Get Talk:Neoliberalism essential facts below. View Videos or join the Talk:Neoliberalism discussion. Add Talk:Neoliberalism to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.

Origin of neoliberalism, what it actually is; articles needs a significant rewrite

A similar talk post on this was archived, but the article as is does not really touch upon what neoliberalism actually is, and you need to go to its origins to discover this. Neoliberalism was formulated by Walter Lippman's "The Good Society" in 1937, and the word itself coined, at least in its meaning in this context, in 1938 by Alexander Rüstow at the '"Walter Lippmann Colloquium," organized by French liberal philosopher and logical positivist Louis Rougier.' The first line in the article is wrong: Neoliberalism REJECTS laissez-faire, and is ANTI-19th-century classical liberalism, perhaps better known today as the "night-watchman state." As best I can tell, neoliberalism was "democratic, tolerated a wide degree of regulation, plus welfare states, public education, and public provision of healthcare and infrastructure." Not free-market, and not classical liberal. I am not a student of neoliberalism in particular, but this article is written from the perspective of someone who associates it with a grab-bag of components from various ideologies, and needs a big rewrite to put down what neoliberalism actually is; where it came from; and its effects, good and bad, and why. I am sure this is a doable project, although finding Lippman's "The Good Society" as a necessary primary source, being the originator of the concept; although I can only find it for myself here (Google Books, library system) at the publisher's website,, and it's out of stock. Is anyone interested in working on this? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

While the term neoliberalism was used in the 1930s (and again by U.S. Democrats and others in the 1980s with a different meaning), the term used today has its origins in the early 1990s and there is no evidence that the people using it were implying that it was a continuation of the 1930s concept. In Dancing with Dogma (1992), Ian Gilmour said that Thatcher did not stand for traditional conservative values, but 19th century liberal values, hence she was a "neo-liberal."[1] TFD (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm unsure of your point. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The point is that the topic is a concept that developed in the early 1990s, although the term had been used before with a different meaning. TFD (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Infact there was huge dispute from start. Among the inventors at the Colloque Walter Lippmann! They had regular debates about that at their Mont Pelerin Society-Gatherings, in correspondence and in writing of articles and books. Massive differences from the start. And as we see here that has not changed till today. --Kharon (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I see no need for a rewrite given that neoliberalism is almost never used in that context in modern discourse or scholarship. The article already discusses the origins of neoliberalism and its shift in meaning in both the lede and the origins sub-section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's incorrect. Plehwe and Mirowski's book 'The Road from Mont Pelerin' do use it in that context. Many other authors such as Will Davies also point out that is not laissez-faire and distinct from liberalism.For example, Mirowski has pointed many times that David Harvey conflates the two. For example here's a quote from his review of David Harvey's book 'Brief History of Neoliberalism' - "They changed their minds over numerous issues, extending even what they should call their movement. They started out using the moniker "neoliberalism"(Friedman, 1951), but backed away from it over time, which helps explain why the designation is still so misunderstood in Anglophone contexts.Harvey(p.20)simply identifies neoliberalism with neoclassicaleconomics, but that is both a technical and philosophical error. He also (p. 64) comes close to identifying neoliberalism with the classical limited state;that too is badly misleading." Source - . Considering this, the OP was right and the rewrite was justified. Its reversion wasnt. (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The OP is incorrect, even the source you cited specifically mentions Hayek and Friedman ("He correctly identifies Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman as key theorists, but does not convey what a new departure it was for right wing political economists to suborn themselves so thoroughly to elaborate formal organizations that would hash out joint intellectual positions (MPS) or mediate the purveyance of ideas to political actors (eg.,IEA, American Enterprise Institute, Atlas, Unirule) and integrate these activities with rich and powerful patrons. Indeed, recent work reveals that academic units such as the Chicago School of economics were founded as subsidiaries of the larger project, rather than vice versa, organized with extensive outside involvement") and their ideology was not in anyway related to the Lippmann one. It even mentions various libertarian think-tanks in this quote (IEA, Atlas, etc.) and the Chicago School that was associated with libertarianism. Even the Mont Pelerin Society used the label libertarian when describing themselves. And the youtube video below, Mirowski mentions Cato.Actual neoliberal (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Just because it simply mentions Hayek and Friedman doesnt mean the whole ideology can be classified one way or another. One has to go through the history or atleast read the prominent scholars of that history to realise what the movement was about and how it evolved over time. There were far more influential figures in the movement like Gary Becker or George Stigler but they arent really 'mentioned'. Here's a link to Mirowski's talk where he specifically addresses this issue - at 7:40. As for the Chicago School of economics or libertarian think-tanks, associating them with libertarianism just demonstrates that one hasnt read through the cited scholars. Again, going through Mirowski and Plehwe or Angus Burgin, you will read about the matroyshka doll like structure of various think tanks or the mont pelerin society's uneasy relationship with libertarians with whom they never fully identified. If you read the IEA's history, you'll read about Hayek's role and how it has acted as a mother think tank that helps spawn and fund other think tanks that spout many different positions at the same time with the common goal of misinforming the wider public, gaining support across the political spectrum and buying time for the development of their policies/market solution. This has been covered again by Mirowski (for the sake of time here's his talk - If you go through other works, you'll read that historians often found through documents that Milton Friedman used to publicly say one thing but support another privately amongst mont pelerin society peers. This was a regular feature amongst the neoliberals, thought by historians to be inspired by Leo Strauss' Persecution and the Art of Writing. Ignoring all of this just shows that one hasnt actually read many of the scholars cited but simply picked and chosen parts that support the popular narrative, however wrong or confused it is. Hence, the OP's phrase "this article is written from the perspective of someone who associates it with a grab-bag of components from various ideologies" . (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The OP stated that Lippmann definition is the only correct one, my comment was to counter that. "Associating them with libertarianism just demonstrates that one hasnt read through the cited scholars" the people at those think tanks actually used that term to label themselves, not inaccurate to use the term they used themselves. Why did MPS members describe their organization with that term? (Milton Friedman's son is a member and he uses the term to describe the group: At the meeting in 1978, the members were using the term too ( Even the neoliberal politicians like Thatcher and Reagan used the term. ( and "There were far more influential figures in the movement like Gary Becker or George Stigler but they arent really 'mentioned'." They were both libertarians. "As for the Chicago School of economics or libertarian think-tanks, associating them with libertarianism just demonstrates that one hasnt read through the cited scholars." So a libertarian think-tank should not be associated with libertarianism? The Chicago School was founded by libertarians (maybe you should edit this wiki page and let someone know just how wrong the entire page is? You're not really making a point, but just restated the same people I stated were involved, then made unsubstantiated claims like Friedman had secret "neoliberal" views (that were somehow distinct from the views he stated in public), then danced around the fact that they (the people and organizations that Mirowski cites as key to neoliberalism) actually used the label "libertarian" to describe their views. ""this article is written from the perspective of someone who associates it with a grab-bag of components from various ideologies"" there were two/three distinct forms of neoliberalism, as Foucault stated (, they didn't agree on a number of things, Rustow, Ropke were upset by people like Mises and Hayek being associated with neoliberalism. Ordoliberalism (which was formally called neoliberalism) and MPS neoliberalism are addressed in the Routledge Handbook of Neoliberalism. It's well documented.Actual neoliberal (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Here's another instance where Mirowski is addressing a more general audience at the Majority Report show. from 4:19 He specifically mentions how confused the different labels of libertarian,liberalism,neoliberalism,etc., are in the American context and clears it up subsequently. This seems to account for the disagreement here. (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense to focus on what those who have labeled themselves neoliberals in the past, and policies continued from such advocates into the present, instead of on the far more recent confusion of what it actually means, used as a generalized epithet for a less state-controlled economy, irregardless of actual degree. How some misuse the term, or simply don't care about what it actually means but use it anyways, certainly has a place in this article, but to focus largely on that is in error; qualitative needs to take precedence over normative views. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk o contribs) 18:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It was a Weasel word from the start so blame the "inventors" if you like. Nevertheless its a form of Liberalism and as such identical or near to the general descriptions or indictments unless that form claims to be not just a "neo" version but much more distinct like for example Social liberalism, which apriori could not be associated or described to be atleast near to Minimal state or Laissez-faire doctrines. --Kharon (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No. It would serve only to confuse readers as neoliberalism in the present clearly refers to the market-based ideas and reforms which gained traction following the collapse of the Keynesian consensus in the mid-to-late 1970s, and has almost nothing to do with any of the concepts from the 1930s. The plethora of scholarship on neoliberalism, such as that cited in this article, makes that quite clear. Discussion on the term having a different meaning decades ago is given its due weight in the article, in the appropriate sections.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Its ironic that the use of the term by critics is an equal mess of definitions. Its irritating for US-americans who know progressiv liberals framed up as "neoliberals" by republicans, who are themselves infact much closer to neoliberal policies than their accused democrats. Definition of Neoliberalism has always been and probably will always stay to be a clusterfuck. --Kharon (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not a mess of definitions at all, but a reference to the paradigm that replaced replaced post-war liberalism when Thatcher and Reagan were elected. Governments have shifted from policies of full employment, generous social benefits and deficit spending. No one claims that the new policies are internally consistent or unchanging. Neoliberals have both balanced budgets and rung up unprecedented debt. They have pursued both high and low interest rate policies. They have even raised taxes (see Read my lips: no new taxes.) If is not incumbent on scholars of neoliberalism to devise a coherent, internally consistent and unchanging ideology, but merely to describe actually existing neoliberalism. And incidentally, the cult libertarianism that many resource editors favor is not neoliberalism, despite sharing common intellectual roots, such as Hayek and Mises. TFD (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Following discussion on C.J._Griffin's talk page, I would like to propose a restructure of the lead section's paragraphs:

  1. The first paragraph should convey that the definition of the term is contentious (current 2nd paragraph).
  2. The second paragraph should define the popular usage (synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, current 1st and 4th paragraphs).
  3. The third paragraph should define the traditional usage (synonymous with ordoliberalism, current 3rd paragraph) (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the theme of your idea. Basically, to a greater degree it covers that it is a term with varying meanings. But anything should be done carefully....there is a lot of content and sourcing in the lead which we should probably not lose, even if it is just moved to the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe it would be detrimental to the article if it was modified this way, as the first paragraph would become bloated and could lead to edit warring. It makes sense that the basic, standard definition of the term is the first paragraph, then any disputes covered in the second, the history of the term in the third, and lastly how the modern term came into being. It flows well, and was constructed after years of discussion on this very talk page. The current version has been stable for over a year without any disputes or edit warring. I say let's keep it that way.
If anything, as a last resort, the Britannica article on Neoliberalism could serve as a model, at least for the first paragraph in the lede. It's basically the modern definition like the current resource article on the subject, but with this added: "Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics." Now that appears to me to be NPOV and a proper way to address the issue, and not nearly as contentious as the materials I reverted earlier. So if this issue persists - that something about the term being debatable must be inserted in the first paragraph - I'd say something very similar to this might be preferable so the lede doesn't become a mess and a hotbed of edit warring.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with an adaption of Britannica's definition. I think the third sentence does a good job of identifying the intersection of the contrasting meanings. (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that most of the leading section's content can be safety deleted. It's already well convered in the Terminology and Early History sections, with plentiful references. (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I would argue that the lede is a good summary of the basics of neoliberalism, like I mentioned above, and rather succinct given the debate surrounding the exact meaning of the term, how it evolved, and the breadth of scholarly writing on the subject. And multiple editors participated in putting that together, so I think gutting it would be out of the question without some discussion here. I would not object to adding some of the material from the Britannica article, so long as it was added for purposes of clarification without causing much bloat (referring to the lede in particular), and wasn't used to supplant what is in the article currently. I would suggest that any changes to the lede, especially the first paragraph, be discussed here first.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
By rolling back (without an edit summary) my previous edit, which did not subtract any content and aimed to clarify, you prevent a consensus being reached through editing. I would appreciate it if your statement that the current lead section is the result of consensus was clarified by a link to the discussion where current second sentence was justified, especially because it currently clashes with the Manual of Style's recommendation that the "first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
While changes can be discussed before being made, I think it is better to follow Wikipedia's be bold guideline and that it is more important to discuss removals and reversions. (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Your edit did not intend to clarify, but inject a very obvious POV in the very beginning of the article. This issue has been dealt with before (see talk archives going back to 2015), which is why the second paragraph exists as it does. Right now this smacks of a WP:SPA with an agenda. I must say find it odd that an anonymous IP just comes out of the blue as of yesterday with not even 20 edits total, and seeks to push a POV on one specific article while having some knowledge of Wikipedia's rules.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I am indeed a single purpose account, because I do not want to associate any of my usual pseudonyms with political controversy. Single purpose accounts are not disallowed by resource ( Resource: VALIDALT. I had not edited resource before yesterday.Temporary political account (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
While they might not be technically disallowed, it is generally frowned upon to start an SPA for the express purpose of POV-pushing and injecting contentious materials into the lede of specific articles, or just one article. It would have been better to contribute to the discussion here rather than to radically alter the lede of the article as you did, which you had to know would lead to edit conflicts. It is a very disruptive and unconstructive way to edit this encyclopedia.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that an editing-first approach is unconstructive. New users are literally encouraged to edit first in Resource: Be bold. Temporary political account (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Nevertheless, you are engaging in unconstructive and contentious POV-pushing. This is generally a no no. I have altered the article per my suggestion above. I'm hoping this puts the issue to rest as the debate over the meaning is mentioned in the first paragraph and strongly adheres to NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
While it is fair to say that I am POV-pushing, I disagree with the claim that I am being unconstructive. I think the current lead section represents a breach of Resource: Neutral point of view. I have listed this on Resource: Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Resource: Editor assistance/Requests Temporary political account (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
It is unconstructive to add what you did to the lede which would obviously trigger edit conflicts given it was highly POV and done without discussion, and altered the entire lede section which has been constructed after years of debate and discussion on the talk page. Given your reasons for creating your SPA which you discussed above, to hide your identity from political controversy, it is apparent to me that you knew as much. However, I have added the point that the term is subject of academic debate in the first paragraph, much like in the Britannica article, but this is not enough apparently? It adheres to NPOV, much like in the Britannica article on the same subject, and is clearly sufficient in making the point you wish to be made. It makes little sense to simply smear the term as an epithet in the very first paragraph which is clearly what you wish to do, which places UNDUE WEIGHT on the term being a pejorative, or a swear word, etc. That's not the way the first paragraph of the term is constructed on the Britannica article, and for good reason, and that's not the way it should be constructed here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for making that edit. I now accept that the lead section conforms to neutrality.
As a separate issue, I think that the lead section ought to be slimmed down.Temporary political account (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Well I'm glad that issue might be put to bed finally to the satisfaction of the parties involved. As for the other issue, the lede is not bloated IMO, but quite succinct in terms of being a summary of the concept. I would recommend, like I did above, that any trimming be discussed here first. If it is determined that some materials are to be removed, I would urge that the citations which follow such materials, which are all RS and mostly academic, be moved to more appropriate locations within the body of the article and not removed entirely.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Liberalism has a very different (and in some areas opposite) meaning in the us VS. elsewhere. This article presumes the non-US definition of liberalism when using it as a basis to explain neoliberalism. I don't know if there is a US definition / meaning of neoliberalism; if so it is not covered in the article. Probably a little extra explanation in these areas would make it more informative/ less confusing for everyday US readers. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

In the US, "liberalism" used in popular or political discourse almost always refers to some kind of progressivism, where as in most other countries around the world it's more commonly associated with economic liberalism. The term neoliberalism is rarely used in popular discourse in the United States. This is mentioned in the article already in the "Current usage" sub-section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it goes deeper than that. This article uses liberalism as a foundation for defining neoliberalism, but liberalism is a word that has a completely different meaning in the US where it means expansion of government including taxes, social programs and regulation. My thought would be a sentence or two to clarify this. In essence that "liberalism" in the article refers to a term which is not the common meaning of the term in the US or refers to what US poly-sci people would refer to as "classical liberalism." To say it shorter, in this article, "liberalism" refers to classical liberalism rather than the common meaning of "liberalism" in the US. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that. Perhaps in the terminology section? Do you have sources?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I have a source that covers that the common US meaning of liberal is different than the rest of the world. I'll go look. But here we're talking about what clarifying which meaning statements in this article are using....sources would not cover a wiki article. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There probably should be a separate entry for the US meaning of Neoliberalism, related to social liberalism as opposed to economic liberalism which is the meaning in this article entry. The last paragraph in the "Origins" section really doesn't belong here and confuses the two words and their meanings. Social Neoliberalism is completely different than Economic Neoliberalism. PaulRaunette (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there significant reliable sources that elaborate on the differences between so-called "social neoliberalism" and "economic neoliberalism"? It is my understanding that neoliberalism is essentially an economic ideology embraced by both major US political parties to one extent or another (i.e., the administrations of Reagan and Clinton especially), hence the paradigm shift in economic policy starting in the late 1970s and especially the 1980s. This occurred not only in the US, but also Chile under Pinochet, Britain under Thatcher, and much of the world following the collapse of the socialist bloc in the 1990s.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
And social policies attributed to neoliberal reforms are also a response to economic changes, such as the expansion of mass incarceration in the US. It's seemingly a social policy, but according to Wacquant and others, its motivations were to contain the fallout from the imposition of other neoliberal economic policies which increased precarity and marginalization of the working population and the urban poor (who were also an obstacle to rising gentrification). The expansion of prison privatization, including privatization of services within public facilities, could be seen as social and economic.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bad comparison with democracy

I deleted following, i assume formaly correctly cited, sentence today [2]: As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other contested concepts, including democracy.

Because C.J. Griffin undid my deletion i assume this should be discussed here. To begin with, this statement has at best pure academic value. It thematizes contested concepts in its core, not the actual lemma Neoliberalism.
Additionally it is plain wrong or atleast very missleading since most of today's worldwide economies are classified as coordinated market economies so the implication of a similar success and spread of liberal market economy, like democracy which seems a real winning champion on our globe, is plain wrong. On top liberal markets are frequently cited as "in deep conflict" with democracy while the coordinated market system is exactly the adaptation of capitalism to democracy (see Third Way). This alone already proves the point, the deleted sentence tried to make, as very missleading. It does not share many atributes (which is a total weaselword phrase on top) with democracy besices at best some academic tag called "contested concept" you could aswell stick on any of the 1001 "inventions" of the Milk industry. How about comparing Neoliberalism with probiotic Yogurt? What would be the point of that besides the theory of both at times being very successfull contested concepts that spread around the globe? --Kharon (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
First of all, you're introducing concepts not included in the article (i.e., coordinated market economies), and have provided no sources for the claims you asserted. The sentence you deleted (and the citation which followed the statement, which includes a quote to help explain exactly what the source is trying to say with this) was not making the case that the two operate in tandem (of course they are "in deep conflict", as neoliberalism fuels inequality and essentially oligarchy, but I digress...), but as both are global concepts put into practice they are similar in that, 1) they are geopolitically distinct in some respects (think of it this way, as both neoliberalism and democracy are adopted by different cultures and polity around the world, both will undergo changes to fit these societies, even though in theory they will retain core ideas), and 2) prone to modification over time. This is, I believe, partly why neoliberalism is such a hotly disputed concept, even though at its core neoliberalism is about the liberation of, and domination by, capital. I would argue that the so-called coordinated market economies you speak of have been modified by neoliberal ideas thanks to globalization, especially the ruthless austerity implemented throughout much of Europe in recent years (e.g., Sweden's explosion of inequality in the last decade is largely attributable to the adoption of neoliberal policies pertaining to austerity and privatization; Sweden is considered a "CME"). This is happening as I type this. Look at what the president of France just did: Macron's Gift to the Rich.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Coordinated Market systems, which are not based on Liberalism but on Corporatism, predate any idea of Neoliberalism. So about the idea of global adoption of neoliberalism - well the neoliberals sure tried to "sell" their ideas to any- and everone.
Did you know for example the Constitution of Europe, the Treaty of Lisbon sets the binding goal to establish ,,a highly competitive social market economy"[3] in every member state? Do I assume correctly that you agree to clearly distinct "social market economy" from Neoliberalism? In that case you also agree that Neoliberalism did not spread in the EU. The only exeption is the "anglo-saxon neoliberalism" in the UK. But then thanks to BREXIT, there isnt even an exeption to the rule in EU anymore.
Its really an academic fairy tale!
Neoliberalism's only spread worldwide was into academical and political press. Mainly because the many Billionair-funded "research Institutes" never actually research much but instead massively flood the academic press with concept papers in favor of Liberalism and Libertarism.
Therefor it is missleading to compare Neoliberalism to Democracy. Democracy really spread almost everywhere. Even China claims to be one, but that is obviously not a good example.
I gave you cited proof for 27 states not based in Neoliberalism. Easily more if needed. Can you give me proof of atleast 27 states based on Neoliberalism? --Kharon (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Here we let the sources do the talking, and what many sources assert is that neoliberalism is not confined to a few nations in the West, but has spread globally; it has been the backbone of globalized capitalism since the 1970s. The IMF and the World Bank have been pushing neoliberal "structural adjustment" policies on countries on nearly every continent. David Harvey elaborates on this phenomenon in his 2005 book, "A Brief History of Neoliberalism", cited in the article myriad times:

"There has everywhere been an emphatic turn towards neo-liberalism in political-economic practices and thinking since the 1970s. Deregulation, privatization, and withdrawal of the state from many areas of social provision have been all too common. Almost all states, from those newly minted after the collapse of the Soviet Union to old-style social democracies and welfare states such as New Zealand and Sweden have embraced, sometimes voluntarily and in other instances in response to coercive pressures, some version of neo-liberal theory and adjusted at least some policies and practices accordingly."(p.3)

It certainly appears to be the case that neoliberalism, in theory and practice, is as ubiquitous as democratic ideals in theory and practice, as the sources tell us.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
But this is all weaselword statements and artificial tags. "Embraced [...] some version of". Do you realize you can also find an equal "flood" of citations about communism spreading in the USA and everywhere else? Deregulation, privatization, and withdrawal of the state is no proof of an "adaption of neoliberalism" since any economy, even authoritarian one party systems have to manage, and thus sometimes change, a balance between state and private which Aristotle already wrote about. Just because Neoliberalism "embraces" deregulation doesnt give it any "copyright" as if Neoliberalism had invented deregulation and even worse to then argue "where deregulation, there Neoliberalism" is just Circular reasoning the wrong even wronger. Come on, please give me something better than citing hollow weasel phrased propaganda from Cato institute and alike. --Kharon (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Addition of Neoliberal populism section

An identical copy of this substantial new section has just been placed in at least 5 articles. I think that this is good work that needs to be placed somewhere but placing 5 identical copies in 5 articles seems like a bad idea. Probably we should revert and ask them to just put it it in the most relevant article. BTW I plan to do the same with this post in all of those articles. :-) North8000 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree this section should be removed. Much of it is unsourced anyway.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Addition of material on protest against globalization by Lee Kyung-hae

This material has been put in at least three times, two being restorations after removal. After 1 or 2 it should have been discussed before re-adding. IMO it's undue weight especially when degree of relevance is considered. Starting with the subject Neoliberalism, then saying that globalization relates to that, and then that protests against globalization relate to that, and then a pretty substantial section (include talking points via a quote) on this particul,ar protest. North8000 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's very notable and therefore WP:DUE given the coverage of this incident and how it related to neoliberal globalization in contemporary scholarship. Here is a look at what comes up in Google Scholar when the search terms are "Lee Kyung-hae" and "neoliberalism" [4]. I am perplexed by the opposition to including this in the article given its coverage in scholarship.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. Also there is a sort of circular logic in your search.....seeing if they are commonly connected by a search which returns only those where they are connected. That said, the process concern which I noted at the beginning of my post aside, I won't be upset if the material stays. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I strongly agree with north here. It has no place in a summary article. Especially with the giant pull quote. The whole criticism section is a classic WP:COATRACK where people are hanging their favorite criticisms. There is no summary, it is just a laundry list of items. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
We aren't just talking about a handful of articles here; there are more than just a few scholarly writings where this individual and his actions are directly connected to the globalization of neoliberal capitalism. This search was posted here to demonstrate that the subject matter as it exists in the article is notable. That being said, I did remove the "protest" sub-section and re-inserted it into the much larger political opposition section. I figured this would resolve the issue because having its own section does indeed qualify as WP:UNDUE. EDIT: I would vehemently oppose the removal of the entire criticism section as it contains myriad scholarly citations and discussions on the subject of neoliberalism. All of the critiques and criticisms pertain directly to neoliberalism, whether it is rising worker precarity, mass incarceration, falling living standards in the former Eastern bloc or Western intervention in the Global South. No "rack" is being obscured by any "coats", as these are absolutely notable criticisms of neoliberalism, and the numerous academic citations confirm this. I have no objections with removing the quote if that resolves the issue. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The incident is frequently mentioned in books about neo-liberalism, so it should be mentioned. I think though the entry should be no more than a sentence and block quotes are excessive. TFD (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "In popular culture" section

Goonsbee and the IP user 2001:7d0:87d8:a080:956:a171:9da:d3cc have several times attempted to remove the "In popular culture" section, with the edit summaries "stupid", "not relevant", and "r/neoliberal is not a relevant subreddit in popular culture". I opined that these edit summaries were inadequate reason to remove a large amount of sourced text, and advised Goonsbee to discuss the matter here.

My personal opinion is that Goonsbee is substantively correct. There are three subsections affected: "Reddit", "Twitter", and "Podcast"; I don't believe that any of them add much to the article. I am not a fan of "In popular culture" in general, though, so my prejudices are showing. Would anyone else care to venture an opinion? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in editing this page, but for what it's worth, I agree with you. The "Twitter" and "Podcast" sections in particular should be deleted right away because the sources are all primary - the Twitter section only cites the Twitter account and the Pocast section cites the Stitcher, Kickstarter, and Patreon. I suppose a case could maybe be made for keeping the "Reddit" section - at least it has some better sources - but I don't actually think it adds anything to the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I think they should be removed because they are relatively insignificant to the overall topic, in fact relatively insignificant overall. TFD (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The section should be deleted as it is basically superfluous clutter.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree that the whole section should be deleted. Looks like very small scale current web site stuff. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
That said, I think that current practice, meaning, and usage in everyday life is under-covered in most political philosophy articles. This material is an example of that, but covers individual instances which are too minor. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Removed. Clearly trivial Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree, the term has mostly become "out of fashion". Luckily all shifted to a much more "to the point" Debate theme about Inequality, thanks to our dear Mr. Thomas Piketty.
No, sorry NewEnglandYankee. See Resource: resource is not a dictionary. --Kharon (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Kharon, I'm not sure what you meant by that with respect to the current questions, but an article can certainly be about a term. North8000 (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The subreddit, Twitter page, and podcast aren't disparate things. They're all part of an organization called the Neoliberal Project. Qzekrom (she/they • talk) 05:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes