Who/What influenced your political ideology?

[Molotov]

I disagree. The neo-liberals have established a false dichotomy between collectivism and freedom, and they essentially reduce freedom to a guarantee of participation in free markets. They are unconcerned with other core liberal freedoms in practice (although often not in rhetoric). I think that the New Liberals were much closer to fulfilling the ideals of the classical liberals in considering that where property is a form of freedom a substantive guarantee of property would be necessary to ensure an individual's freedom, rather than just the opportunity.

Certainly the neo-liberals consider themselves the true defenders of classical liberalism, but in practice I don't think that's the case.

[Amazeroth]

I disagree. The neo-liberals have established a false dichotomy between collectivism and freedom, and they essentially reduce freedom to a guarantee of participation in free markets. They are unconcerned with other core liberal freedoms in practice (although often not in rhetoric).

Neo-liberals aren't unconcerned with other freedoms, they think that they would be endorsed by the freedom to participate in a free market.

[Molotov]

You're right. I meant to say that in so thinking they are wrong. I mean, Hayek certainly had some good ideas, many of which I agree with but Oakeshott's original criticism of his work still stands, and what's been done with his ideas since, the lengths neo-liberals have gone to to try to remake the world in the image of the holy market has been ridiculous. It has certainly not increased our liberty or our welfare.

[Xanathos]

You're right. I meant to say that in so thinking they are wrong. I mean, Hayek certainly had some good ideas, many of which I agree with but Oakeshott's original criticism of his work still stands, and what's been done with his ideas since, the lengths neo-liberals have gone to to try to remake the world in the image of the holy market has been ridiculous. It has certainly not increased our liberty or our welfare.

My agreeing with you on that subject widely varies with who you call "the neo-liberals". Most politicans are not what they call themselves, rather most of the time they use a euphemism.

[Amazeroth]

You're right. I meant to say that in so thinking they are wrong. I mean, Hayek certainly had some good ideas, many of which I agree with but Oakeshott's original criticism of his work still stands, and what's been done with his ideas since, the lengths neo-liberals have gone to to try to remake the world in the image of the holy market has been ridiculous. It has certainly not increased our liberty or our welfare.

We've already discussed this, and I don't think we'll get to a sufficient conclusion, but again - there are almost none neo-liberals in position to remake the world, and a free market has never been there - no wonder our liberty or welfare hasn't been increased.

[Molotov]

Xan: I don't think any politician would call themselves neo-liberal, the ideology is not in the public consciousness and the policies it has engendered have been, almost without exception, extremely electorally unpopular.

... there are almost none neo-liberals in position to remake the world, and a free market has never been there - no wonder our liberty or welfare hasn't been increased.

The heads of the American Treasury, the IMF the World Bank, the United Nations' various development organisations, the European Central Bank and other organs of the EU's insidious power have been almost exclusively neo-liberal since the 1980s, as have the world's foremost economists (because, of course, the Nobel Prize for Economics is awarded not as other Nobel Prizes, but as the gift of a cadre of international businesses and banks). They have been in a position to 'plan' the development of global capitalism, and by extension the societies and nations who participate in the global capitalist order, for some time.

[Amazeroth]

Xan: I don't think any politician would call themselves neo-liberal, the ideology is not in the public consciousness and the policies it has engendered have been, almost without exception, extremely electorally unpopular.

... there are almost none neo-liberals in position to remake the world, and a free market has never been there - no wonder our liberty or welfare hasn't been increased.

The heads of the American Treasury, the IMF the World Bank, the United Nations' various development organisations, the European Central Bank and other organs of the EU's insidious power have been almost exclusively neo-liberal since the 1980s, as have the world's foremost economists (because, of course, the Nobel Prize for Economics is awarded not as other Nobel Prizes, but as the gift of a cadre of international businesses and banks). They have been in a position to 'plan' the development of global capitalism, and by extension the societies and nations who participate in the global capitalist order, for some time.

None of them neo-liberal, except some of the nobel prize winners. Some of them partially following neo-liberal ideas, but only partially, which is one of the reasons they don't work so good. International businesses and banks are surely not neo-liberal, I don't know one bank which actually refrained from using advantages given to them not by the market but by politicians.

[Molotov]

If you mean not 'neo-liberal' in the manner that a Marxist might consider Cuba's government not 'communist', then of course you're right. No matter whether they believe what they have done, or were constricted by the political and economic reality, these institutions and the people that populate them have bought wholeheartedly into neo-liberalism. Just look at the shift in development advice to the Third World in the UN from Keynesian to neo-liberal from the seventies onwards.

Regardless, no ideologue, no matter how convinced of the infallibility of his ideology, can ignore reality; if the policies of our world leaders and the actions of our banks and businesses have not been 'properly' neo-liberal then this is because (like any other rationally constructed ideology which fails in the light of the real world, see Marxism) their actions have been constrained or dictated by the political reality.

[Chazza]

If you mean not 'neo-liberal' in the manner that a Marxist might consider Cuba's government not 'communist'

Well of course it's not communism, it's the complete antithesis of communism. In terms of Marxist dialectics Cuba the best it could be called is socialist isn't that so it can't be said to be on the way to communism and in terms of non-Marxist communism it's nothing of the sort.

However I do understand that if this is being looked at this from a post-structuralist 'the author is dead' position it could be called communism in that communism is whatever it is interpreted to be not what it was intended to be but at the same time people interpret a whole handful of things how they were originally intended, the task in then not to give up or pick a new word but to try and reclaim the term to its original meaning.

[Mr.Yankees]

I apologize for not keeping up to date with this thread. I have not had a chance to read what the current topic is but I want to answer to those who have previously stated that "Moderate" is not a political ideology.

Since many of you are skeptical of what I say, I shall quote a fellow colleague of mine- Dr. Jim L. Riley from Regis University in Denver Colorado. This is part of an article named Liberalism and Conservatism. I hope it will clear everything up right away.

Moderate Ideologies along with moderate political viewpoints may be correctly seen as occupying positions between the more extreme wings of the spectrum. In terms of the extent of power of the State moderate ideologies strike a balance between individual rights, freedoms and obligations and the coercive power of the State to mandate or prohibit certain behaviors by people. This "balanced" view brings forth various implications regarding governmental structure, electoral procedures, the rule of Law, economic concerns, and other important issues present in all organized societies. Likewise considerations regarding time help define the boundaries of moderate ideologies.

Change is inevitable in society, in governmental arrangements and relationships, in leadership, in public policies and throughout the political world. Ideologies of the moderate varieties seek change at a pace that enables progress to occur but neither so fast that the destruction of stability and order in society becomes more likely, nor so slow as to foster stagnation and status quo permanence. Clearly then, there is considerable room for disagreement and dispute over what is the proper balance in all of these concerns. These disputable arenas contribute profoundly to struggles among those who support different moderate ideologies.

Of course, I know many of you will still challenge this on different grounds. To be honest, if you think you can, go right ahead. I encourage you to.