That’s a completely US-centric view. All your liberals might be capitalists, elsewhere, various forms of social liberalism are very much alive and kicking. It’s one half of the ingredient in the EU’s compromise of “social market economy”: It’s a thing both social liberals and democratic socialists can lay claim to and, indeed, in policy terms there’s gigantic spaces of overlap. Parliament-wise it’s most directly represented mostly by Green/EFA but floats in various forms and shades in pretty much all parties, especially Renew though the neolibs are also part of that one.
It’s also ancient, dating back to the mid-1800s, bringing you things such as credit unions.
From a different angle: Marx was wrong, there’s indeed petite bourgeois who are capable of class consciousness. Also, understanding macroeconomics and how trickle down is bullshit. They may be millionaires but that’s still a billion away from a billion, they want people to have money in their pockets so you have money to visit their cinema or whatever.
Also once upon a time neoliberalism meant ordoliberalism but that’s a historical note. The current use refers to BS that indeed makes the word itself a pejorative, just as “shit” is a pejorative for shit.
I’d be curious what liberal party in what country you mean.
AFAIK the liberal parties in Europe like Germany, France and UK want exactly what the US neoliberals want, to dismantle the social equality state, deregulation, private schools, private healthcare etc. But they are usually smaller third parties after Social Democrats and Conservatives. But even the Christian Conservatives in e.g. Germany are more socialist than the third party liberals, and to the left of the Democrats in the US.
Of course, ever since the “Third Way” after the fall of the USSR and Clinton, the social democratic parties of Europe also have become far more neoliberal.
The question is really who’s liberty? The liberation of the masses from economic exploitation? Or the liberty of the capitalists to exploit the masses? There is absolutely no doubt what is meant today with liberalism.
And their virtue signalling you can mostly ignore. Why would they want to solve an issue they could run on next election?
I’d be curious what liberal party in what country you mean.
AFAIK the liberal parties in Europe like Germany, France and UK want exactly what the US neoliberals want
Taking Germany as an example: The FDP, once upon a time, had a large social-liberal wing and was in coalition with the SPD, but that’s long gone by now they’re firmly neoliberal. The Greens are social-liberal, the Pirates are, and so is Volt. A social-liberal party that’s part of Renew instead of Greens/EFA would be Radikale Venstre.
The question is really who’s liberty? The liberation of the masses from economic exploitation? Or the liberty of the capitalists to exploit the masses? There is absolutely no doubt what is meant today with liberalism.
Part of the stated goals of the feed-in tariff system the German Greens cooked up was, aside from saving the planet by boosting renewables, to de-monopolise the market, to distribute ownership of the means of electricity production wider, and they indeed were successful we now have plenty of wind mills here that are owned by municipal-level cooperatives. Couple of farmers, the local machine shop, couple of pensioners, that’s enough own capital to convince the local cooperative and public banks to chime in with a credit, build the thing. Left to pure environmentalism they might’ve passed laws requiring the big monopolists to build more renewables, a more traditional leftist approach would be to build state-owned renewables, the Greens instead created, through smart regulation, market conditions that made it possible for small fish to get into the fray, out-flanking the monopolists.
That is, you missed something in your dichotomy: The liberation of the small fish from the accumulation power of the big fish. That policy is 110% ordoliberali: Regulate the market such that market failures are corrected. Neoliberals generally do the opposite, remove regulation that prevents failures because that pleases their monopolist overlords, or even regulate to fail though at that point it probably should be called straight-up kleptocracy.
And their virtue signalling you can mostly ignore. Why would they want to solve an issue they could run on next election?
Now you’re being a doomer. Yes, that happens, generally in politics not limited to any spectrum, but it’s also self-destructive as voters will consider you unfit to rule. It’s not like we’re limited to two parties over here, things can and do shift.
That’s a completely US-centric view. All your liberals might be capitalists, elsewhere, various forms of social liberalism are very much alive and kicking. It’s one half of the ingredient in the EU’s compromise of “social market economy”: It’s a thing both social liberals and democratic socialists can lay claim to and, indeed, in policy terms there’s gigantic spaces of overlap. Parliament-wise it’s most directly represented mostly by Green/EFA but floats in various forms and shades in pretty much all parties, especially Renew though the neolibs are also part of that one.
It’s also ancient, dating back to the mid-1800s, bringing you things such as credit unions.
From a different angle: Marx was wrong, there’s indeed petite bourgeois who are capable of class consciousness. Also, understanding macroeconomics and how trickle down is bullshit. They may be millionaires but that’s still a billion away from a billion, they want people to have money in their pockets so you have money to visit their cinema or whatever.
Also once upon a time neoliberalism meant ordoliberalism but that’s a historical note. The current use refers to BS that indeed makes the word itself a pejorative, just as “shit” is a pejorative for shit.
I’d be curious what liberal party in what country you mean.
AFAIK the liberal parties in Europe like Germany, France and UK want exactly what the US neoliberals want, to dismantle the social equality state, deregulation, private schools, private healthcare etc. But they are usually smaller third parties after Social Democrats and Conservatives. But even the Christian Conservatives in e.g. Germany are more socialist than the third party liberals, and to the left of the Democrats in the US.
Of course, ever since the “Third Way” after the fall of the USSR and Clinton, the social democratic parties of Europe also have become far more neoliberal.
The question is really who’s liberty? The liberation of the masses from economic exploitation? Or the liberty of the capitalists to exploit the masses? There is absolutely no doubt what is meant today with liberalism.
And their virtue signalling you can mostly ignore. Why would they want to solve an issue they could run on next election?
Taking Germany as an example: The FDP, once upon a time, had a large social-liberal wing and was in coalition with the SPD, but that’s long gone by now they’re firmly neoliberal. The Greens are social-liberal, the Pirates are, and so is Volt. A social-liberal party that’s part of Renew instead of Greens/EFA would be Radikale Venstre.
Part of the stated goals of the feed-in tariff system the German Greens cooked up was, aside from saving the planet by boosting renewables, to de-monopolise the market, to distribute ownership of the means of electricity production wider, and they indeed were successful we now have plenty of wind mills here that are owned by municipal-level cooperatives. Couple of farmers, the local machine shop, couple of pensioners, that’s enough own capital to convince the local cooperative and public banks to chime in with a credit, build the thing. Left to pure environmentalism they might’ve passed laws requiring the big monopolists to build more renewables, a more traditional leftist approach would be to build state-owned renewables, the Greens instead created, through smart regulation, market conditions that made it possible for small fish to get into the fray, out-flanking the monopolists.
That is, you missed something in your dichotomy: The liberation of the small fish from the accumulation power of the big fish. That policy is 110% ordoliberali: Regulate the market such that market failures are corrected. Neoliberals generally do the opposite, remove regulation that prevents failures because that pleases their monopolist overlords, or even regulate to fail though at that point it probably should be called straight-up kleptocracy.
Now you’re being a doomer. Yes, that happens, generally in politics not limited to any spectrum, but it’s also self-destructive as voters will consider you unfit to rule. It’s not like we’re limited to two parties over here, things can and do shift.