Why YSK: I’ve noticed in recent years more people using “neoliberal” to mean “Democrat/Labor/Social Democrat politicians I don’t like”. This confusion arises from the different meanings “liberal” has in American politics and further muddies the waters.
Neoliberalism came to the fore during the 80’s under Reagan and Thatcher and have continued mostly uninterrupted since. Clinton, both Bushs, Obama, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Johnson, and many other world leaders and national parties support neoliberal policies, despite their nominal opposition to one another at the ballot box.
It is important that people understand how neoliberalism has reshaped the world economy in the past four decades, especially people who are too young to remember what things were like before. Deregulation and privatization were touted as cost-saving measures, but the practical effect for most people is that many aspects of our lives are now run by corporations who (by law!) put profits above all else. Neoliberalism has hollowed out national economies by allowing the offshoring of general labor jobs from developed countries.
In the 80’s and 90’s there was an “anti-globalization” movement of the left that sought to oppose these changes. The consequences they warned of have come to pass. Sadly, most organized opposition to neoliberal policies these days comes from the right. Both Trump and the Brexit campaign were premised on reinvigorating national economies. Naturally, both failed, in part because they had no cohesive plan or understanding that they were going against 40 years of precedent.
So, yes, establishment Democrats are neoliberals, but so are most Republicans.
Not really. They emphasize “legal” immigration, by which they mean a series of restrictions on how people are allowed to enter the country and what qualifies them to become citizens. The actual implementation of neoliberal policies always includes strict border controls, limited asylum seeking, 2nd class citizenship for migrants, and harsh penalties for migrating “wrong” and not jumping through all the legal and financial hoops.
Capital moving freely while migrants die in the Mojave and drown in the Mediterranean.
Again, 95% of people who use the term “globalist” to describe someone else associate it with open borders. I’m not sure what you’re on about here.
When you’re talking about neoliberalism, ‘globalism’ also has a lot to do with trade and international finance- from the 1940s (after fallout of the great depression and the World Wars) Keynesian economics was ‘in’, and international lending agreements upheld countries’ ability to conduct nation-level managed/mixed economies- but when the neoliberals swung into power, the new order of the day was to strip countries of their self-managing ability in ways that made them accessible to/exploitable by global conglomerates and corporations:
So, in this sense, ‘globalization’ not just the opening of borders for labor and immigration, it is the swing away from ‘nationalization’ of economies and of national economic sovereignty, to prevent countries from impeding the flow of capital (and corporate power) into and out of their borders on behalf of global finance and colonial power
“National economic sovereignty” meaning what, exactly?
It’s the notion that by being a country you should be able to make and enforce your own economic policies for the benefit of your citizenry instead of, for example, for the benefit of outside capital.
In reality, the right of countries to do basic things like enforce their own labor regulations and put limits on outside capital’s access to their resources (or to publicly own resources) has been deeply infringed upon if not outright violated; look at how United Fruit basically toppled governments that put worker’s rights or land ownership rules at odds with company profits.
The rest of this conversation talks a lot about ‘globalism’, I brought up ‘national economic sovereignty’ to distinguish economic self-rule from the kind of globalized rule that turned countries into banana republics, essentially ruled by puppets on behalf of foreign corporate interests.
Do you think the economic sovereignty of a fascist dictatorship that expropriates property by ethnicity ought to be recognized? Note that I’m not asking if you’re for supporting fascists, because you can be openly belligerent against a nation who you nonetheless recognize as sovereign over their economy.
If not, I’m interested to hear your standards for what economic sovereignty should be respected.
I think that ‘economic sovereignty’ as such is a value-neutral proposition; it can be done for good or ill. I consider it like anything else in the toolbox; a chainsaw can be helpful or terrifying, depending on who has it and what they decide to do with it. Is a federated republic a good or bad thing because some of the people with power in it might be fascists? I think those are separable notions; in my view, sovereignty and federation are useful for what they get you- for example they are means of checking power located elsewhere.
Since you’re asking my views on supporting fascism, that’s a hard ‘no’ from me and if you’re trying to guess from my use of ‘nationalism’ and its buzzwordy association with fascists that I’m trying to carve out a toehold to legitimize fascism under the aegis of nationalism, you’re reading between the lines for something I’m not arguing.
Are you suggesting that Guatemala or any of the other Banana republics were fascist dictatorships for expropriating land? If so, I have opinions about the US toppling democracies in Latin America and calling *them *fascist or racist along the way to justify it- not only is it the pot calling the kettle black, it’s the opposite of what happened.
I’m referring to contemporary arguments about whether trade agreements with countries which had previously been Russian or Chinese client states are “imperialism”
Thanks for clarifying. Maybe it’s the autism talking, but I did not infer that from context. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Not that you asked, I think it’s usually bad-faith rhetoric to insist on reasoning in the abstract about something based on a label you’ve put there. I’m used to seeing this kind of rhetorical pattern as a means of changing the subject into a tangent, and then talking about that tangent issue in the abstract as if it can then be related back to the initial question outside of the original context. For example: (x policy is ‘socialism’, and the Russians were socialist, tHeRefoRe dOiNg x MeAns wE gEt pOgRoMs).
Too often, I see name-calling arguments like this (but that’s imperialism!/nuh-uh, it’s not) to be bad-faith diversions from the question at hand; is the trade agreement desirable for the country or isn’t it? Does calling it ‘imperialism’ change its substance? (hint: it doesn’t) Probably the whole point to leveling charges of ‘imperialism’ when someone poaches your exclusive trade relations with a former client state is so you can call them names later without having to explain why you’re the good guy and they aren’t.
People who describe themselves as globalists generally reject the idea of open borders. Labor visas, not the free movement of labor.
What you’re talking about is a smear, not reality.
I describe myself as a globalist and I explicitly believe in open borders. I’m not sure what you’re on about here.
I think it’s pretty clear “what I’m on about.” I’ve explained it pretty thoroughly, even if you keep just repeating yourself.
What are you on about?
Do you believe in the concept of citizenship, with different legal rules for citizens vs noncitizens?
I think pragmatically you need to have some basis for taxing a subset of people, and thus those people will have to be “citizens” subject to certain different rules- but most privileges and duties should apply to residents irrespective of their citizenship status. That’s basically how US state borders work and those borders are considered “open” even though there is a concept of state citizenship.
As long as states exist, citizenship has to exist, but that doesn’t mean we should regulate who can enter, live, and work in our country on the basis of origin, social class, or other things that aren’t like “is this person entering to escape from a crime in their country that we would have punished” or “is this person entering to start a fascist uprising” etc.
Living within the US, I don’t need to apply for citizenship every time I move to a different state. The law applies to me equally even if I only just crossed the border for lunch, and the only special rules are related to residency; as long as I live in a state I count as a resident, I can vote and send my kids to school and have to pay taxes etc.
That is what open borders actually looks like. That is what the free movement of labor means. Residency, not citizenship.
Globalists do not want this. They need hard borders and citizenship to control the movement of labor. Work visas can be revoked, are tied to a place of employment, and are temporary. Perfect labor units for neoliberal capitalism.
That’s basically what US citizenship looked like at the outset of America- until the Immigration Act was passed, you sent a letter to your local Justice of the Peace declaring your intent to remain in America and that commemorated your citizenship.
As previously stated, I am a globalist and I agree with open borders.
Surely you remember citizenship wasn’t available to everyone back then.
Downplay your views on student loans
Cough…student loans…cough
What does that have to do with globalism?
Why are you deflecting?
Deflecting is when you bring up something totally irrelevant to the subject matter. Nobody asked my opinion on student loans in this thread, and it’s not germaine to globalism.
I have repeatedly asked you. I am asking again right here right now.