As the passage quoted shows, I was indeed referring to capitalism, as I have throughout the Hong Kong threads. Absolutely explicit.
My usage of the term neo-liberalism was as Michael Hoover describes. Clearly progressives in the USA hear quite different connotations. Am I right in thinking that "liberal" became a right-wing tainted word for "socialist without convictions"?
I am referring to what is described in progressive circles in Europe and Latin America as neo-liberalism and the campaign against it. If I recall correctly, for example, the Rio group of Latin American countries, express these ideas to some extent. They have just met but have of course received little publicity.
The US and the UK ruling class back naked neo-liberalism because they are hegemonic and benefit from the dynamic which leads to uneven accumulation of capital. At its ugliest it implies complete subjection to the whims of the most short term movements of speculative capital, totalling 1 trillion dollars a day. Thus this weekend Mark Mobius, the shaven emerging markets guru, brushed off his losses and warned that he had not been investing in Hong Kong since the beginning of the year, and he had 25% of his funds in cash. The Hong Kong market ignored him, and rose.
The recent success of the Chinese countries of the PRC, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, is indeed not inherently socialist in character, but it is a blow against neo-liberalism and hegemonism, particularly US hegemonism. It shifts the world balance of power just a little and opens new space for regimes to consider more progressive and partially socialist options.
It suggests a certain degree of movement towards a more multi-polar world, in which there is greater scope for progressive politics.
That indirectly is also in the long term interests of the working people of the USA.
Chris Burford
London