Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I think our current stop on the train backwards in history is late 19th century were we have the three classic ideologies: conservatism, liberalism and socialism.

The conservatism here is represented by ethnonationalism. It wants to preserve the social hierarchies by fencing of a preserve for primarily the right ethnicity, while keeping the large flow of wealth to the political elite. Its core are wealthy business-owners and it appeals primarily to men in economic decline (not poverty) of the right ethnicity. It blames uppity people of the wrong gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity.

The liberalism is the global, technocratic, neoliberalism. It wants to expand neoliberalism through ever more trade deals that puts legislation beyond the reach of elected assemblies. Its core is the higher middle class, the movers and shakers of politics, economics and academia. It appeals primarily to the groups conservatism blames. It blames back-wards people that holds back the future.

And then we have socialism, represented in the left-wing of nominally social democratic parties and parties to their left. It spanns from re-active reforms to stop the bleeding, to trying to get social aspects into the international system to trying to nationalise politics in order to get a level that is at least nominally democratic. It is less coherent in both core and voters and blames both neoliberalism and ethnonationalism.

It is actually pretty similiar to where socialism was before world war one.

by fjallstrom on Fri Mar 31st, 2017 at 11:48:48 AM EST
Good historical contextualizing of the issue! After all, you ARE an historian. The only controversial grouping is Liberalism, which many liberals will not like having conflated with neo-liberalism. I find it appropriate, but then, I no longer identify as a liberal. The dark side of liberalism has been there since the 1830s at least and it has only become worse as the 'neos' appeared.

While it is true that liberalism HAS been able to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of capitalism, those successes have never been permanent and the high point was the '60s. Since then it has mostly been down hill with the neo-liberals singing the praises of the 'accomplishments' flowing from being able to learn to take the money of the very rich - which has left them impotent to even try to implement any fundamental reforms - no matter how large their majorities in government.

Reflecting, I am struck by how equally what has been called Neo-Conservative in Economics could just as appropriately, or even more appropriately, have been called Neo-Liberal. Usage has trumped appropriateness in this history - uses and abuses of pejorative labeling.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2017 at 04:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I mis-wrote Neo-Classical as Neo-Conservative above. It should have been "What has been called Neo-Classical could...have been called Neo-Liberal"

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2017 at 04:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series