Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

iemitsu

(3,888 posts)
59. Actually neo-liberalism's definition has not changed, Chomsky is using it correctly.
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:09 AM
Jan 2013

The problem is that most Americans use the term, neo-conservative to mean neo-liberalism. This is unique to the United States, the rest of the world understands the denotation of the term.
Liberalism is a term associated with the American Revolution and the "free-market" economy.
Our conservatives, who push neo-liberal policies, have issues with anything called liberal, and they certainly don't want their minions having to grapple with accepting policies tied to such labels (having been conditioned to respond to the word with the unthinking, auto-hate response) so, conversely, we liberals are not prepared to think of liberal policies as promoting business/free-market ethics.
That is why many liberals prefer the term progressive to describe their political philosophy. But even that term has its problems. Most people think that progress is a good thing, a thing worth pursing. Progressive political thought believes that through the application of science and reason mankind can and ought to improve the human condition.
We all have our own notions of what kinds of progress would actually improve our lives and the lives of others. And some of the policies that many think would improve our lives is not easily quantified or measured like, less stressful lives, living in harmony with man and nature, or being treated with respect.
Without measured progress to justify government spending it is hard to defend continuing these programs, so progressives came up with a standard measure for progress. Progress is measured by the accumulation of material goods and wealth. Within a capitalist society this was the logical proof that one's life was improving.
But many American progressives/liberals don't actually see progress and material gain as the same goal. Those, who think that we need to promote sustainable lifestyles and protect the environment, in my opinion, are the true progressives but in order for them to achieve their goals, progress must be redefined.
Imprecise or inaccurate usage of words is problematic in society. It has gotten to the point where the same words inform two different realities in America.

Fuck them neo-lib bastards! Jesus I hate these people! Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #1
+1000 southern_belle Jan 2013 #9
You mean neo-CON bastards, trying to bust unions. Festivito Jan 2013 #15
Actually I did mean neo-lib. Most repukes are neoliberals as far as I can tell. Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #19
That's from the 1930s. It changed in 30 years. Now, it's another 30+ years. Festivito Jan 2013 #22
I don't think it's appropriate to conflate Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #36
I see. Them economically-neo-lib bastards, lacks the same flair. Festivito Jan 2013 #43
Actually neo-liberalism's definition has not changed, Chomsky is using it correctly. iemitsu Jan 2013 #59
But I whole-heartedly agree with your analysis of the media and the idiotic funding requirements Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #20
I know! It makes me so angry! nt Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #18
yep yurbud Jan 2013 #41
First target: that giant pension fund. Atman Jan 2013 #51
Yep..that has been the idea behind all this P.O. 'scare" dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #62
Ditto pmorlan1 Jan 2013 #55
Just say no! bl968 Jan 2013 #2
+ 1000 MBS Jan 2013 #45
You are right! Dyedinthewoolliberal Jan 2013 #58
The reason the USPS is suffering is by Congress's own doing: making them fund CurtEastPoint Jan 2013 #3
Exactly! nt snacker Jan 2013 #4
Plus a thousand. amandabeech Jan 2013 #16
Yup mac56 Jan 2013 #25
Small towns really depend on the PO. amandabeech Jan 2013 #34
Among other reasons mac56 Jan 2013 #35
Yes, it does help. amandabeech Jan 2013 #49
exactly right. thanks. n/t MBS Jan 2013 #46
Absolutely. n/t TDale313 Jan 2013 #28
+1000 Important context the corporate media is loathe to provide. cprise Jan 2013 #29
Watch millions lose mail service. And watch prices soar. McCamy Taylor Jan 2013 #5
It's already efficient and inexpensive. It has to compete with private services already. Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #7
It doesn't have to compete with the private services Lordquinton Jan 2013 #27
Competition is a two way street, buy yay for your enthusiasm. I like the spirit of your post. n/t Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #30
yup Skittles Jan 2013 #33
They really seem to long for a third world status for the US. It's so sad. n/t Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #39
Noooooo! frazzled Jan 2013 #6
You mean how to rip off the public, here come 5 dollar letters.... Historic NY Jan 2013 #8
haven't they learned yet that privatization is costly - decades of failure 2Design Jan 2013 #10
Privitization never FAILS to make rich those who demanded the privitization. amandabeech Jan 2013 #17
It doesn't take a think tank to figure out how to get them in financial shape Gman Jan 2013 #11
They better leave the postal retirees' pensions alone!!!!!!!!!!! glinda Jan 2013 #12
I'm a mail carrier.... Uniblab Jan 2013 #13
+1000 abelenkpe Jan 2013 #31
I agree with everyone on this thread, this is fucked. iemitsu Jan 2013 #14
In related news, Koch Industries has privatized the State of Wisconsin. Coyotl Jan 2013 #21
Don't laugh too quickly starroute Jan 2013 #23
Here in Oregon we've got vote by mail, which has been working great... SparkyOR Jan 2013 #24
get rid of the fucking pension funding requirement. The post office operated profitablly upaloopa Jan 2013 #26
Now that the wholly manufactured "Fiscal Cliff" act is over for now.... AlbertCat Jan 2013 #32
I have a plan! sofa king Jan 2013 #37
Yeah, and I bet you... ReRe Jan 2013 #38
The USPS is not "financially ailing", it's been looted by Repugs ProfessionalLeftist Jan 2013 #40
Precisely Sherman A1 Jan 2013 #42
Union busting isn't the only reason jmowreader Jan 2013 #48
They will pare off anything that can make money Cosmocat Jan 2013 #50
If that's their logic, they should cut down defense/pentagon spending ProfessionalLeftist Jan 2013 #53
Can't wait to start paying more for less! Ash_F Jan 2013 #44
Time to start paying for junk mail Rain Mcloud Jan 2013 #47
I live in a small town loyalkydem Jan 2013 #52
That worked out so well with telecom Crow73 Jan 2013 #54
"study" = "find plausible-sounding ways to" closeupready Jan 2013 #56
Pitney Bowes is PAYING for this study? happyslug Jan 2013 #57
Thank you!!! for that info about Certirfied mail. dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #63
Certified mail is good enough, if you want confirmation of acceptance happyslug Jan 2013 #64
The People Need To Take Over The Congress november3rd Jan 2013 #60
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! tilsammans Jan 2013 #61
I only wish they would come up with a way to stop the junk mail. Brigid Jan 2013 #65
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Think tank to study priva...»Reply #59