Why exactly do people use the neo prefix? Is not a neo-liberal just a liberal? Is not a neo-conservative just basically a conservative?

I think, and I might be wrong, that because the term neo-nazi is fairly well understood and has evil connotations, attaching "neo" to something you don't like makes it seem worse.

Were the NEW conservative , not like them bad ones that sell us out to the US hahaha. Were the NEW nazi's not like them ones you read about that build concentration camps , we have neocons for that....Were the NEW liberals not those mafia types...Were the NEW socialists not those waffle group commy tpes.

Obviously, neo-Nazi refers to the contemporary natinalist and racist movements which may use similar imagery and rhetoric to their forbears fron pre WWII, yet are new anddifferent.

Conservatism however was not always quite as it was. In the 19th cetury, when liberalism was beginning to gel as a force, Conservatism would have been defined as a movement guarding social and political tradition, and to be protectionist would not be inconsistent. It would not have been oppose catagorically to big government, and even could have been fairly green, hence "conserve". It would have been more class bound, but not motivated by growth for the sake of growth.

The liberal movement at the time was probably more class blind, but business driven. It would have been very pro deregulation, pro low taxes for business (screw the aristocracy), and selectively open to free trade. They would not let traditional values get in the way of making a buck, and building factories and slums all over the Duke of Whatever's pristine and green hunting estate would have been no problem. The Consevatives would have balked at this.

So...todays cons are not unlike these 19th century Libs, thus neo libs

And... todays cons are different from the conservative movements of yesteryear, at least in this country where there was a stream of populism, thus they would also be ...neo-cons.

Neo-Liberalists are still around, and some still point to Milton Friedman as the saviour of modern capitalism, but neo-Liberalism fell into disrepute somewhat in the 1980's and 90's, and Keynesian(moderates on the left) school of thought has made a strong comeback. Rightist economists and their political allies prefer the label "neo-classical" economists and political thinkers today. "PaleoConservative" is probably just as accurate though for the purpose of argument.

[ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Why exactly do people use the neo prefix? Is not a neo-liberal just a liberal? Is not a neo-conservative just basically a conservative?

---

Not really. Canada has a long tradition of conservatism that is socially liberal, that supports social spending, but that is also very pro-market in its philosophical foundations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by marzo:
This makes them distinct from earlier fascist movements such as the Nazis who were obsessed with blood, race myths, violence etc.

---

quote:

---

The term, 'market fundamentalist' has come to be associated with the neoconservative movement.

---

But I don't think that is true. That might form part of the basis for their public talking points, but it does not inform what they are really all about.

They embrace the market in ways that benefit them, but use regulation and government controls of taxation and spending to advance their own private interests.

For example, we see on one hand neo-cons demand deregulation of laws that protect consumers or allow individuals to redress negligence. On the other hand, they use regulatory agencies to raise the bar for market entry thereby helping to cement their own market positions. They then loosen regulations around competition and anti-trust to allow mergers to consolidate market share and establish oligopolies. All the while singing the praises of free market competition.

Similarly, they decry public spending on everything including public infrastructure, but demand governments find the dollars to rescue tumbling markets, bad risks, and failed enterprises.

The neo-cons, intellectually, represent a generation raised on television, acquisition for the sake of acquisition, waste as convenience, the glorification of "self", and truth as spin.

Neo-conservatism is a brand of entitlement unique to male adolescence and wedded to the philosophy that the means always justify the end, self-gratification; and the only truth is the rationalization that is most palpable to the "market", or, in other words, the one that will sell.

So there is no lie too big or obscene nor act too depraved or immoral if it contributes to the ends which are the self-enrichment of architects of the political ascendancy of the frat house.

[ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

[ 25 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Though not always clearcut, the distinction is not irrelevant. The terms often reflect big ideological differences that have real and ongoing implications for current US policy and it's level of imperial aggression.
For example, there are conservatives from the Reagan and GHBush administration who think the hyper-aggressive interventionist neoconservatives in, and around the GW administration are a real menace and disaster for America. Conversely, there are neoconsevatives associated with the current administration who don't even like the term because they don't think of themselves as ANY kind of "conservative"-- but see themselves as world breaking and re-structuring radicals--( quite a few have leftist and even trotskyist backgrounds).

Here a some snippets from Wikipedia which (though hardly a definitive source) helps frame some of the issue and provides links:

"Conflict with Libertarian conservatives

There is also conflict between neoconservatives and libertarian conservatives. Libertarian conservatives are ideologically opposed to the expansiveness of federal government programs and regard neoconservative foreign policy ambitions with outspoken distrust. They view the neoconservative promotion of preemptive war as morally unjust, dangerous to the preservation of a free society, and against the principles of the Constitution. Rep Ron Paul, a Republican libertarian who holds a Texas district, and is a 2008 Presidential candidate, has spoken out harshly against the Bush Administration's foreign wars on fiscal, moral, and constitutional points advocating non-intervention.[28]

Friction with paleoconservatism

Disputes over Israel and public policy contributed to a sharp conflict with "paleoconservatives," starting in the 1980s. The movement's name ("old conservative") was taken as a rebuke to the "neo" side. The "paleocons" view the neoconservatives as "militarist social democrats" and interlopers who deviate from traditional conservatism agenda on issues as diverse as federalism, immigration, foreign policy, the welfare state, and in some cases abortion, feminism and homosexuality. All of this leads to a debate over what counts as conservatism.[citation needed]

The paleoconservatives argue that neoconservatives are an illegitimate addition to the conservative movement. Pat Buchanan calls neoconservatism "a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology."[29] The open rift is often traced back to a 1981 dispute over Ronald Reagan's nomination of Mel Bradford, a Southerner, to run the National Endowment for the Humanities. Bradford withdrew after neoconservatives complained that he had criticized Abraham Lincoln; the paleoconservatives supported Bradford."

Basically, yes, "neo-conservatives" were largely former liberal internationalists and Trotskyists. They became "conservatives" because of a failure of "liberals" in the U.S. to meet their expectations.

What it boils down to is in U.S. politics conservative politicians, and the Republican party especially, traditionally garners greater confidence when it comes to defence and foreign policy issues (though that won't be true for the next couple of years, if not decades). They essentially decided that "liberals" like Clinton either weren't going to take up the causes they wanted, or if they tried, wouldn't get anywhere because of conservative/Republican opposition (who aren't going to trust a bunch of namby-pamby liberals with national defence).

So, the solution for them is to hitch their agenda to the Republican star - since they are the ones who can, traditionally, get away with whatever they want on defence and foreign policy.

Of course, Stephen's advice is the most solid here.

I stand by my definition of neo-conservatism that easily included Harper and his merry band of Canadian cheats, liars, and race warriors.

quote:

---

Of course, Stephen's advice is the most solid here.

The term has been over-used to the point that it means just about anything and anyone you simply "don't like". Harper doesn't have enough women in cabinet? Why, it's because he's an awful neo-conservative! People are opposed to equal marriage? Damn those neo-conservatives! That guy just stole your parking spot? Arghh! [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Harvey (2005) sums up neoliberalism as a global capitalist class power restoration project. Neoliberalism, he explains, is a theory of political-economic practices that dedicates the state to championing private property rights, free markets, and free trade, while deregulating business and privatizing collective assets. Ideologically, neoliberals promote entrepreneurialism as the normative source of human happiness. Harvey also considers neoliberalization a form of capitalist "creative destruction", a Schumpeterian concept.[28] This indicates that while neoliberalism is a critical concept with a critique of capitalist class relations, it is not strictly a Marxist concept; the Marxist term for neoliberalism is "primitive accumulation"

---

Basically, deregulation and privatization is da bomb according to "leave it to the market" ideologues. "Neo" means new, and it's used with political labels to describe new efforts to revive highly politicized economic ideology which didn't work so well the first time around. So in this sense, "neo" means same-old same-old dusted off and polished up a bit and sold to the next generations of unsuspecting guinea pigs.

[ 27 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Seriously. Reading that is like stirring cement with your eyelashes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

HAH! Funniest post of the day. By far.

---

[ 27 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
What the hell heywood?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

What the hell is that if Fidel wants to make bitchy little asides then he should get called on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Don't wet your pants over it. You started it, shitforbrains.

---

quote:

---

There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.

He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers — all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees.

The seller, he claimed, was the Iraqi-owned company he worked for, Shield Group Security Co.

“It was a Wal-Mart for guns,” he says. “It was all illegal and everyone knew it.”

So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago because he didn’t know whom to trust in Iraq.

For his trouble, he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he was classified a security detainee.

---

Lying liars punish the truth tellers

[ 28 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom? (3x1-hr YouTube Videos)

quote:

---

The series consists of three, one-hour programmes which explore the concept and definition of freedom, specifically "how a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures led to today's idea of freedom."

---

[ 28 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

I'm not here to defend the neo-conservatives, but once again here we see the term so misused, it's no wonder nobody actually knows what it means.

---

I think you are right

quote:

---

I'm not here to defend the neo-conservatives, but once again here we see the term so misused, it's no wonder nobody actually knows what it means.

---

quote:

---

And what does this random news story have to do with neo-conservatism, other than providing an opportunity to cry "Look! Bad things happening! It must be those neo-conservatives again!!!"?

---

But as much as the neo-con motive was to steal Iraqi oil and seek global dominance for the US, it was also to drain America of her wealth and pocket it for themselves. Hence a scale of corruption unmatched in human history.

And so here we see when courageous people come forward to expose this corruption and the theft from the American people it represents, they face arrest, torture, humiliation, and even the loss of family. And this all occurs with the blessing and under the broken laws and constitution of the nation now ruled by neo-cons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Be honest for once. Of course you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Be honest for once. Of course you are.

---

Once again, you make a very poor psychic. Another miss.

[ 28 August 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

"Conservative" used to mean valuing tradition, holding fast to certain commonly-held, community values, etc. "Liberal" used to mean individual rights, free markets, liberty, etc.

But now, people who identify themselves as "conservative" in viewpoint are the ones who tend to believe in free markets and the invisible hand (but to the point where they don't want to regulate anything at all, and allow companies to get so huge that there is no competition anymore), and CERTAIN individual freedoms (like guns, living free of taxes, kind of a wild west mentality) while of course not feeling that anyone has the right to do anything which they (or their imaginary, invisible friend) morally disprove of. So, they're called "neo-cons" because they are the descendants of the original conservatives in that they hold fast to certain "family values" and they like the power structure to stay fast because it benefits many of them, but they have also taken in some classical liberal (or perhaps libertarian?) values and put them into the mix. So this is why you also often hear neo-cons referred to as "neo-liberal" - because they have accepted many of the old "liberal" values of free market and individual liberties, but since they have mixed it with conservative values, and since the liberal economic values have been taken to an extreme, to the point where there actually ISN'T much competition anymore in many sectors because of megacorporations, then people call them "neo-liberals.

It's interesting - basically the "neo-liberals" and the "neo-cons" are the same thing, as far as I can tell. (Although, perhaps "neo-liberal" refers to people who are economically extreme sink-or-swim capitalists but not into the religious, moral majority-type stuff that the neo-cons are.)

That's why you sometimes hear people on the left saying that they're the REAL "conservatives" when it comes to money, because we spend money wisely, and we don't have any desire to waste it on imperialist exercises like Iraq, etc. when we could be spending less and getting more value for it with education and health care and a social safety net that is adequate for people who can't succeed in the cutthroat capitalist labour market, which is artificially and purposefully kept at a certain level of unemployment. Those who identify themselves as "politically liberal" these days, at least in the US where they don't have a Liberal Party to mess up the whole concept of small-l liberal, also tend to believe in freedom of conscience, freedom of, and from, religion, and individual liberties insofar as they don't harm anyone else, but communitarian values when it comes to economic issues (e.g. taxes collected for redistribution purposes).

quote:

---

Be honest for once, accusing people of being conservatives/neo-conservatives because they disagree with you is a really lame/childish debating tactic . . . even if it happens to be a specialty of yours.

---

quote:

---

Replace every instance of the term "neo-con" in your above screed with "lizard men" and it remains about as useful in contributing to a serious analysis of world events and politics.

---

That is, unless you could argue that socialism, through its main tenets and its theoretical underpinnings, specifically advocates or contributes to this kind of inhuman treatment of people.

Likewise, you're going to need to do the same to show that it was "neoconservatism" that put this guy in jail (and maybe it did - the war itself is clearly a neoconservative endeavour), and not simple corruption, greed and ass-holish behaviour.

quote:

---

Would it not be ignorant to blame "socialism" for every prisoner in Stalin's Gulags, or every victim of Pol Pot's killing fields?

---

quote:

---

That is, unless you could argue that socialism, through its main tenets and its theoretical underpinnings, specifically advocates or contributes to this kind of inhuman treatment of people.

---

quote:

---

Likewise, you're going to need to do the same to show that it was "neoconservatism" that put this guy in jail (and maybe it did - the war itself is clearly a neoconservative endeavour), and not simple corruption, greed and ass-holish behaviour.

---

And why is it no one can define the tenets of neo-conservativism? Why is it the term is so vague and yet so many people are associated with the neo-conseravtive movement and agenda?

Because people are looking for something that isn't there and has never been there. My definition of neo-conservatism, which gave us the war in Iraq, and will very likely give us a war in Iran, stands:

The neo-cons, intellectually, represent a generation raised on television, acquisition for the sake of acquisition, waste as convenience, the glorification of "self", and truth as spin.

Neo-conservatism is a brand of entitlement unique to male adolescence and wedded to the philosophy that the means always justify the end, self-gratification; and the only truth is the rationalization that is most palpable to the "market", or, in other words, the one that will sell.

So there is no lie too big or obscene nor act too depraved or immoral if it contributes to the ends which are the self-enrichment of the architects of the political ascendancy of the frat house.

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Would it not be ignorant to blame "socialism" for every prisoner in Stalin's Gulags, or every victim of Pol Pot's killing fields?

---

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were aided and abetted by the American CIA and green berets as well as post-Mao China. The doctor and the madman through to Jimmy Carter would have happily allowed the Khmer Rouge to run amok had it not been for the Vietnamese who finally liberated the country in 1979. Ronald Raygun's regime refused to criticize or acknowledge Khmer Rouge killing fields until some time after 1985.