Basically used here to describe a politics which is fond of market-based policies but supportive of redistribution when it is necessary for positive outcomes.
In some circles it was never a negative term to begin with. In other circles it will remain a negative term forever, regardless of what you do.
One interesting consequence of the Internet is that we're becoming very aware that for every label you could ascribe to yourself, there is some group out there who holds a deep, visceral hate for that label, so deep that they wish you would just cease to exist. I guess this was probably the case beforehand, but without instantaneous global communication, you generally weren't aware of the people who hated you. I remember that when I was growing up, terms like "American", "patriotic", "tolerant", and "generous" were unambiguously good, but now for each of those there is some group who considers them a dog-whistle for people they despise.
The term itself was hardly known/in use to the general public before the crash 2008 and occupy. Since then it was only known as basically a different word for greed.
As another commenter (who obviously decided to delete his comment) wrote here, I also doubt that a re-branding will ever be successful. It's not like coming up with a new term in economy is something hard to do.
I doubt any of that matters to Stripe, whose customer base consists of small-to-midsize businesses who need to accept payments over the Internet, oftentimes for marketplace-based business models. By virtue of the problem that they want solved, this group is going to skew towards free markets, free trade, globalization, and all the tenets that r/neoliberalism embraces. They may not themselves want to adopt the label (particularly in front of their own customers, who bring their own baggage associated with it), but they'll be sympathetic to the ideas.
Also, the term is still not known/in use to the general public. The set of people who are politically active via Occupy, Tea Party, Trumpism, #Indivisible, etc. is a small subset of all people, and relatively disjoint from the set of people with successful Internet-based businesses.
You did not have to be active in Occupy or any of the other groups to hear the term. Hell, my mother knows is and won't connect anything good with it. The main reason is what happened 2008 and for those who cared a little bit: deregulation. People who take neoliberalism are not necessary anti free market. Those would be the extremists again.
> They may not themselves want to adopt the label (particularly in front of their own customers, who bring their own baggage associated with it), but they'll be sympathetic to the ideas.
So you agree that there was no rehabilitation then?
I still don't understand why you wouldn't just come up with a new term. Is this bad marketing knowledge or intentional?
FWIW, my mother certainly doesn't know what it is, and I just asked my wife and she has no idea. I'd heard the term in the rehabilitated, Sam Bowman sense, but had to go look up the Wikipedia page to see what the controversy was about. I don't particularly identify with any of the labels of mainstream (is there such a thing anymore?) political movements.
It's a really common mistake to assume that the people you hang around with are representative of all people. The U.S. (let alone the world) is a really big place, and we don't all read the same media anymore.
Alright, let's say here in Europe...although that doesn't make you and your wife look quite good here. I guess this is where the Europe vs. US memes grow. I mean, do you watch news? How could you have missed what were the poster words back then?
However,
> They may not themselves want to adopt the label (particularly in front of their own customers, who bring their own baggage associated with it), but they'll be sympathetic to the ideas.
still stands here. Just from a quick lookup on wikipedia, you got to this statement. So if this is even obvious to you, we don't really have to talk about any kind of rehabilitation. The real issue would be some terribly bad informed people.
Both my wife and I watch (well, read) plenty of news. Sometimes even German news. Neither of us particularly care how we'd look in Germany or the rest of Europe, though, since we have no intention of living there.
I'm reminded of something that I think I read here on Hacker News: if you want to see how you're being manipulated, read another country's newspapers. Not because they tell the truth, but because the propaganda in them is directed at the country's own inhabitants, and so it'll have no emotional importance for you. I look at the term "neoliberal" and view it neutrally, because the propaganda around it never really caught on in the U.S. out of certain very niche circles.
There are undoubtedly similar terms & issues in the U.S. where we get very much up in arms but an outsider would be "what's the big deal?" You could probably tell me what they are a lot better than I could (assuming you read U.S. news media), but I'd bet that things like "single payer", "gun control", and "social democracy" make the list, where half the U.S. population considers them a dirty word while most of the rest of the developed world is like "Duh, these are obviously good ideas. Why do you kill your own citizens?"
I don't consider myself or my mother a person that would have gone to the Occupy events back then.
> things like "single payer", "gun control", and "social democracy"
You may be aware that many over here are interested in US politics and culture. It's a historical thing but it's also quite entertaining. I can say that I'm more interested and know more about what's going on in the US then in France or the Netherlands. At least most of the time. We are aware that those three things are being perceived differently by pretty much half of your population. This is nothing abstract here.
Occupy came from the US the crash happened there first.
But yes, as we see above, there are people who probably don't watch news or watch selective news? I don't know. It's weird.
Good we have the Öffentlich Rechtlicher Rundfunk I guess ;)
Look at the posts there, it's people having fun with people who identity as neoliberal without any sense of irony. Neoliberal is a dirty word among pretty much every group of contemporary politically minded folks.
I understood you very well. But maybe we are not talking about the same "elites" because I have no idea how you get the idea. They didn't care about the connotation back then. Why should the negativity of it be relevant today?
What's different about this from "Third Way" politics?
Clinton (Bill) was a Third Way neoliberal who basically believed what you and that blog post are saying. Clinton (Hillary) saw those policies defeated 2 years ago.
[S]omething different and distinct from liberal capitalism with its unswerving belief in the merits of the free market and democratic socialism with its demand management and obsession with the state. The Third Way is in favour of growth, entrepreneurship, enterprise and wealth creation but it is also in favour of greater social justice and it sees the state playing a major role in bringing this about. So in the words of... Anthony Giddens of the LSE the Third Way rejects top down socialism as it rejects traditional neo liberalism.
— Report from the BBC, 1999,
It seems they are discovering a 30 year old term and blogging about it. What's been rehabilitated?
Who do you believe is rediscovering a 30 year old term here?
Have you heard of the Adam Smith Institute?
It is a neoliberal think-tank and over the years many of its policies have been adopted by the UK.
That blog post was written by the executive director.
> The inability to come up with a new interesting term (or acknowledge the history behind the existing term) doesn't portend great things.
Quoting your previous deleted post here.
Are you aware that the meanings they're assigning to the term, are actually in line with what was meant when it was first used at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938?
Who do you believe is discovering a 30 year old term here?
You claimed that that blog post "rehabilitates" the term. I'm saying that the general beliefs that the author describes are well-trod ground within neoliberalism. He's describing himself as a third way neoliberal with slightly more libertarian tendencies.
Have you heard of the Adam Smith Institute?
It is a neoliberal think-tank and over the years many of its policies have been adopted by the UK.
That blog post was written by the executive director.
It'd be more impressive without the credentials because it reads like a random blogger.
Are you aware that the meanings they're assigning to the term, is actually in line with what was meant when it was first used at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938?
His blog post mentioned rejecting dogmatism. Calling back to 1938 as the "real definition" is very dogmatic. Since then the 1980s through 2016 have happened in the US, all associated with neoliberalism.
Just saying, like the other post, that a blog post and a Reddit post with 120 upvotes hardly change the general meaning of a term.
The point isn't to wow you with credentials. The point is that your previous insistence that this definition isn't correct or common is absurd.
That post rehabilitated neoliberalism. There is now a community of people that use the term this way. Many have tens of thousands of followers on Twitter. Memes are created by its fans. CEOs of huge startups drop-in to do AMAs, etc.
To say that there has been no change in how the term is used or perceived over the last few years is utterly ridiculous.
The point isn't to wow you with credentials. The point is that your previous insistence that this definition isn't correct or common is absurd.
In other words, an argument from authority.
To say that there has been no change in how the term is used or perceived over the last few year is utterly ridiculous.
You may be in an echo chamber because in politics and academics this rehabilitation is not known about.
Can't disagree with you that there may be a change in how it's been viewed, but to state that the "post rehabilitated neoliberalism" is equally if not more utterly ridiculous. Not to one up you, but please realize that. You're talking a Medium blog post vs how hundreds of millions of people view the term (whether they know what it is or not).
Argument by authority isn't fallacious in this instance.
If you are powerful and interconnected with government then the way that you use political terms has a large impact on their meaning.
One of the most powerful think-tanks in the world uses the term this way. That has a real world impact.
Given this, your insistence that "in politics and academics this rehabilitation is not known about" is absurd.
You are right that millions of people probably have no idea or still have a negative opinion of globalisation, etc, however I do not think that this is mutually exclusive with it being rehabilitated in some circles and notably so.
https://medium.com/@s8mb/im-a-neoliberal-maybe-you-are-too-b...
Basically used here to describe a politics which is fond of market-based policies but supportive of redistribution when it is necessary for positive outcomes.