Neoliberalism Definition
I'm still trying to sort out some kind of definition for neoliberalism so that I can write the first section in the Wikipedia article. I thought I had a good and simple scheme going, but writing as much as I had raised some questions, which I then went and tried to answer. That brought new information, and I think I need to rewrite the whole thing nearly from scratch to take into account all the new information I've taken in.
In trying to define neoliberalism, I've tried to separate out the different strands that make up that topic. As far as I can see, views that are regarded as neoliberal in our modern times do not make logical or rational sense compared to each other. Therefore I'm trying to find the differences between them and I'm sorting out logically opposed versions into different types.
The first type, I think, is that neoliberalism is a political movement based around the ideas of neoliberal economics. Neoliberal economics is based around the ideas of Fredrick Hayek and Friedman Milton, among others. This variant is related to classical liberalism in the sense that it views the state's role as being to coerce people as minimally as possible, and neoliberal economics does just that economically. I think this variant is utterly agnostic about social and environmental issues provided they again obey classical liberalism in being as minimally coercive as possible. As a result, it's not necessarily anti-socialist or harmful to the environment per se, although it could be. I think this is the view typified by the Washington Consensus.
I think there may be a second variant of the above, which is identical, but presupposes that only economic freedom can grant the liberalism a society needs. This is related more to economic liberalism, a belief that economic freedom supposes political and social freedom. This variant is anti-socialist and anti-environmental as these are considered unacceptable forms of coercion by the government.
The next type of neoliberalism is one that I've named class neoliberalism. It's the one most commonly found in left-wing works, when they're cursing the name of neoliberalism. I believe that it's the cynical manipulation of neoliberal ideas (of other types) by pro-capitalist forces to sell laissez-faire capitalist ideas for the introduction of social Darwinism or a new class hierarchy to gullible electorates. Alternatively, it's an attempt to justify, to Western Democratic governments, the promulgation of oppressive and corrupt elite regimes to pro-freedom governments. As a result, it's the old capitalist-socialist argument revived, and naturally, it's opposed by socialist forces. Apart from the fact that it misuses and cherry picks neoliberal ideas, I'm not actually sure this has much to do with neoliberalism itself.
The next type of neoliberalism, which I find utterly fascinating, is something I've nicknamed philosophical neoliberalism. This is a variant which leaves all sense and reason behind and opts for a utopian ideal, in which all transactions are carried out through the market. All social, environmental evils can be cured by creating the appropriate markets and allowing competition and the free market to do its job. It's a virtue ethic, in the sense that you compare your actions with an ideal person, the entrepreneur. Rather than believing that markets exist to serve people, it believes that you exist to serve the market and your purpose is to compete. It believes that you are entrepreneur in charge of your own life, and you should handle it as such. Because this is less of a practical political movement, and more of a philosophy, this tends to be embedded more in culture than it does in politics and economics.
In trying to define neoliberalism, I've tried to separate out the different strands that make up that topic. As far as I can see, views that are regarded as neoliberal in our modern times do not make logical or rational sense compared to each other. Therefore I'm trying to find the differences between them and I'm sorting out logically opposed versions into different types.
The first type, I think, is that neoliberalism is a political movement based around the ideas of neoliberal economics. Neoliberal economics is based around the ideas of Fredrick Hayek and Friedman Milton, among others. This variant is related to classical liberalism in the sense that it views the state's role as being to coerce people as minimally as possible, and neoliberal economics does just that economically. I think this variant is utterly agnostic about social and environmental issues provided they again obey classical liberalism in being as minimally coercive as possible. As a result, it's not necessarily anti-socialist or harmful to the environment per se, although it could be. I think this is the view typified by the Washington Consensus.
I think there may be a second variant of the above, which is identical, but presupposes that only economic freedom can grant the liberalism a society needs. This is related more to economic liberalism, a belief that economic freedom supposes political and social freedom. This variant is anti-socialist and anti-environmental as these are considered unacceptable forms of coercion by the government.
The next type of neoliberalism is one that I've named class neoliberalism. It's the one most commonly found in left-wing works, when they're cursing the name of neoliberalism. I believe that it's the cynical manipulation of neoliberal ideas (of other types) by pro-capitalist forces to sell laissez-faire capitalist ideas for the introduction of social Darwinism or a new class hierarchy to gullible electorates. Alternatively, it's an attempt to justify, to Western Democratic governments, the promulgation of oppressive and corrupt elite regimes to pro-freedom governments. As a result, it's the old capitalist-socialist argument revived, and naturally, it's opposed by socialist forces. Apart from the fact that it misuses and cherry picks neoliberal ideas, I'm not actually sure this has much to do with neoliberalism itself.
The next type of neoliberalism, which I find utterly fascinating, is something I've nicknamed philosophical neoliberalism. This is a variant which leaves all sense and reason behind and opts for a utopian ideal, in which all transactions are carried out through the market. All social, environmental evils can be cured by creating the appropriate markets and allowing competition and the free market to do its job. It's a virtue ethic, in the sense that you compare your actions with an ideal person, the entrepreneur. Rather than believing that markets exist to serve people, it believes that you exist to serve the market and your purpose is to compete. It believes that you are entrepreneur in charge of your own life, and you should handle it as such. Because this is less of a practical political movement, and more of a philosophy, this tends to be embedded more in culture than it does in politics and economics.