Talk:Neoliberalism

Please make page: flexible economic model, economic eclecticism

Most Western countries are flexible with some inertia after the change in conditions.

They might exhibit even Keynesianism while maintaining neoliberalism. Actually governments adjust the percentages of eclecticism. We are supposed to (also) write what actually happens, and not only present idealized theories.

Short description

Thoughts on changing the short description from "renewal of concept of unfettered capitalism" to "renewal of unfettered capitalism as policy" ?

The current version feels clunky and unclear. SSR07 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I support your change: "policy" is a better way to put things than "concept". — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I support this as well, and is certainly preferable to the recent change “Pejorative term political term with competing definitions” which literally says nothing useful.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I've edited the SD for its grammar (no need to have "term" said twice...). I don't like calling it a pejorative term in the SD (because it isn't always one), though perhaps something describing the fact that its definition is contested is an improvement. Also worth considering that the current iteration is over the recommended character count, so there's little room to make it much longer. SSR07 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

That it is strictly used pejoratively is disputed in the article itself, so including it in the SD as it is now is inappropriate. And describing it as a term with competing definitions is useless information and also inaccurate, especially when omitting that neoliberalism is primarily used as a description for contemporary capitalism in the vast majority of source material. The OP version is preferable to what has been proposed since.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose changing it to "political philosophy and term used by scholars and critics to describe the renewal of free market capitalism" as opposed to what exists now, "...term with competing definitions," which tells lay readers literally nothing about neoliberalism. My proposal also incorporates what was suggested in the original post ("renewal of unfettered capitalism as policy"). I will wait 24 hours before making the change.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Given you mention citing from the article, which I of course agree with, we cannot discount this, "The term has multiple, competing definitions, and is often used pejoratively." It only makes sense when a term does indeed have "multiple, competing definitions" that the short description (which is only a short description after all, it invariably WILL fall short in some way, it cannot be comprehensive and need not tell you all about the term) is found lacking in some manner. The pejorative connotation of the term is clear and "often used", whereas the term neutrally being worded as, "Term for the renewal of free market capitalism" is in fact the most pov version I think I have seen yet. We can improve it further, and I am open to suggestions. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest, "Pejorative term for some forms of capitalism", as that incorporates the "competing definitions" aspect. I do not see evidence to support the short description written as, "Pejorative and scholarly term for contemporary capitalism", since this paints the short description as too monolithic and also grants significantly more weight to a single perspective, which I am not sure if that is even the dominant perspective outside of some circles of thought. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2025(UTC)

Strongly disagree. The current version strips the term of any real meaning in order to relegate it as simply an insignificant pejorative with competing definitions used by critics when in fact numerous cited sources assert it is the most widely used term in scholarship for contemporary capitalism (not just "some forms"; it supplanted Keynesianism). It is best to go by what the sources say, and sources describe it as both a term used pejoratively (some sources say this is changing, see the IMF 2016 report for example) while some of those same sources and others describe it as a scholarly term. I'm reverting the changes to one that incorporates the whole picture. Honestly if this continues I think the best solution is to revert back to the original short description as described in the original post above before all these recent changes. The other contributor to this debate SSR07 also appears to oppose using this language stating "I don't like calling it a pejorative term in the SD (because it isn't always one)" [Bolding mine].--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Keeping your critique in mind I tried to trim it to below 40 characters which is advised on best practice for short descriptions. It is now 43, but it was 57 previously, I retained the bulk of your wording as is, though I am going to spend time over the next few days/weeks looking at sources and see if we are missing anything. Regardless, the final should always strive to be around 40 characters or less whenever possible, and should really never be near 60 or more if avoidable at all. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Pejorative is the most key word in the short description, "capitalism" could potentially be changed out for "globalist" or "free market" etc., but it is most often used as pejorative and nearly never as a self-descriptive label. You really didn't like the last one? Neutrality does not mean we scrub a term of its most frequently used connotation. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

We can disagree on other aspects of the wording, and I am perfectly willing to patiently work that out to a current consensus, but the pejorative aspect of the term shouldn't be up for dispute really. On that, sources seem to not only agree, but very often use the exact label, "pejorative" to describe neoliberalism. Even when others don't, the term is often described in scathing language. Fair enough, maybe it is an evil system, but that then isn't what we would call NOT a pejorative then. If I called you a "neoliberal" for example @C.J. Griffin, would you approve of the label? Even if it is nowhere near your personal economic or other ideology, how does it make you feel to be called a "neoliberal"? Of course that isn't sufficient, the sources are our guide, but I point that out merely for illustrative purposes.

Some sources directly calling "neoliberal" a "pejorative" term or that otherwise inform and contextualize for the purposes of best wording in the short description:

[1]https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/the-pejorative-origins-of-the-term-neoliberalism/

[2]https://s-usih.org/2013/07/is-neoliberalism-a-pejorative/

[3]https://reason.com/2018/12/30/what-does-neoliberalism-really/

[4]https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/premium/3312671/neoliberalism-word-used-often-not-defined/

[5]https://reason.com/2022/02/19/neoliberalism-we-hardly-knew-ye/ Iljhgtn (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

These are not good sources, mostly op Ed’s in libertarian rags like Reason and climate change deniers associated with right wing think tanks. Compare the above with the mostly scholarly sources cited throughout the article. So far no consensus exists for this change. I will restore the previous version for the sake of neutrality but propose the language be restored to the original post in this thread.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with @Iljhgtn that "neoliberalism" tends to be used as a pejorative. It's pretty obvious based on a quick Google search, since the term has been described as "the Left's favorite insult" in New York Magazine, and that is not some right-wing publication. This is another example, and there are plenty of others out there, like this one and more... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)