Neoliberalism was a pluralist movement opposing three rival liberal traditions, not a corporate tool

Evidence

The MPS construction of neoliberalism was anchored by a variety of mainly European and American roots; encompassed a variety of economic, political, and social schools of thought; and maintained a floating transnational agora for debating solutions to perceived problems and a flexible canopy tailored with an eye to accommodating existing relations of power in academia, politics, and society at large. The unusual structure of the thought collective helps explain why neoliberalism cannot be easily defined on a set of 3 by 5 cards and needs to be understood as a pluralist organism striving to distinguish itself from its three primary foes: laissez-faire classical liberalism, social welfare liberalism, and socialism. Contrary to some parochial interests of some corporate captains (including some present in the Mont Pèlerin Society), neoliberal intellectuals understood this general goal to imply a comprehensive long-term reform effort at retatting the entire fabric of society, not excluding the corporate world. The relationship between the neoliberals and capitalists was not merely that of passive apologists or corporate shills. Neoliberals aimed to develop a thoroughgoing reeducation effort for all parties to alter the tenor and meaning of political life: nothing more, nothing less. Neoliberal intellectuals identified their targets, which, in Fabian tradition, had been described as elite civil society. Their efforts were aimed primarily at winning over intellectuals and opinion leaders of future generations, and their primary tool was redefining the place of knowledge in society, which also became the central theme in their theoretical tradition. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 2115

Categorization

• XREF: Resonates with Philip Mirowski’s ‘The Road From Mont Pèlerin’ framing and with standard historiography distinguishing MPS-neoliberalism from laissez-faire; connects to reader’s prior work in the book on MPS origins. — connects to: Neoliberalism was never a unified doctrine but three distinct sects from its founding. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 120; Neoliberalism encompassed bitter internal conflicts, not a unified doctrine. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 20; Neoliberalism is activist constructivism, not laissez-faire passivity. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 2125 (+7 more)
• DEFINE: Defines neoliberalism as a pluralist thought-collective organism defined against three foes, resisting a tidy list-of-tenets definition.

Broader Connections

• Neoliberalism is internally plural yet not formless #expands (0.82) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 10
• Neoliberalism was a flexible project, not a fixed doctrine with essential content #expands (0.80) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 115
• Neoliberalism originated in contested debate, not a pure doctrine #corroborates (0.80) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 405
• Neoliberalism is activist constructivism, not laissez-faire passivity. #corroborates (0.78) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 2125
• Neoliberalism’s contestedness reflects its diffuse, multi-variant nature, not emptiness. #corroborates (0.75) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 2095
• Neoliberalism is a novel doctrine in flux, not a return to laissez-faire #qualifies (0.72) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 439
• Neoliberalism’s internal plurality is strategic strength, not weakness #expands (0.70) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1014