The very active debate on neoliberalism on this blog, which arose from my appearance on a Channel 4 podcast over the weekend, has certainly captured the imagination of many commentators. Well over 100 contributions have now been made on this theme, and whilst I have not agreed with them all, I have, as a result of what has been said, developed my thinking.
I remain of the opinion that I must name neoliberalism as the political philosophy I am challenging, because that is the only readily available term to describe it. That said, the objective is to place it in its political and economic context, describe its consequences, and do so in a way a 12-year-old would understand. That is a test I try to apply, as promoted by the pedagogy of Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman.
My latest version of my summary paragraphs to introduce this idea:
Neoliberalism is the politics of austerity.
In economics, it is the belief that private businesses and markets do things better than governments, and that making profits matters more than meeting people's needs.
In practice, this means cutting public spending, privatising public services, reducing regulation and keeping taxes low, especially for the wealthy.
I stress that I will not be committing these lines to memory, and so variations will happen.
There is, however, another important point to highlight. In that Channel 4 podcast, Krishnan Guru-Murthy challenged me on what neoliberalism might be, since I had used the term, and I offered a definition not dissimilar to that noted above when replying. An appropriate question to ask, when considering this issue, might then be what the audience reaction was.
I have previously noted that comments on that video suggest that it was very successful, and its reach implies the same thing. It has now had more than 475,000 views, which, according to our data analysis, suggests that it is amongst the most popular podcasts produced by Channel 4, and the third most popular featuring an economist. Robert Kaplan and Joe Stiglitz have both had more than 700,000 views, while Gary Stevenson now trails just a little bit behind.
Discussion of neoliberalism has not, in other words, put viewers off what I had to say. In fact, that traffic does instead emphasise the need for discussion of it to take place, although I am sure that some would still disagree.
There is always room for that dissent, but my intention is to continue using the term. Naming that which you are opposing appears to me to be fundamental to the task of promoting an alternative, which is the economics of hope and the politics of care.
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!
Typo on title *put*.
On the definition of neoliberalism: should you also mention a belief in diminishing the role of the state? This then means that the country is less prepared and equipped for unexpected events.
I know the definition then risks getting a bit long. Thought I’d afd it to be mulled over ….
In the face of anticipated threats/risks, a thin and unprepared state isn’t a good starting point.
This is not fixed
In the right place at the right time I will say that
Headline should say ‘put’ ?
Yes
When I am not sitting in the cold waiting for a delayed train I will change it
There is a typo in the title.. put not out?
PS thanks so much for all you are doing. I am hearing your message spreading far and wide now 🙂 the language /message is incredibly effective in my opinion.
Thank you
Well done – you should.
I can’t believe that the same guy who interviews you then interviews people like Starmer acolyte/Labour First ‘pretty boy’ Matt Pound (not even an economist – nice make over/no substance, but an advisor to Reeves!) and Rupert Harrison (Osborne fan boy, so no – definitely not an economist or much else) in front of Parliament last night BOTH nodding solemnly about the Chancellor going to need to make cuts to social security!!
Both Pound and Harrison don’t realise that it’s the economy that is making people poorly. The whole thing was a freak show Richard. It was Neo-liberalism in action. The insouciance to suffering shown by Pound was cold and vicious – Blue Labour 100%. These two live in a different world to most people of this country. It’s as if your interview with Murthy has no relation to the interview he had with these two miscreants – Murthy did not seem to connect the two or challenge what was being said. It was ‘Let’s talk about Neo-liberalism’ one minute, and then forget all about it the next! WTF!
No wonder public discourse on these matters is so poor.
There is still a massive job to do
You have said ‘out’ when you mean ‘put’.
Sorry
I am human after all
For me, the key issue is that KG-M ASKED you to define neo-liberalism.
HE (& his producer) wanted to highlight it, he wanted it aired and defined and discussed.
If we then ask, “Why did he do that?”, we should be encouraged.
Think of it as FTF’s version of “stop the boats” or “take back control” – only with the advantage that it is truthful, relevant and urgent.
It’s neoliberalism’s time for being named and shamed. The public are ready and waiting, and tuning in to Jeremy Vine today. KUTGW!
Thank you
And I am already on my way there
Apologies to Philip Larkin.
It fucks you up, neoliberalism
They say it doesn’t, but it does.
True
You could say that neoliberalism is a polite way of saying capitalist exploitation so as not to frighten the horses.