You criticised Oreskes' depiction of neoliberalism as 'market fundamentalism', but I'm struggling to find a clear distinction between it (which has created a conservative class that takes its precepts as gospel) and liberalism in your piece, although you allude to one. Is fundamentalism not inherently religious?
For sure, the very expression "market fundamentalism" has religious connotations. As far I know, no "neoliberal" has ever described themselves as a market fundamentalist. Now, whether or not Friedman or Hayek are market fundamentalists in the sense that they display religious devotion to the market mechanism is up to each and everyone to judge. My point is that it is nonsensical to say that liberalism in general, as an ideology, has a religious character, which was implied by the journal article I have been discussing. For instance, Aron is definitely to be classify as a liberal authors, but saying that he's a market fundamentalist would not make sense. The same is true for many many contemporary liberal authors. In other words, liberalism implies a commitment to a free-market economy (a planned economy is hardly compatible with basic freedoms - on this Hayek was right), but a free-market economy is perfectly compatible with relatively high level of redistribution or state interventions in case of market failures. I would distinguish this from "market fundamentalism".
Thanks for the response! What would be clearer markers for a form of market fundamentalism, in your opinion? I had the impression it lay behind many of the fearful conspiracies during the pandemic, when public health interventions clashed with ideas of a radically individualistic, unfettered market.
The operating assumption seemed to be that the markets, left to their own "wisdom" would prevail even against a raging epidemic as long as governments and public health authorities didn't intervene.
You criticised Oreskes' depiction of neoliberalism as 'market fundamentalism', but I'm struggling to find a clear distinction between it (which has created a conservative class that takes its precepts as gospel) and liberalism in your piece, although you allude to one. Is fundamentalism not inherently religious?
New Yorker ran a story on Oreskes' book that described neoliberalism as almost nostalgic for classical liberalism, without the state's participation. Unless I'm hopelessly confused... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/07/24/the-rise-and-fall-of-neoliberalism
For sure, the very expression "market fundamentalism" has religious connotations. As far I know, no "neoliberal" has ever described themselves as a market fundamentalist. Now, whether or not Friedman or Hayek are market fundamentalists in the sense that they display religious devotion to the market mechanism is up to each and everyone to judge. My point is that it is nonsensical to say that liberalism in general, as an ideology, has a religious character, which was implied by the journal article I have been discussing. For instance, Aron is definitely to be classify as a liberal authors, but saying that he's a market fundamentalist would not make sense. The same is true for many many contemporary liberal authors. In other words, liberalism implies a commitment to a free-market economy (a planned economy is hardly compatible with basic freedoms - on this Hayek was right), but a free-market economy is perfectly compatible with relatively high level of redistribution or state interventions in case of market failures. I would distinguish this from "market fundamentalism".
Thanks for the response! What would be clearer markers for a form of market fundamentalism, in your opinion? I had the impression it lay behind many of the fearful conspiracies during the pandemic, when public health interventions clashed with ideas of a radically individualistic, unfettered market.
The operating assumption seemed to be that the markets, left to their own "wisdom" would prevail even against a raging epidemic as long as governments and public health authorities didn't intervene.