Skip to main content

View Diary: Technology, Fantasy, and Reality: On Graeber's piece in the Baffler (15 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nice diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus, joe shikspack

    I appreciate that you always offer things to really think about.

    As for the whole neoliberal philosophy, I would really like to see someone take on the topic of -- what is the difference between today's neoliberalism and neoconservatism?  Because I am not seeing much difference.  I'm not as well informed about the political philosophies but I know what I see in progress.  I'd love to see someone like you take that one on, Cass.

    Thanks again.


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 01:50:17 PM PDT

    •  here's my take on it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      The term "neoliberalism" typically applies to government economic policy, adopted across the board and applicable to both Republican and Democrat administrations as well as to the era of economic and political history (after 1980) which characterized them, whereas the term "neoconservatism" seems to be more of a broader, more general, philosophical stance taken by a particular group of people, many of whom gained prominence in Republican administrations of the past thirty-two years.

      "I've seen the flame of hope among the hopeless/ And that was truly the biggest heartbreak of all" -- Bruce Cockburn

      by Cassiodorus on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 02:12:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In practice (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cassiodorus

        I don't see that much difference.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 02:16:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They go together, but in order to have a (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon, Cassiodorus, joe wobblie

          better analysis, it's necessary to deconstruct what's going on.

          But it's also true that they're not identical.  For example, Clinton was certainly a Neoliberal, going by his support for "free trade", but not a Neoconservative, going by his preference for 'soft power' in international conflicts.

        •  Clinton (6+ / 0-)

          might be considered the apogee of neoliberalism - he claimed to be left of center, and for individual rights, but saw those as identical to the market, and fostered "free trade" agreements like NAFTA that enforced market orthodoxy, privatization and pillaging by multinationals on other countries.

          Bush on the other hand gave the neocons nearly free range. They really didn't care about trade agreements or any agreements, but preferred the use of naked power - though also, to enforce the same sorts of economic effects on countries (like Iraq) they conquered.

          Neoliberals tend to be liberal on social issues but feel that social policy should be handled by technocratic tinkering - thus Clinton and Obama preferred not to have mass mobilization even when it would ostensibly support their policy aims. They are not particularly keen on military adventurism. Neocons tend to be socially conservative, free marketers but without incredible passion, and absolutely keen on control of resources and the unilateral deployment of military force

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site