I asked recently what term might replace neoliberalism as a descriptor of the economic ideas that many readers here find acceptable.
The contrast I was seeking was something that might be the opposite of the politics of care, which I often talk about.
Some suggestions stood out. Mammonism was good. So too was the economics of extraction. Most, however, seemed to me to require too much explanation to be of value: if something makes no sense on first hearing, it is unlikely to work at all. I might be wrong about that, but I have an inkling that's true, which is why I have always tried to find or work with terms that resonate instantly as to what they mean. Tax justice did. So did the term Green New Deal. Funding the Future does. In its day, Tax Research did. I think the politics of care does.
What is agreed here is that neoliberalism does not work in that way. And nor can I get that excited by any alternative so far, barring one, which is anti-socialism.
We all know what being anti-social is.
As the Resolution of Congress I have noted today, passed this last week, shows, anti-socialists are also what our opponents clearly think themselves to be.
And there is a massive advantage to using a term that forces the debate to use the term you want, and to use its obvious opposite when explaining just what the other side is, especially when the term used appears both pejorative and yet accurate when describing their behaviour. And since they are anti-socialists, they are most definitely proponents of anti-socialism.
That, however, requires embracing a term - socialist - that I have often resisted, because it is very often portrayed in materialistic terms, and life is about much more than that, in my opinion.
So let me offer two definitions here and see how they work. They are of socialism and anti-socialism.
Socialism is a system of economic organisation in which the purpose of economic activity is the promotion of the well-being of people and the stability of the society they form, rather than the accumulation of private wealth.
It begins from the premise that the essential foundations of life, such as health, education, care, housing security, energy, water, and the monetary system itself, are too important to be left to markets whose priorities are profit, scarcity, and exclusion.
It then builds from this idea to create a broad range of ideas and approaches that typically include:
-
Collective responsibility for essential services which are provided as public goods — universal, state-funded, and free at the point of use — because a decent society cannot function without them.
-
Democratic control over key economic issues, requiring that policy on and major decisions about essential services, investment, energy, infrastructure, and money creation are made through accountable public bodies or cooperative structures, and not by unregulated private actors.
-
Limits on extraction and rent-seeking. Socialism aims to reduce the power of those who live off the returns of ownership rather than on sums earned by contributing, shifting rewards as a result away from rent, speculation, and monopoly profit extraction towards labour, care, and productive activity.
-
A commitment to equality. Socialism requires that the distribution of income and wealth in a society reflect social priorities rather than market accidents. It uses taxation, labour rights enforced by law, and public ownership and market regulation to achieve this outcome.
-
Plural forms of ownership. Public, cooperative, mutual, municipal, and small-scale private ownership can all co-exist within a socialist society and economy. What matters is that ownership structures serve a social purpose rather than impose private power.
-
A rejection of the idea that markets represent freedom. Socialism argues that real freedom requires security, education, health, time, and agency, all of which are things that markets alone cannot guarantee.
These approaches do require a caveat to prevent misinterpretation. Socialism does not abolish markets. Nor does it imagine an all-powerful state. Rather, it defines the appropriate roles of each.
The result is that socialism treats markets as tools, not masters, recognising that markets can work well for non-essential goods, most especially when abundance, competition, and choice genuinely exist, but markets are unreliable, and often harmful, when applied to life-critical systems such as health, care, housing, education, core infrastructure, pensions, energy, and the monetary foundations of the economy.
Because of this, in a socialist system:
-
Markets operate within clearly defined boundaries, and only where they generate genuine social benefit.
-
They are regulated to prevent monopoly power, labour exploitation, ecological damage, and financial instability.
-
A diverse ecology of ownership, including small private firms, cooperatives, municipal companies, community enterprises and even larger corporate entities - so long as they are genuinely accountable and appropriately governed - can operate inside regulated markets, so long as none accumulates the power to impose outcomes on society.
-
In sectors where markets fail by design, including the provision of public goods, universal services, long-term investment, and environmental security, democratic planning and public provision necessarily take precedence.
Socialism also sees the state as the institutional expression of society's collective will, and not an intruder into economic life. A socialist state is neither authoritarian nor omnipresent; it is an enabling and coordinating structure through which people make shared decisions.
The state's role is:
-
Protective, ensuring basic security and universal access to essential services.
-
Enabling, providing infrastructure, investment, and long-term planning that markets avoid.
-
Disciplinary, preventing the concentration of private power and curbing rent extraction.
-
Democratising, extending shared ownership and public accountability where essential services or core economic infrastructure are concerned.
Put together, these principles define socialism as a mixed, democratic economic order utilising markets where appropriate and public provision where necessary within a state organised to secure social purpose rather than private privilege.
Anti-socialism
Anti-socialism (sometimes described as neoliberalism) is a set of beliefs and political projects that reject the idea that the economy should be organised around collective well-being, democratic control, or obligations to one another. It places private property, market allocation, and the interests of financial capital at the centre of economic and political life.
Its defining feature is a view of markets and the state in which each is reshaped to protect private power.
Anti-socialism treats markets as both natural and superior. They are the ultimate test of value, the proper method of allocating resources, and the primary source of discipline for individuals and governments alike. This belief persists even when markets routinely fail by generating inequality, excluding the vulnerable, mispricing environmental damage, undermining democracy, and rewarding speculation over productive activity.
From this position, follow the four core anti-social commitments:
-
Markets should be present in all domains, including those where they clearly cause harm, such as care, health, housing, education, pensions, energy, and essential infrastructure.
-
Inequality is treated not as a problem but as an indicator of merit.
-
Redistribution and collective provision are seen as distortions that weaken market discipline.
-
Regulation is framed as an impediment to efficiency, even when its absence leads directly to crisis.
Critically, anti-socialism does not diminish the state: it repurposes it. The state becomes in anti-socialism:
-
An enforcer of market rules, labour discipline, and investor rights.
-
A guardian of property, contract, and capital mobility, often stronger in these functions than any socialist state.
-
A shield against democratic demands that threaten private interests, using fiscal rules, central bank independence, or constitutional devices to place economic power beyond public reach.
-
A hollowed-out provider, withdrawing from universal services and leaving individuals to bear private risks that society could collectively manage more efficiently and more humanely.
-
A collaborator with corporate power through outsourcing, privatisation, and regulatory capture.
In this configuration, the state becomes something quite different from the democratic institution envisioned by socialism: it becomes a mechanism for embedding private hierarchies into the structures of public life.
Anti-socialism, therefore, combines market dogma with state reengineering. It constructs a political order in which society is compelled to adjust to the demands of markets, and where markets, in turn, are shaped to serve those already wealthy and powerful.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Why not ditch the -ism and simplify to antisocial economics?
Fair point
Thanks. For an immediate example from your latest excellent post, try “Britain burned its future to fund the anti-social neoliberal project.”
I very much second Philip’s idea. Socialism is a loaded term, unfortunately, and I suspect it’s unthinkingly seen as a “bad thing” by large sections of the population. So something called Antisocialism runs the risk of being seen as a good thing!
Also, with successive governments cracking down on what they define as “antisocial behaviour”, using the term antisocial economics would clearly put neoliberalism in the same category. And how all those antisocial economists would squirm at being so labelled!
So, it’s still not cracked.
But I will ask, what about social econoimics and antisocial economics?
“But I will ask, what about social econoimics and antisocial economics?”
I would certainly vote to rename neoliberalism as antisocial economics. It’s simple, unambiguous and also accurate.
Social economics I’m not so sure about. I think your own term, the politics of care, though it has a wider scope than just economics, is perfectly fine for the same reasons as above.
We might be getting there….
Thank you
I love “anti-socialist” because everyone already knows what it is to be antisocial. 🙂 🙂
And then it does suggest that socialist, which is not well understood or defined, is the opposite.
Neoliberals will be hard pressed to say they are not anti-socialist, especially in the US, but here too. I think it would enable those on the left to reclaim the word socialist.
Names in politics are important, they do matter. I’m thinking of “pro life” and “pro choice”. Who could be against life (anti-life) even at the expense of choice? To me pro life is the stronger term, even though I disagreed with its policy.
Anti-socialist is easy to use and easy to understand. It’s really good.
I speak as a socialist and heartily agree that neoliberalism is anti-socialist, and I agree with you that this description would help rehabilitate the word. Socialism has become a pejorative term in some places though, notably the US. ‘Anti-social’ focuses the point on the failings of neoliberalism and doesn’t invite deflection.
There’s a place for anti-social and anti-socialist. Both can be effective verbal tools and we need to deploy them for maximum effect, tailored to the audience and the length available to make the point.
As an aside, Zack Polanski managed to squeeze a good attack on the household analogy into a few seconds with Laura K this morning, even though we know he wasn’t telling the full story. In another time he’d have had half an hour on Weekend World to develop the argument.
Thanks
I like the concept and anti-social seems a really good choice.
There is one issue this raises with me, as a tangent, based on this phrase “the essential foundations of life, such as health, education, care, housing security, energy, water, and the monetary system itself, ”
That is a very common list but it excludes one essential – food. As the current UPF discussion shows, food is massively exploited, even without UPF, the profits taken by major food suppliers (often to the detriment of the food producers) are also a major issue. But I never see them discussed in the way energy, water and the others are discussed.
It’s not there as it is not at all obvious it should only be provided buy the state – bit state regulations should of course apply. So, it did not make that particular list.
Many people have a distorted idea of what “socialism” means, comparing it to communism. This is deliberate, and often perpetuated in order to popularise neoliberal capitalism, which in turn is distorted in romantic ways.
Because of the ‘distorted idea of what socialism means’ noted by Ian I think that ‘antisocial’ or ‘antisocialism’ is a better way to express the idea than ‘anti-social’ or anti-socialism’. Pedantic, perhaps?
But in my opinion the use or omission of the hyphen makes a considerable change to the meaning. With a hyphen it implies anti the socialist doctrine, without it it implies anti societal ‘norms’. Well, it does for me..
Noted
Interestingly China has ditched a predominantly pure state capitalism for a mixture of both state and market capitalism albeit currently it’s also allowing class warfare to flourish both nationally and globally. Our main take-away from this is that market capitalism isn’t going to go away but what we do want is a better balance where caring checks market capitalist greed. Tongue-in-cheek we need a “balanced weal”!
From Google AI:-
“Weal” has two primary meanings: a state of well-being and prosperity, often for a community (“the public weal”), and a raised, red mark on the skin caused by a blow, also known as a welt. The intended meaning depends on context, as they come from different origins and are pronounced the same (though one is an obsolete synonym of “wealth”).
“Weal” is not obsolete in Scotland:-
https://www.commonweal.scot/
I am pleased to have worked with CommonWeal a number of times.
Give or take the odd detail this fits with my definition of Socialism… and why I describe myself as a Socialist.
However, what you write is quite a long description so, in conversation, I prefer to say – it means I am not Anti-Social… that most human endeavours are best done with other people, not alone.
On this basis, everyone I have ever met is a Socialist – it is just a matter of scale (the family unit is socialist) and degree (do you want a national army or do you want to defend against invaders or as an individual at your front gate with a pitchfork).
So, we all sit on the spectrum of Socialism… and I suspect we would be fairly close neighbours on that spectrum.
Hello Richard.
Anti-socialism… oh, I don’t know. I’m still unsure because I’m wondering if the term is ok and the problem is in my head, or if the term doesn’t work.
I think your description of socialism is great. For 50 odd years the term socialism has been attacked, vilified, distorted, corrupted, lied about, conflated with things it isn’t, and generally has been on the defensive, without clearly explaining what it is. Obviously this has been deliberate, and successful tactics from the …anti-socialists.
Hhhmmm…maybe term ‘anti-socialism’ is good but only if it is consistently linked to your description of ‘socialism’. I feel that for the term to stick and get through the description has to also.
Just my immediate thoughts, for good or bad.
I understand you reaction
That’s why I posted these ideas – to get feedback.
I really like these definitions. So much so, that I would like to see them adopted by any party purporting to represent the people as citizens of a democracy. I think your definitions cover all essential points that a responsible citizen might consider when deciding which candidate to support in any election. The definitions also prescribe what actions any gov should take to be truly socialist within the terms used in the definition. They also point to where govs are acting as ‘anti-socialists’.
This is an extremely perjorative term and difficult for anyone to try to argue their way out of. Akin to fascist, in my estimation.
Keeping ideas simple will be essential to defeat the ‘antisocialists’ and help people grasp what true socialism is really about
Nearly all my life, I’ve been a socialist within your definitions. The Labour Party used to be close to it, but are not at present. I think socialism, as you now define it will benefit enormously from using this approach with a sceptical public.
I’m only puzzled as to why they didn’t use this approach in the past.
Thanks
They might move to the glossary soon.
It must also be made very clear that you are not diminishing markets either.
All you are doing in my eyes is diminishing exploitation and price gouging in markets, and that is key, because that leads to a lot problems.
I think that contemporary capitalism is essentially ‘anti social’. It should be ‘pro social’ in my view because if not markets begin to leave people behind and their ability to deliver and allocate resources is diminished, a trenchant point as the state rolls back its interventions and worsens the situation.
Markets are currently over concerned with transaction values and not the added social benefits of delivering services and goods. Your proposals will address this but the wording I think still needs work. I think it important to lose the ‘ist’ in ‘social’.
Thanks
Nope, I can’t find a word that avoids the “anti” prefix.
Using “anti” is odd, because we don’t just call socialism “anticapitalism”. Why not? Because we want a positive descriptor. “Anti” fails in that, in my mind.
Moving on, your definition of “socialism” fits my lexicon admirably. Thank you. And it reminds me – is there a slot for Rousseau in your “Intriguing Philosphers” series? I have been waiting for a discussion of the Social Contract… seems like a good place to mention him.
If not antisocialism, does Marketism work? Impersonalism? Laissez-faire Capitalism? (I really don’t like “anti” as it doesn’t seem to provide a target cf Antifa.)
Rousseau, yes
The others don’t float my boat: sorry
Please may I serve an Anti-Social Behaviour Order on the occupants of 55 Tufton Street?
Please.
I trust you to draft it.
Long time supporter but first comment inspired by one of your blogs- be gentle with me !
Socialism is unfortunately open to misrepresentation so I suggest;
Our present “care- LESS” politics results in an anti-social economy.
So we work together towards a “care-FULL ” politics which will give us an economy of social ambition.
Careless I get.
Careful is too cuationary for me.
Sorry, and welcome.
The trouble with “anti-socialism” is that it comes over as an ideology defined by its opposition to socialism. Quite apart from people’s different ideas of what “socialism” represents, it is only one aspect of what “neoliberalism” (the term you are trying to replace) implies.
Possibly “antisocial-ism” would provide the idea that it is something that fails wider society (or the better “antisocial economics” suggested above) but that again is confusing in that the everyday use of the word “antisocial” relates to personal relationships rather than societal relationships.
On yesterday’s blog I suggested “exploitation economics” but I am not that happy with that. The ideal term would be one where neoliberal economists and politicians as well as neutrals recognise from its wording that it refers to them.
But we are not playing on their field, or requiring their approval. We want to say we’re about society and they are not. We’re putting the ball on our pitch. Does that work?
I see your point.
But whoever coined the word “woke” (originally a slang within the black Chicago community to describe someone who discovered their ability wasn’t enough to gain promotion over a less-qualified white) to ridicule those who were respectful and polite of others succeeded not only in creating an insult that chimed with bigots but one that decent people recognised was aimed at them.
There needs to be an equivalent to label neoliberals.
Antisocial economists / politicians? Or just “the antisocial”?
No. While you explain clearly enough how you came to the term, it will misdirect people. Almost anyone will read it as anti-SOCIALISM rather than ANTI-SOCIALism. Socialism is a term that has much baggage from being used so much as a euphemism for Marxism that, particularly among Americans, it has become more or less a synonym. While neoliberalism does not not have much compatibility with any flavour of socialism, it does not oppose it as a primary purpose, just outflanks it through pursuing its own goals by its own rules. Although an individual can be, and many are, both in favour of neoliberalism and opposed to socialism, they are separate planks of their platform.
So does social economics and antisocial economics / politics work?
Thirty years ago, on a football fans’ website, there was a reference to Ricardo Semler’s book “Maverick” in which he described the radical way he developed his company, Semco, in Brazil.
The contributors comment was that “every business should be run like this”. If only. A real example of workplace democracy. Embracing both the best of capitalism and the best of socialism. I’ve just read Semler’s book again and he really was far sighted.
I seem to recall that Ha-Joon Chang also favours a pragmatic approach to capitalism v socialism?
Thanks
I will have to look that up.
Your description encapsulates everything I understand socialism to be but my gut feelings and concerns are the same as Gordon’s. Especially that “the term socialism has been attacked, vilified, distorted, corrupted, lied about, conflated with things it isn’t” and that the result we are faced with is that the term now conjures up all kinds of negative perceptions.
My updated offering is antisocietism. I think antisocietist economics, the politics of antisocietism, antisocietist politics and the politics of antisemitism all work in my brain.
Just my current thoughts and best I think, not rush at this and stick with neoliberalism until you are 99% comfortable with an alternative you are confident will work for both you and your audiences, both current and future.
Feeling here is moving to antisocial economics / politics.
Works for me
I like the thrust of this discussion. But I couldn’t use the term with my Daily Mail reading chum who never tires of telling everyone how much he hates Socialism, in spite of his enthusiasm for, and reliance on, a variety of public services. Thatcher told us that there is no such thing as Society. Could Neoliberalism be Anti-Society? A bit like antimatter?
Antisocial, or antisociety.
Why not?
Richard,
I have just read an account of how Nixon aimed to make the Chilean socialist experiment “scream”. An example of anti socialism if ever there was one. It is a real worry for me that any independent attempt by the UK to democratise our economy, backed by MMT, will experience attempts to sabotage it eg capital flight. I realise it is not easy to move factories etc but There be attempts to destabilise sterling. Do you feel the anti socialist establishment would attempt destabilisation and what would be the counter measures?
I will post a blog entry in response.
I am unsure about whether the anti-socialism name will connect with the people that support neoliberal economics without knowing what neoliberal economics is. I think this group may be a large group.
The problem for me is that influencers who support neoliberal positions may suggest that people against antisocial economics are trying to promote socialism (which is already a word that may be misunderstood).
Furthermore these influencers embrace of the term ‘anti socialist’ (as being the opposite of socialist) may strengthen the aversion of the people who don’t know what neoliberalism is but believe socialism is something to do with communism and communism is something bad and authoritarian.
With a ‘Me First’ economy being a neoliberal economy, the socialist economy would be a ‘We First’ economy.
Also these terms are like ‘America First’ or ‘Me too’ which people are familiar with already.
I think the latter term would be stronger in a debate with people who may support neoliberalism against socialism without knowing the meaning of either.
This is just my two cents – you have a very good track record of picking the right names for stuff like ‘Tax Justice’, ‘Green New Deal’ and ‘Funding the Future’ as you have mentioned and I am sure whatever you decide it will be because you have your finger on the pulse of public reception.
I like that…
There may be no one answer here
I quite like the idea of reclaiming the notion of socialism and agree that neoliberalism is anti-socialism. My concern is that the word socialism carries with it a huge mountain of conceptual baggage, much of which has negative connotations for many people, thanks to decades of neoliberal propaganda.
On a perhaps minor point, I note that you refer to “public goods — universal, tax-funded, and free at the point of use”. Is it not rather out of character to say “tax-funded”, when you have put so much effort into explaining that taxes do not fund government expenditure? Would it be better to say state-funded?
You are right.
Edited. They can still slip through.
Thank you.
Fair-shares economics vs greed-based economics?
Shared wealth economics vs For-the-few economics?
Prosocial economics vs
Antisocial economics is accurate
But few people would get what prosocial meant, I fear.
I like it.
I just wonder if inserting “the” before people in the opening sentence might resonate more (as in “We the people..”)?
Socialism is a system of economic organisation in which the purpose of economic activity is the promotion of the well-being of the people and the…