Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
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 ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series