Neo Liberalism/Radical Conservatism

[MarijuanaClock]

First off, is there really a difference between Neo Liberalism(Or economic liberalism) and Neo/Radical Conservatism. Really both assert the right of the bourgeouise to exploit other class. Economicly they are similar beyond any real division. Why do Americans pit the two against each other when it really doesn't matter witch gets in? Where are the social democrats, where are the marxists, where are the anarchists? Where is the choice!

America is a one party dictatorship masquerading as two party "democracy."

[Slizor]

Neo-Liberalism is a Corporate rehash of Classical Liberalism (note: not Classical Liberalism itself.) Neo-Conservatism is a xenophobic highly authoritarian brand of moralism. They are two seperate ideologies.

The problem is, however, that groups ike the Republicans adopt the worst parts out of each of the ideas. They enforce a free market on the rest of the world, then put barriers up to trade in their own country, they want to get rid of wefare and they are highly authoritarian (note: neo-Conservatism and Neo-Liberalism rely on two different (and pretty opposite) conceptions of human nature and thus are fundamentally uncompatable.)

The Democrats don't offer either, but instead a brand of rightist modern Liberalism.

[zachomis]

communist........ i am a communist :)

[RedSkunk]

At 2/7/04 09:32 AM, Slizor wrote: Neo-Liberalism is a Corporate rehash of Classical Liberalism (note: not Classical Liberalism itself.) Neo-Conservatism is a xenophobic highly authoritarian brand of moralism. They are two seperate ideologies.

You think Slizor? One of my profs has said they are interchangable.

[JudgeDredd]

yo MC, w-back! :)

At 2/7/04 01:39 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: ..where are the marxists, where are the anarchists? Where is the choice!

America is a one party dictatorship masquerading as two party "democracy."

u say this as if it isn't blindingly obvious already??

It's built into the US electral system. You have to go as far as Germany (or here in NZ) to find a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system that fosters smaller parties. However, it's been very trendy lately for incumbant parties to grandstand on their oppositions platform-shoes, whilst doing the dirty in a quiet fashion to their own loyal constituants.

The Maxist in me thinks that it's rare that you can give a poor person something of great value at no additional cost to anyone - but it IS possible!

Basically, all countries should be forced to give the poor additional voting power in national elections. This isn't likely induce wealthy people to throw off any of their trappings, but it would help the poor get greater representation for change at the bum end of society. This would only be the 1st step to bridging the growing ineqality between rich and poor, because let's face it, 1 person 1 vote does little for those who can't afford media exposure or political party financial contributions.

[Slizor]

You think Slizor? One of my profs has said they are interchangable.

They're interchangable in practice, but not in theory (basically because "Conservative thought" is an oxymoron at the best of times.) Y'see Neo-Liberalism relies on people being "rugged individuals" who can look out for themselves and make their own decisions (and thus they support the free market.) Neo-Conservatism relies on people being morally corruptable and weak (and thus the state has to make moral decisions for people (gay marriage, abortion, etc.)

Often, in practice, politicians use parts of both views (Thatcher, Reagan, etc) but they are inconsistant (and incoherant) in doing so.

[RedSkunk]

mm hmm.........