Neo-Liberalism vs Neo-conservatism...

[mynis]

...what's the difference? When I first saw the people in Egypt rioting on TV I couldn't help but think "So they've had enough of Israel and the Neo-Cons as well." Then I thought, "...well since Obama is in office now it might be more appropriate to say 'Neo-Liberals'." Then it occured to me seconds after that there isn't even a difference. I've read several essays talking about the classical beaning of the term "liberalism" as it pertains to the beliefs of Voltaire and other early advocates of civil liberties that inspired American democracy. The way I see it, if you believe in individual rights and democracy, you are basically a liberal. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for Voltaire:

Anti-semitism

According to the rabbi Joseph Telushkin the most significant of Enlightenment hostility against Judaism was found in Voltaire, although claims to the contrary have been made by some that his remarks were in fact anti-Biblical and not truly anti-semitism. Thirty of the 118 articles in his Dictionnaire Philosophique dealt with Jews and described them in consistently negative ways.

Peter Gay, a contemporary authority on the Enlightenment, offered two suggestions as a mitigation for Voltaire's open hostility towards the Jews. He writes that "Voltaire struck at the Jews to strike at Christianity," and that his anti-semitism also derived from negative personal experience. Teleushkin states that Voltaire did not limit his attack on aspects of Judaism that Christianity used as a foundation, repeatedly making it clear that he despised Jews.[34] Arthur Hertzberg claims that Gay's second suggestion is also untenable, as Voltaire himself denies its validity when he remarked that he had "forgotten about much larger bankruptcies through Christians."

What do the members of Anti-Neocons have to say about this question, if anything?



P.S. I have been absent from the forums for quite a while now as I have been busy with school among other things. I miss you guys!

[Ry]

In Europe and Japan the "liberals" are the conservatives and conservative the liberal by american standards so they call neocons neo-liberals.

for us its just normal liberal who became conservatives as thats the part with the hard line religious shit attached to it and was tighter with Israel. Our conservative party became the big government party.

Now it doesn't matter they're all big government parties.
Our neocons have a common origin with Strauss and Henry Jackson. I'd just call them a train wreck between Cold Warriors and Zionist fanatics thenexus of those two groups is the Neocons who are both.

[mynis]

All they've talked about on fox for the last 3 days is how the US could prevent Egypt from becoming a "radical islamic state." Such a waste of breath, just let it happen, the only other option is to prop up a dictator.

[Raoul]

That's a good question.

[Raoul]

Fox dosen't need to worry about Egypt becoming a radical islamic state, the Egyptian people don't even want an islamic state.

[CurtOnTheRadio Mk2]

Amusing to see Rys tie himself in knots.

He claims to be anti-neoliberal yet hosts a forum on Peter Schiff, Reagan's economics guru.

Fancy explaining the difference between neo-liberalism and Schiff? Neo-liberalism and Rom Paul?

What is it that you don't like about neo-liberalism but do like about Schiff and Paul? What's the oh-so big difference?

That they all support capitalism?
That they all oppose socialism?
That they all support free-markets?
That they all oppose government regulation?
That they all support low taxes?
That they all oppose wealth redistribution?

[Ry]

What is it that you don't like about neo-liberalism but do like about Schiff and Paul? What's the oh-so big difference?

That they all support capitalism?
That they all oppose socialism?
That they all support free-markets?
That they all oppose government regulation?
That they all support low taxes?
That they all oppose wealth redistribution?

Because the neocons and neo liberals (in europe) are the opposite they want war and welfare and they pay for it with credit rather than capital.

Peter Shift destroyed the legacy of raegonomics

That's all you can do Curt is degrees of Kevin Bacon games. "Well you posted bout this guy and this guy used to work for this other guy in the 80s who wrong thus you're a nazi" That's what you sound like.

There is nothing wrong with the free market or low taxes when you also get rid of government no bid contracts, pointless wars that cost trillions and wasted trillions more on useless departments and worst of all a fiat money supply.

What is it about Paul, he opposed the wars. He opposes foreign aid to dictators. He is against torture. He is against the Patriot act and domestic spying and illegal wire tapping. He'd abolish the CIA, and IRS, he have no income tax at all which wouldn't be needed without the trillion a year wasted on war. He' get rid of NAFTA and stay against CAFTA because those are not free trade agreements in anything but name. He'd allow Americans to shop across state lines to for insurance and buy from abroad to get generics for medication, do away with HMOs. No more Federal Reserve. He'd allow competing currencies.
Those are some huge differences. The entire foreign policy changes, the entire monetary policy changes, and the domestic policy also changes. Paul would end the war on drugs as well, legalize gay marraige in fact get the government out of marraige all together. We'd open trade with Cuba. He'd close down bases that have been in countries for 50 years like Japan and Germany. That's a lot of money saved.

And neocons/libs do not oppose socialism, they take corporate welfare all the time and supported banker bail outs. Paul and Shift did not. Neocons are certainly not pro-free market. They're pro-fraud is what they are. Paul would also abolish the IMF which holds billions in poverty. Close the school of the Americas, and get out of Latin America.

He also would have allowed airlines as private companies to make their own rules meaning pilots could have guns. If there had been a 2nd amendment on planes in 2001 there might not have been any 911. Couple hundred bucks for a few guns is a lot cheaper than the billions spent on agencies too busy involved in their own terrorism to worry about america.

That's why punk. You don't know shit.

[CurtOnTheRadio Mk2]

That's why punk. You don't know shit.

Now now......

There is nothing wrong with the free market or low taxes when you also get rid of government no bid contracts, pointless wars that cost trillions and wasted trillions more on useless departments and worst of all a fiat money supply.

Wars aren't "economics". The free-market is economics.

The free-market is supported by neo-cons and neo-liberals. And you support it too. Sure, yours and RonPaul's idea of "free-market" is an extreme laissez faire one.....but you still stand much closer to neoliberals and neo-cons than do, say, socialists. Correct?

Rather than a criticism of capitalism, you criticise degenerate capitalism, correct?

Neoliberals, as you see it, aren't properly capitalist enough, right? They aren't free-marketeering enough, yes?

As for RonPaul, good for him that he's against "war, dictators, CIA" whatever. I do think his supporters are naive in the extreme to imagine American wealth can be maintained without continuing their imperialism. Not that I support imperialism, I don't. However, how many of you capitalist anti-imperialists address how much income and influence will be lost by an abandonment of imperialism? And what of its consequences?

I mean, American imperialism surely isn't driven by altruism. It's to make profits, and acquire influence isn't it? So, how will that be replaced if you abandon imperialism?

And neocons/libs do not oppose socialism

lol. yes they do. Name me one neocon/neoliberal socialist? The ideas are antithetical.

they take corporate welfare all the time and supported banker bail outs.

Corporations are privately owned and therefore any welfare for them is *not socialist*.

Likewise for banks - it is not socialist to hand the workers' taxes to capitalist, privately-owned banking institutes. Come on, you are torturing the meaning of the word socialism into nonesense.

[Bender]

That's why punk. You don't know shit.

Now now......

There is nothing wrong with the free market or low taxes when you also get rid of government no bid contracts, pointless wars that cost trillions and wasted trillions more on useless departments and worst of all a fiat money supply.

Wars aren't "economics". The free-market is economics.

The free-market is supported by neo-cons and neo-liberals. And you support it too. Sure, yours and RonPaul's idea of "free-market" is an extreme laissez faire one.....but you still stand much closer to neoliberals and neo-cons than do, say, socialists. Correct?

Rather than a criticism of capitalism, you criticise degenerate capitalism, correct?

Neoliberals, as you see it, aren't properly capitalist enough, right? They aren't free-marketeering enough, yes?

As for RonPaul, good for him that he's against "war, dictators, CIA" whatever. I do think his supporters are naive in the extreme to imagine American wealth can be maintained without continuing their imperialism. Not that I support imperialism, I don't. However, how many of you capitalist anti-imperialists address how much income and influence will be lost by an abandonment of imperialism? And what of its consequences?

I mean, American imperialism surely isn't driven by altruism. It's to make profits, and acquire influence isn't it? So, how will that be replaced if you abandon imperialism?

And neocons/libs do not oppose socialism

lol. yes they do. Name me one neocon/neoliberal socialist? The ideas are antithetical.

they take corporate welfare all the time and supported banker bail outs.

Corporations are privately owned and therefore any welfare for them is *not socialist*.

Likewise for banks - it is not socialist to hand the workers' taxes to capitalist, privately-owned banking institutes. Come on, you are torturing the meaning of the word socialism into nonesense.

Are you a talkshow host? Just talking and talking just for the talking?
Wars are not economics? What?!? Show me that unicorn that your hiding!
Corporations are privately owned therefore any welfare for them is not socialist? If they are part of the capitalist system then part of it is that they should fail if they fail to deliver. Helping them *as if* they are a person in need is socialist, putting it bluntly. And didn't you just say they were privately owned? hmm.
An extreme laissez faire capitalist market..from ron paul? The government jumping into the market and competing is what's meant here. Giving help to large corporations is kinda unfair don't you think?

Listen. Your obviously ill educated and totally into this American School of Econimics by Maddoff, Bernanke and consorts. Please. Educate yourself since you obviously have the skills to spout your nonsense in an eloquent fashion.

[CurtOnTheRadio Mk2]

Helping them [corporations] *as if* they are a person in need is socialist, putting it bluntly.

Don't be silly. Alice in Wonderland.......

Corporations are privately owned - they are capitalist institutions - the profits are shared out amongst the owners.

There is nothing socialist about this. It's torturing language to claim otherwise.

Giving help to large corporations is kinda unfair don't you think?

Sure. It isn't socialism though.

Your obviously ill educated and totally into this American School of Econimics by Maddoff, Bernanke and consorts.

That'd be "you're". If you're going to insult someone's intelligence, best do it properly?

I am a socialist. Like hell I am into Bernanke or any such thing.

The point is, that whilst this forum complains about neo-cons and neo-libs it remains procapitalist ie very close to the neolibs and neocons economically.

Sure, there's economic aspects to war and foreign policy, but it isn't economics. Being socialist, or capitalist is economics.....arranging an economy is economics.... Not foreign policy, not social policy, not military capacity etc (though economics obviously has an influence etc)

One can be a capitalist and either support or oppose the Iraq war. One can be a neo-lib or neo-con or plain old fashioned liberal and still support the Iraq war.

Fact remains, for all your stressing over how different to neo-cons and neo-libs you are, you really aren't very different.

I mean, please explain to me how (in your economic views) you people here are any different to neo-liberalism?

I don't think you will be able to make the distinction clear. But please, prove me wrong?