Welcome friends!
You may recall I did a post not long ago on the curious habit in some circles of using the word “neoliberalism” to refer to the orthodox free market ideology we’ve long associated with economic “conservatism” here in the USA. I pointed out that in traditional American terminology the “neoliberals” were simply erstwhile liberals who adopted long-standing conservative free market ideology in the 1980s but retained other aspects of the broader liberal political agenda and hence were not simply called conservatives. I suggested calling conservative economic ideology “neoliberalism” seems rather comical to me, as that very same free market ideology existed in this country long before the 1980s, and even after the 1980s has been championed primarily by economic conservatives rather than neoliberals. It struck me as very much an instance of what I believe they call the tail wagging the dog. I wondered why that shift in terminology might have occurred and looked for antecedents in the various ways the term “neoliberalism” was used in Europe prior to the 1980s and so on. However, more recently I had an online exchange with a very enthusiastic fellow who gave me an entirely new perspective on what might be going on with that term, so I thought I might just do a quick update on that issue today.
My interlocutor seemed very much concerned to establish that free market economic ideology essentially began in the 1980s and was the work of liberals in the guise of neoliberals. He didn’t believe free market ideology existed prior to 1980 or if it did was related at all, nor did he associate free market ideology with “classical liberalism,” which he accepted as an older eighteenth century term for something, although I’m not entirely sure what. I’m also not too clear on what happened to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in his historical scheme, but it doesn’t really matter. Interestingly, he didn’t seem to associate any economic ideology at all with conservatism, apparently believing the term “conservatism” referred only to political and social ideas unrelated to economics. Thus, he seemed to believe all the economic debate in this country at least since the 1980s has been an internal affair between different groups of liberals. When I suggested what I believe is the more conventional use of the terms conservative, liberal, and neoliberal in the economic arena, he suggested my terminology was quaintly old-fashioned and not current at all with what he called “hardcore Marxism,” which he suggested was the more common way of discussing these issues today.
I found it all quite interesting. I had actually suspected a connection to Marxist theory given the generally foreign origin of much of the discussion of “neoliberalism” online. I’m not being nationalistic, just saying my impression is that Marxism has always been rather more popular in many foreign countries than here in the USA. He ended the discussion with the usual dismissive sort of insults one generally encounters when discussing popular economics with random people online, although I thought perhaps rather milder in tone than what I usually encounter from those with more right wing interests. More, “you don’t seem to understand very much about economics, politics, history,” etc., rather than the more typical conservative or right wing “why don’t you go screw yourself?” sort of thing. We parted company.
One thing that crossed my mind after learning of the connection to Marxism, or at least after having gotten some confirmation of the connection, is the way that theory seems to be such fertile ground for confusion relating to terminology. A big part of the problem I think is that Marxism downplays the importance of ideas, theories, and ideologies, in favor of material relations and conditions. Thus, it tends to use words ending with “ism” not in the conventional way to refer to a collection of ideas, theories, or an ideology, but to various material conditions. “Capitalism” in traditional Marxist terminology is not a theory or collection of ideas relating to capital but a certain form of economic and social organization. A “capitalist” is someone who lives under such conditions regardless of his or her thoughts on economic or political ideas. The person can be as leftist as you like, but he or she is still a “capitalist.” This makes me suspect one fairly benign mechanism that might underlie the current confusion over the term “neoliberal” is that some Marxist writers somewhere may have decided at some time to call the economic and social conditions or arrangements since 1980 “neoliberalism,” so that anyone who has happened to live under those conditions is perforce a “neoliberal.”
The problem, of course, is that “neoliberalism” also has a completely different definition based on ideas. In that other definition “neoliberalism” relates to the ideas or theories of a particular group of people, “neoliberals.” Under that definition, “neoliberalism” conventionally denotes conservative free market ideology combined with random other social and political ideas otherwise associated with traditional progressive liberalism. If this is what has been going on, I have to way it was all lost on my interlocutor, who despite his ostensibly hardcore Marxist leanings seemed clearly to be jumping back and forth between Marxist materialist terminology and more conventional idea based terminology in the most confusing way imaginable.
The problem, of course, is that “neoliberalism” also has a completely different definition based on ideas. In that other definition “neoliberalism” relates to the ideas or theories of a particular group of people, “neoliberals.” Under that definition, “neoliberalism” conventionally denotes conservative free market ideology combined with random other social and political ideas otherwise associated with traditional progressive liberalism. If this is what has been going on, I have to way it was all lost on my interlocutor, who despite his ostensibly hardcore Marxist leanings seemed clearly to be jumping back and forth between Marxist materialist terminology and more conventional idea based terminology in the most confusing way imaginable.
However, the connection to Marxism also made me wonder if there might be a rather more sinister reason for this apparently coincidental congruity of terms. That notion certainly gave me reason to pause because in recent years I’ve come to associate heavy handed rhetorical and linguistic game playing mostly with conservatives and right wing sorts, who seem forever redefining and conflating terms, overgeneralizing, using misdirection, and so on. But I do believe some leftists have done that sort of thing in the past, so I suppose there’s no real reason to think they can’t be doing it again right now. Certainly the confusion relating to the term “neoliberalism” I’ve been discussing might play to their political advantage. If people feel progressive liberalism / democratic socialism / social democracy is essentially the same thing as neoliberalism and hence free market economic conservatism, then that would presumably make Marxism appear a rather more attractive alternative for those critical of our current economic arrangements. Indeed, it may make it appear the only game in town.
It may seem farfetched, but I’ve noticed that pattern quite a lot online recently. Some leftists seem just as much or more concerned to fight against progressive liberalism as conservatism, against the relatively progressive or socially oriented and leftist Democratic Party as against the conservative and right wing Republican Party, against Mr. Biden as Mr. Trump. In a weird way contemporary Marxists seem often to be fighting on the same side as conservatives against what is apparently their common foe: reasonable liberals, progressives, social democrats, and democratic socialists. Indeed, it makes me wonder if contemporary Marxism might actually be bankrolled by wealthy conservatives specifically for that purpose. Not saying they are, but if I were a clever right wing operator and I thought Marxism itself could be easily contained for some reason, let’s say the historic antipathy of the American electorate in general to Marxist ideas, I might just throw some money their way so they could do a number on the more serious competition.
It may seem farfetched, but I’ve noticed that pattern quite a lot online recently. Some leftists seem just as much or more concerned to fight against progressive liberalism as conservatism, against the relatively progressive or socially oriented and leftist Democratic Party as against the conservative and right wing Republican Party, against Mr. Biden as Mr. Trump. In a weird way contemporary Marxists seem often to be fighting on the same side as conservatives against what is apparently their common foe: reasonable liberals, progressives, social democrats, and democratic socialists. Indeed, it makes me wonder if contemporary Marxism might actually be bankrolled by wealthy conservatives specifically for that purpose. Not saying they are, but if I were a clever right wing operator and I thought Marxism itself could be easily contained for some reason, let’s say the historic antipathy of the American electorate in general to Marxist ideas, I might just throw some money their way so they could do a number on the more serious competition.
Now that I’ve come to suppose this shift in terminology is not the result of natural linguistic drift but simple terminological conflation combined possibly with purposefully misleading and manipulative rhetoric, I’m encouraged to be a little more active confronting misuse of the term “neoliberalism.” Indeed, I take back what I said earlier about not caring if I’m considered a liberal, per se. I think now I do care. I’m what you call a traditional American liberal. I support using activist democratic government to address the ethical shortcoming and failures of market systems, and in that I agree with those calling themselves progressives, social democrats, and democratic socialists. I’m fighting against simplistic conservative / “neoliberal” free market ideology.
