‘New Histories of Neo-Liberalism’: RHS Oct 2022 - Panel Discussion

[@jelef001]

Wonderful panel. Thank you for posting it!

[@fbritorufino]

It would be hard to do this without resetting the very theme of the event to reflect such focus, but the whole discussion was heavily affected by the first question, such that it would've been interesting (if risky) to try and dwell a little bit more in there and really work out the relations between them and the reasons for going with either one. It seems to me that the three first definitions can be effectively rewritten in terms of the fourth one, with the benefit of a more transparent conceptual "genealogy". When such prominent figures in the debate just state their particular choices it can invite a sense of taboo which is not ideal for a critical attitude. Either way, this was great, thank you for the talk.

[@jimtomlinson8831]

REINFORCED MY VIEW ON THE LIMITED USEFULNESS OF NEO-LIBERALISM AS A GENERAL CATEGORY OF HISTORICAL ANALYSIS. QUINN SLOBADIAN'S INITIAL TYPOLOGY WAS HELPFUL IN BRINGING OUT THE DIVERSITY OF MEANINGS ATTACHED, BUT THAT ONLY EMPHASIZES THE LACK OF GENERAL USEFULNESS.