and 'profanity, earthliness, worldliness -secularised liberty'. Hope that you now are able to draw a 'more detailed' picture. (-:

BTW: It had been more fun to ask, 'Am I Running Somebody Down To Be Right ?' ^^

[dalbasal]

It's difficult to put precise meanings on it.

Neoliberalism in particular is much more common as an epitaph than a self description.

Broadly, liberalism referred to the rational, secular and mostly republican political philosophies of the 18th century. Rousseau, Locke (not a republican), etc. These are strongly associated with the French and American revolutions. ATT "liberal" meant people would have a say in government. Republican had a stronger anti-monarchist connotation, especially after the French Revolution. It meant abolishing the monarchy, aristocracy and limiting the church's power.

Liberalism became the most dominant political philosophy. Even dissident political ideas like communism, corporatism and 19th century conservatism tended to be derivations and/or responses to liberalism.

"Classical Liberals" usually refers to early 20th century people. Much of it is anticommunist, pro-capitalist ideas responding to the explosion of revolutionary Marxism. Many of these created philosophies that pull history, economics and politics into one framework. This was Marx' format, and it became a template of sorts.

This is when people start using "capitalism" in a positive way, describing themselves as capitalists. Marx used the term "capitalist" to mean people with capital, not people with certain beliefs. "Capitalism," implied that capitalists had usurped power and were the ones in charge. Kind of like the term "corporate lobbyist" today.

The nomenclature always seems odd to me, since "classical liberals" come later.

"Neoliberalism" usually refers to free market, antisocialist politics of the 70s onwards. In earlier decades its associated strongly with Reagan and Tatcher. De-unionisation, free trade, and lower taxes & privatisation. David Ricardo is (early 18th century) had a lot of influence.

From the 90s on, neoliberalism refers to pro-market, centre-left politics. By this point, no one calls themselves a neoliberal.. especially the centre left who hate the term. It's associated refers to Clinton, Bush, Blaire, Angela Merkel etc. Most western politicians really.

The idea, broadly, is that the free market makes wealth.. which can then be used to better society. The term itself is almost always used in dissent, considering neoliberalism to be the incumbent system. This kind of completes the cycle. Marx used "capitalism" as an epitath to criticise liberalism. Classical liberals adopted the term. Then they get called neoliberals.

The lines dividing all these are very fuzzy. In its most common current usage, it means politcal "centrist," more or less.

It's more about de facto politics than abstract political philosophies.