Arpyjee
Watchdog
- Joined
- July 23, 2007
- Messages
- 137
Right, I see what you mean. Still, that's a pretty broad definition, since there are very important differences within that group; you have a point, though, that the discourse has been seized by these people.
There's nothing inherently liberal -- neo or classical -- about free trade and globalization, though -- Keynes and his modern day followers are all for it. The problem is that free trade isn't really, and globalization has been managed in a completely lopsided way -- the rights of creditors over debtors, capital over labor, agriculture in the developed world over agriculture in the less developed world, and so on, with social and ecological costs not just neglected but completely left out of the equation.
It's called new liberalism for a reason : it's a departure from the traditional concept, and if the only 'opposition' to it comes from the ultra-right, then it really runs the risk of being hijacked by and for powerful corporate elitists. I call it rampaging corporatism : it is functionally oblivious to the bottom 2/3rds of society, while it perpetually and exponentially upholds the interests of the upper economic 3rd.
If there was a center-left counterbalance in the US, then it (economic neo-liberalism) wouldn't be so negligent and unrestrained.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 137