The context of this term is political/economic categories outside of the US and UK or in those countries prior to early in this century, in other words to "classical liberalism" of the Adam Smith/laissez-faire variety, as hoov notes (although Adam Smith was not as big of a fan of l-f as he is frequently depicted as having been). The term has a clear and useful meaning and very well describes what has been the dominant ideology of the IMF, etc. Barkley Rosser On Mon, 7 Sep 1998 15:47:08 -0400 (EDT) hoov <hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us> wrote:
> > > Louis Proyect wrote:
> > > > There is no such thing as "neo-liberalism."
>
> as I understand it, 'neo-liberalism' reflects an ostensible return
> to the writings of Adam Smith and the group of 19th century
> utilitarian writers - mostly English businessmen - known as the
> Manchester School...what AS promoted as laissez-faire for
> economic efficiency and moral discipline reasons, the MS
> adverstised as the key to individual freedom for its own sake...
> Michael Hoover
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu