Det var på et tidspunkt populært at kalde præsident Obama for marxist, kenyaner, skabsmuslim osv. Er disse begreber nu alle blevet semantisk tomme?

Niels O henviser med en fejende håndbevægelse til “venstrefløjen” og tillægger den nogle ubehagelige personlige egenskaber. Det ser ud til, at “venstrefløjen” ligesom “neoliberal” kan bruges som fællesbetegnelse for en bunke ting, man ikke kan lide. I min søgen på definitionen på “venstrefløjen”, så jeg i denne debat een slags venstrefløj defineret, nemlig den “øst for Sociademokratiet”. Der er åbenbart flere venstrefløje end østfløjen, men ikke mere herom.

Mange af de selvmodsigelser, man mener at se i definitionen på neoliberal, er forskellen mellem teori og praksis, intention og virkelig effekt eller afledt effekt. Som med så mange andre ting, hvis man ser på de (neo)liberale ideologier og resultater i virkeligheden, så dukker der helt automatisk selvmodsigelser op.

Glistrup var faktisk god til det spil. Man tager ligesom brodden ud af ordet reaktionær, ved at kalde sit parti for Fremskridtspartiet.

Det er fuldstændigt som ordet “småborgerlig”. Samme funktion, men misforstået betydning. Men igen: bare der er nok personer, der bruger det (forkert). Det er dog heldigvis sjældent efterhånden, at jeg hører begrebet i debatten.

Længere tilbage i tiden var det “reaktionær”

Jeg er godt klar over, at Thorsen ender med en definition – jeg har læst hans afhandling. Problemet med den er, at hans definition så tydeligt ikke passer på praksis. Se f.eks. den del af Thorsens definition, der handler om “the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms is the optimal way.” Og sammenhold den f.eks. derefter med den almindelige påstand, at New Public Management og Trumps handelsbarrierer er ‘neoliberale’ politiker. Hvordan kan det være konsistent med et koncept, hvor en fællesmængde af de praktiske definitioner ikke er tom?

“Neoliberalism is, as we see it, a loosely demarcated set of political beliefs which most prominently and prototypically include the conviction that the only legitimate purpose of the state is to safeguard individual, especially commercial, liberty, as well as strong private property rights (cf. especially Mises 1962; Nozick 1974; Hayek 1979). This conviction usually issues, in turn, in a belief that the state ought to be minimal or at least drastically reduced in strength and size, and that any transgression by the state beyond its sole legitimate purpose is unacceptable (ibid.). These beliefs could apply to the international level as well, where a system of free markets and free trade ought to be implemented as well; the only acceptable reason for regulating international trade is to safeguard the same kind of commercial liberty and the same kinds of strong property rights which ought to be realised on a national level (Norberg 2001; Friedman 2006).
Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980; Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society, and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004).
Neoliberalism could also include a perspective on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962).“

Vi har også svært ved at være helt præcise om hvad kapitalisme præcis er og først efter mange år har vi klare ideer om hvilke komponenter i hvert fald er nødvendige for at vi kan kalde noget kapitalisme. At folk misforstår konceptet betyder ikke at det er semantisk tomt.