Jump to content

Talk:Neoliberalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History section

The history section could do with some cleanup and rewriting. It also needs sources to support several statements. I'll comment on several sentences one by one:
"In the 1930s, the mood was decidedly anti-liberal" --> what mood? In what way was it "anti-liberal"? Also, what kind of liberalism is refered to here? In what country was "the mood" anti-liberal?
"To join forces a group of 25 liberals" --> to join forces sounds like a phrase that came from a comic book, not an encyclopedic entry. It should be clarified as to what the aim of the colloque was. Did the attendants want to form a single movement propagating neo-liberalism? Did they want to form a collective in order to increase their visibility and increase the impact of their efforts?
"At the Colloque Walter Lippmann, the fundamental differences between 'true neoliberals' around Rüstow and Lippmann on the one hand and old school liberals around Mises and Hayek on the other were already quite visible". Just what is a 'true neoliberal'? It's unclear whether this is somebody propagating a laissez-faire mentality or a Third Way mentality. Also, how were the differences visible?
"After a few years the insurmountable differences between old liberals and the neoliberals become unbearable". This should be clarified. What exactly happened? In what way did it show that the differences became unbearable? What concrete action made it clear?
"Rüstow was bitter that Mises still adhered to a version of liberalism that Rüstow thought had failed spectacularly". How do we know Rüstow was bitter? Is there a source supporting it? Again, in what way did it show Rüstow was bitter?

The section makes value judgements and uses words that may seem to describe something but actually don't, like "join forces", "the mood was anti-liberal", etc. These sentences may at first glance appear valid, but when you think about them, they are not precise and leave much room for debate. SeraphinMr (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make some clarifications [1]. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lede

I'm removing the comment on Monthly Review being a socialist publication from the lede and instead adding a wikilink to its article. Currently, it smacks of POV and is off topic as this is an article on neoliberalism, not Monthly Review or socialist publications. I post this here to avoid an edit war on the subject.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution. --Kharon (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a good solution. «Avoid an edit war» does not mean «C.J. Griffin can do even more reverts». Spumuq (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the page is semi-protected is because the vandal I was reverting was using multiple IP's. It's interesting to note that a member of the counter-vandalism unit restores the edits, thus in a way aiding him in circumventing the block.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noone is NPOV, be it some marxist magazine, the New York Times, some Scientist or Journalist. If you want to put ideological tags on opinions we need to tag everything and everyone to atleast formaly stay NPOV. I highly doubt this will be possible tho anyway because then there will be editwars around the tags. So NPOV is served best if we dont even start ideologically tagging relevant opinions to the lemma. --Kharon (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"capitalism with the gloves off" is a point of view not a fact and to be exact is a socialist point of view, not pointing it by hiding it behind a link that this comes from his socialist perspective is dishonest or remove his point of view all together or point where his coming from. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again. That way we will end up in endless fights about taggings of opinions. --Kharon (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Today the term is mostly used as a general condemnation of economic liberalization policies and their advocates."

Is this a fair line in the summary? The definition sources http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12116-009-9040-5 which has the line in abstract: "We show that neoliberalism has undergone a striking transformation, from a positive label coined by the German Freiberg School to denote a moderate renovation of classical liberalism, to a normatively negative term associated with radical economic reforms in Pinochet’s Chile."

I feel this isn't the same as "general condemnation".

09:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Passerby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.182.61 (talk)

"mostly used as" is different from "is". So if you disagree you do prove the point that not everyone sees this term as "general condemnation". However you most likely know that a majority has a negative understanding of Neoliberalism today. --Kharon (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad this was stressed, since in my experience the word is entirely used by critics, I have not seen a single free-market advocate describe himself as a "neoliberal". J1812 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shock Doctrine an unreliable source for this article?

User:Spumuq has reverted this edit claiming that Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine is not a reliable source. I dispute this, not only is her book a popular work on neoliberalism cited on myriad Wikipedia articles, it is featured in the very bibliography of the article, as it should be. As such, I feel that her book constitutes Wikipedia:RS and the edit should be restored. Not only that, but the information is relevant to that section of the article. To avoid an edit war, I will not revert to the original edit but instead attribute the statement to her book, and not use Wikipedia's voice. I hope this resolves the issue. If not, I will have to seek out other sources to back up the statement, of which I'm sure there are many.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a popular work in some quarters, and I know that it fits your perspective, but that doesn't make it a reliable source. If so many articles cite it, that means a lot more articles need to be fixed. bobrayner (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then. I have modified the content and added what certainly constitutes Wikipedia:RS as I said I would do if the last modification did not resolve the issue. This does not mean I agree with your assertion that Klein's book is not RS, not by a long shot.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to include Starve the beast, which is a simmilar concept that is much broader documented. --Kharon (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel paragraph

"Additionally, many theories were developed which showed that the free market would produce the socially optimum equilibrium with regard to production of goods and services, such as the fundamental theorems of welfare economics and general equilibrium theory, which helped prove further that government intervention could only result in making society worse off (see Pareto efficient)."

This is a particularly loaded paragraph. I am hesitant to make an account just to make an edit, that seems to defy the point of Wikipedia. This paragraph definitely needs work though - just needs a more impartial person to do it than would be possible from this IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.198.189 (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO "theories.[...].which showed" is a bad choice of words. Such theories are shurely part of Neoliberalism but they are very disputed. I changed that formulation now. I didnt write these chapters so id say whoever wants this to be part of the article is invited to add some sources. Else anyone else can delete it if he wants. --Kharon (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smearing academic sources as "leftists" w/o evidence to undermine content

Recent additions by 24.141.7.227 and restored by User:Spumuq seek to smear academic sources as "leftists" in a clear attempt to marginalize what is being said. Here is the original:

The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies, and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s is seen as the roots of financialization with the Financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results.

Here is the 24.141.7.227 version (with no WP:RS cited):

The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies, and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s is seen by leftists as the root of financialization with the Financial crisis of 2007–08 claimed to be one of the ultimate results.

This is clearly WP:undue POV. I attempted to prevent a possible edit war by converting "leftists" to "some academics," but nevertheless it was reverted again to the 24.141.7.227 version by User:Spumuq, which he ironically said was "editorialising" in his edit summary. This is clearly nonsense, as the editorializing is being done by those besmirching academic sources they don't agree with as "leftist" without a shred of evidence to back it up. As such I'm reverting to this version which adheres to WP:NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is actually mainstream opinion today. Hardly anyone still belives in Hayek's idea(l) of "natural self regulating"-markets. --Kharon (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neoliberalism&oldid=643056202"