The present system of free market capitalism known as neoliberalism is clearly teetering on the edge of a major crisis. ‘Occupy’ protests have swept the Western world in recent days and more and more people are becoming hostile to the notions of austerity and additional bank bailouts. Capitalist globalisation is clearly in need of radical reform. However the issue is not whether we should abandon liberalism but rather how can we strengthen it. Neoliberalism in my opinion is not liberal; despite its namesake. It does not promote social justice and greater fairness, it does not enhance our democracy and it does not value individuals acting within their local communities. It is necessary to find a different outlook that can truly further liberal aims in the 21st century. This outlook is social liberalism. I have written an article for the Social Liberal Forum that outlines a social liberal alternative to neoliberalism. I also critique the new and emerging Labour Party antidote to neoliberalism known as ‘Blue Labour.’ Please read my article for the Social Liberal Forum in full by following this link: http://socialliberal.net/2011/10/15/the-real-alternative-to-neoliberalism/
Social Liberalism exists to redistribute wealth and power to the poor and the powerless in-order to ensure freedom for everyone.
Neo-liberalism is most certainly a liberalism. Liberalism places negative liberty, or freedom from external control, as its central tenant. Neo-liberalism, as a revival of classical economic liberalism, also stresses the importance of negative liberty.
ReplyDeleteNeo-liberalism is a commitment to free trade: the idea that by penalising trade and commerce, the incentive to trade is reduced, sapping both supply and demand from the market and thereby making everyone poorer, even if the money is re-distributed by government to an under-funded cause.
This is an element of the freedom of the individual: it is an economic policy, and does not constitute the sole premise of a complete liberal social contract. Government may promote the interests of disadvantaged people in society through means other than economic policies: my particular favourates are education and welfare.
Economic policy is not for enhancing "democracy", it is for liberating individuals to achieve the life outcome they are reaching for, whether this ranges from running a successful business to becoming a millionaire. This sounds too obvious to be a neo-liberal position, you may think, but when liberal economics was first being developed people were prohibited from certain professions by the law on the basis of gender, religion, and class.
The bank crisis was caused by under-regulation. Whilst over-regulation stunts the market, as neoliberalism discribes, under-regulation ampliphies the swing of boom and best. Whilst the previous consensus on optimal regulation has been discredited, the neo-liberal critique of over-regulation has not.
The public coming together of a range of dissatisfied individuals does not constitute a representative public opinion, and even if it did it would not overpower an entire body of academic work surrounding the feild of economics.