By Denis Hay
Description
Discover how neoliberalism in Australia affects community, work, and empathy. Learn how reforms can promote civic life and shared prosperity.
Introduction
Australia has long prided itself on values of mateship, equality, and a fair go for all. Yet, these ideals are increasingly threatened by the rise of neoliberal policies prioritising competition, individualism, and deregulation over community and solidarity.
This article examines the fundamental clash between our innate human traits of empathy and altruism with the neoliberal framework dominating Australian politics. By understanding the roots of this tension and exploring solutions, we can chart a path toward a more compassionate and fair society.
Dominant Human Traits vs. Neoliberal Individualism
The Ultrasocial Nature of Humans
Humans are uniquely ultrasocial, thriving in collaborative and empathetic environments. Traits such as altruism, kindness, and shared purpose are central to survival and well-being. According to studies on human behaviour, over 70% of people strongly prefer fairness and community benefit over personal gain.
These traits have historically defined Australian communities, from grassroots activism to national solidarity during crises such as bushfires and floods.
However, neoliberalism in Australia presents a starkly opposing view. Promoting the myth of the “self-made” individual celebrates self-interest and competition as virtues. This ideology assumes humans are primarily selfish and greedy, reducing complex social dynamics to transactional relationships.
It denies the importance of collective effort and the innate human need for connection, creating a distorted framework for society and governance.
Neoliberalism’s Contradiction of Humanity
Neoliberalism in Australia has reshaped society by embedding values into every aspect of life, often at odds with dominant human traits. This has led to significant societal challenges:
1. Privatisation of Public Services: Neoliberal policies have prioritised profits over people, leading to underfunded healthcare, education, and public infrastructure.
2. Economic Inequality: Deregulated markets and tax policies favouring corporations have widened the gap between the wealthy and the average Australian.
3. Isolation and Loneliness: The erosion of communal spaces and support systems has contributed to a mental health crisis, with 1 in 4 Australians experiencing loneliness.
The disconnect between neoliberal values and human nature has resulted in widespread dissatisfaction, with many Australians feeling alienated from their communities and the political process.
The Erosion of Civic Life in Australia
Loss of Public Spaces and Civic Engagement
Civic life – where people gather, share ideas, and form bonds – has been systematically undermined by neoliberalism. Public spaces such as community centres, libraries, and parks are crucial for fostering connection and solidarity. However, these spaces are increasingly under threat:
– Funding Cuts: Federal and state budgets prioritise corporate subsidies and tax cuts over investments in public infrastructure. For example, funding for public libraries in Australia has declined by over 20% in the past decade, leaving many communities without accessible gathering spaces.
– Privatisation of Public Housing: Over the past 40 years, the privatisation of public housing has displaced vulnerable Australians, disrupted community networks, and increased homelessness.
– Youth Services Decline: Youth centres and programs that once provided safe spaces for young people have been defunded, leaving fewer opportunities for meaningful engagement and development.
Without these communal spaces, Australians are left isolated, unable to participate in civic activities that strengthen democracy and community resilience.
Consumerism as a Substitute for Community
Neoliberalism in Australia encourages consumerism as a means of fulfilment, replacing meaningful human connections with material possessions. Australians spend more time engaging with screens than interacting with neighbours, with 70% of adults using social media daily. This shift has profound consequences:
– Superficial Interactions: Social media fosters shallow connections, eroding the deep relationships necessary for emotional and social well-being.
– Distraction from Civic Issues: Constant bombardment with advertisements and entertainment diverts attention from pressing political and social challenges.
– Economic Pressure: The emphasis on consumerism fuels financial stress, with Australians holding over $1.8 trillion in household debt, the second highest globally.
This focus on individual consumption over collective well-being perpetuates isolation and diminishes the sense of community vital for a thriving democracy.
Rebuilding Community and Democracy in Australia
Participatory Democracy at the Local Level
To counter the isolation and disconnection fostered by neoliberalism in Australia, we must invest in community-led initiatives that empower citizens and revitalise civic life. Key strategies include:
1. Neighbourhood Assemblies: Create inclusive forums where residents can deliberate on local issues, ensuring all voices are heard. These assemblies promote accountability and shared decision-making.
2. Revitalising Civic Spaces: Increase funding for public libraries, youth centres, and parks to provide accessible venues for community engagement.
3. Participatory Budgeting: Let communities decide how public funds are distributed, ensuring resources address local needs and priorities.
These measures foster collaboration, rebuild trust in institutions, and empower citizens to shape their communities actively.
Redefining Work in Australia
Work is central to human identity and purpose, yet neoliberalism in Australia has devalued it by prioritising profits over people. To restore dignity and fulfilment in work, Australia must:
1. Introduce Universal Basic Income (UBI): UBI provides financial security, reduces reliance on exploitative gig work, and allows Australians to pursue meaningful careers.
2. Adopt a Four-Day Workweek: Shorter workweeks improve work-life balance, enhance productivity, and create more time for civic engagement.
3. Promote Ethical Employment: Encourage industries that prioritise social benefits, such as healthcare, education, and renewable energy, to create jobs that align with shared values.
These reforms ensure work contributes to individual and societal well-being rather than perpetuating inequality and isolation.
Crafting a New Narrative for Australia
To move beyond neoliberalism, Australia needs a unifying story that reflects our shared values of empathy, community, and sustainability. This new narrative should:
1. Celebrate Community Heroes: Highlight individuals and organisations making a positive impact, inspiring collective action.
2. Advocate for the Commons: Promote policies that protect shared resources, ensuring they help communities rather than private interests.
3. Embrace Sustainability: Frame degrowth as an opportunity for fair development, reducing environmental harm while improving quality of life.
By redefining success as collective well-being rather than GDP growth, this narrative can inspire Australians to rebuild a society grounded in compassion and cooperation.
Summary
Neoliberalism in Australia has eroded the foundations of society, prioritising individualism and competition over community and solidarity. This has led to the decline of civic spaces, the rise of isolation, and a loss of meaning in work.
However, by investing in participatory democracy, redefining work, and crafting a new narrative, Australia can reclaim its values of empathy and shared prosperity. Together, we can build a society that reflects our innate human traits and creates a fair go for all.
Question for Readers
How can Australia redefine its policies to reflect our values of empathy and community better? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Call to Action
Do you see opportunities for community-driven change in Australia’s dollar sovereignty?
If you found this article about neoliberalism in Australia insightful, explore more about political reform and Australia’s monetary sovereignty on Social Justice Australia.
Share this article with your community to help drive the conversation toward a more just and equal society.
Click on our “Reader Feedback” menu. Let us know how our content has inspired you. Submit your testimonial and help shape the conversation today!
Additionally, leave a comment about this article below.
Support Our Mission
If you believe in holding corporations accountable and creating a more just society, consider supporting our work. Your donations help us continue producing in-depth, informative content and advocating for meaningful reforms. Every contribution, big or small, makes a difference.
Donate Here to help drive positive change.
Thank you for standing with us for a fairer, more equitable Australia.
Reference
Humanity’s operating system has been infected, John Menadue.
This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Denis, your opening section on the contribution of sociality to human evolution is beautifully put, and of the utmost importance. So important that even those few libs with a conscience accept it as truth.
Friedrich von Hayek, darling of the libs/neolibs/libertarians, seems to refute the foundations of individualism with the following interpretation of the individual’s relation to society; “ …it is largely because civilization enables us constantly to profit from knowledge which we individually do not possess and because each individual’s use of his particular knowledge may serve to assist others unknown to him in achieving their ends, that men as members of civilized society can pursue their individual ends so much more successfully than they could alone.”
When the basics of individualism are expressed rationally as Hayek does here, it sounds more akin to collectivism.
And in The Fatal Conceit published in 1988, Hayek writes, “To understand our civilization, one must appreciate that the extended order resulted not from human design or intention but spontaneously: it arose from unintentionally conforming to certain traditional and largely moral practices, many of which men tend to dislike, whose significance they usually fail to understand, whose validity they cannot prove, and which have nonetheless fairly rapidly spread by means of an evolutionary selection – the comparative increase of population and wealth – of those groups that happened to follow them. The unwitting, reluctant, even painful adoption of these practices kept these groups together, increased their access to valuable information of all sorts, and enabled them to be ‘fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it’ (Genesis 1:28). This process is perhaps the least appreciated facet of human evolution.”
If we put aside the Bible reference and a couple of arguable points, this is surely evolution from a socialist perspective!
But it was the Australian economist Barry Hughes who, in Exit Unemployment, pointed out the deceitful basis of the liberal/neoliberal/libertarian case when he revealed the great weakness of our financial system, that; “Only when the pursuit of self-interest remains the preserve of the few does the system remain workable.”
That fact alone destroys any pretense that liberals have to a moral justification for the financial system for which they claim there is no alternative.
The heartbreaking global turmoil we are witnessing right now is simply those few making sure that their system remains workable.
And who is the ‘Father of Neoliberalism’ in Australia? Paul Keating.
In regard to the observation by Barry Hughes that the pursuit of self-interest remains the preserve of the few, it’s important to keep in mind that the purpose of a system is what it does, not what it says.
You can call the financial/economic/political system liberalism, you can call it neoliberalism, you can call it whatever you want.
The labels change nothing.
But they do divert attention from this underlying reality.
The system protects the wealth of the already wealthy, at the expense of those who have little. This ensures that those with little, stay that way.
That’s what the system does, so that is it’s purpose.
Just came across an interview by Chris Hedges with George Monbiot to review Monbiot’s book Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism.
Hedges points out that “Neoliberalism is a stealth ideology, one that at once dominates our lives, but exists in relative anonymity. Its effects have radically reconfigured Western societies through deindustrialization, austerity, the privatization of utilities, postal services, schools, hospitals, prisons, intelligence gathering, police, parts of the military and railroads, along with spawning wage stagnation and debt peonage. It has deformed a tax system and gutted regulations to funnel wealth upwards, creating an income inequality that rivals pharaonic Egypt. Yet neoliberalism remains largely unmentioned and unexamined, especially by academia and a media that has been captured by a ruling class that profits from neoliberal doctrine.”
In the final sentence from that quote Hedges almost hits the nail on the head.
Neoliberalism is indeed largely unexamined by academia and mainstream political pundits in general. It’s only by those on the fringes and in forums such as this that doubts are raised and examinations begun.
The point Hedges missed is that if academics were to examine neoliberalism and its history they would find that it’s no more than an extension of the liberalism that they have deified for decades.
An unbiased observer of neoliberalism will conclude that it shares so much in common with liberal economic theory that it is in fact a logical development of liberalism.
A flowering of liberalism.
It can be nothing else, when liberalism has been flying the flag for property rights and unlimited wealth accumulation since the Industrial Revolution.
Unlimited wealth accumulation necessarily entails deprivation for some. That’s the link.
So a comprehensive examination of neoliberalism will never be undertaken by the servants of Power. To do so would reveal that their cherished “liberal democracy” that they have so carefully idealised and idolised is no more than a brilliant scheme to constantly transfer wealth away from where it is needed to those who need nothing except to feel superior.
In an interesting side-note, back when Bill Clinton was pushing free trade agreements as though humanity could not survive without them, he tried to popularise the label “free market democracy”.
It failed miserably.
The powers behind the throne must have been horrified. Clinton may well have believed the lies about the social benefits of free trade ideology, but those in the know anticipated correctly the fallout they would suffer once the label lost its gloss.
As it is, reality catches up eventually, as today we see a retreat by the Global South from the liberal consensus.
When the conditioned masses of the West go through a similar awakening, the fallout will be significant.
Thought provoking article and comments.
With the BRICS alignments coming more into play “the conditioned masses” may get their awakening sooner than later.
You can call the financial/economic/political system liberalism, you can call it neoliberalism, you can call it whatever you want.
The labels change nothing.
Steve, is that really you? Blink twice if you’re in danger.
… examine neoliberalism and its history they would find that it’s no more than an extension of the liberalism that they have deified for decades.
Phew, you’re safe. I was really worried for a moment.
That’s amusing leefe, but what would be even more amusing, would be you refuting my analysis of the connection between liberalism and neoliberalism.
You obviously disagree with me, so throw your hat into the ring.
Why hold back?
I’m not here to debate today, just for shits and giggles while downing the popcorn.
Glad you got a laugh out of it as well.
But leefe, all I got out of it was a chuckle.
We’ve had 700mm of rain here in 7 days, I’ve got cabin fever, i need a good bellylarf!
I’m not your performing poodle.
Lovo, yes, good point.
The domestic victims of the system are waking up to the fact that the system is not coming to their rescue, hence the shift to the Right in many countries.
They tend to the Right because at present they can see no alternative.
Because the system, to this point, has allowed them to see no realistic alternative.
But if BRICS can demonstrate that it’s possible to have economic improvements that are inclusive throughout society, the calls for fundamental change in the developed economies will be overwhelming.
true blue and new freedom is like keating unschooled but super educated to be a winner.
A poodle only ranks 3 for being smart so you would most likely be seen on Sunday rounding us sheep up?
Great article at Pearls and Irritations today.
“Hoaxes that gush for winners and trickle down for losers”
By Robbie Lloyd
Feb 3, 2025
“What do Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and John Howard have in common with the Piltdown Man? They all managed to sell a hoax that lasted for decades, before it was exposed as completely false. But wait, their hoax is still central to transglobal neoliberal capitalism’s stranglehold on us all, whereas Charles Dawson’s 1912 forged ‘missing link’ skull from East Sussex became a lesson in how dangerous it is to let preconceptions override evidence.
Today’s world is locked in a stranglehold of neoliberal ‘accountability,’ regulations and accreditations that determine whether or not you can participate in the economy. Whether businesses or non government organisations, everyone has to meet standards and pass audits that assess their suitability to provide their services. Or else they don’t get paid.
Nice. An entrapment device that holds everyone down by the neck, while those in charge – the politicians, bureaucrats and business leaders – continue to live untouchable lives.
It’s an ever-enduring hand-me-down from Milton Friedman’s economic rationalist and monetarist portrayal of how humans can really only operate ‘efficiently and effectively’ if they follow ‘the Free Market.’ By which we mean the ‘trickle down’ principle that basically reduces tax and hands public funds to the rich, so they can get richer, while the poor wait for the trickle down effect to provide their share of whatever’s left over.”
Check it out, full of details, a great read.
The article is the first of a 6-part series.
Can’t wait.
To those readers who might be sceptical of the claim I’ve been making for many months, that liberal elites have created a fantasy framework to justify their development and forced imposition of the global economic structure, I recommend the book review to which Herbert Rude kindly provided a link at “Trump, Tariffs and Russia, a Very Muddled Policy”.
The review of the Crisis of Democratic Capitalism by Martin Wolf was written by Trevor Jackson, professor of economic history at Berkeley.
Author of the book, Martin Wolf, is possibly the most influential economics commentator in the English-speaking world. He has been chief editorial writer for the Financial Times since 1987 and their lead economics analyst since 1996. Before that he trained in economics at Oxford and worked at the World Bank starting in 1971, including three years as senior economist and a year spent working on the first World Development Report in 1978. This is his fifth book since moving to the Financial Times.
So this is a discussion of liberalism at the highest level.
The review discusses the reversal of attitude by Martin Wolf to the benefits of liberal economics, and his failure to see the full picture.
Those readers who in the past have disputed my analysis of liberalism should note that Jackson’s use of the term is identical to mine.
The review is studded throughout with little gems. Here’s a quick selection to give you a taste.
“Global economic growth rates in the era of globalization have been about half what they were in the less globalized postwar decades.”
“Our economy has destabilized our politics and vice versa. We are no longer able to combine the operations of the market economy with stable liberal democracy. A big part of the reason for this is that the economy is not delivering the security and widely shared prosperity expected by large parts of our societies. One symptom of this disappointment is a widespread loss of confidence in elites.”
“Neither politics nor the economy will function without a substantial degree of honesty, trustworthiness, self-restraint, truthfulness, and loyalty to shared political, legal, and other institutions.”
“People feel even more than before that the country is not being governed for them,”
That selection just scratches the surface, but the liberal fantasy world comes through with this — “Wolf’s true goal is moral exhortation. He has absolutely no interest in removing the current elites or replacing them with others, and certainly not in trying to create a society without elites, or with elites whose powers to do harm are systematically curtailed. Instead he hopes to encourage our profligate elites to more virtuous behavior.”
No interest in curtailing their power to do harm? That’s the fundamental flaw in liberal thinking right there.
The classical liberal economists and all who followed with their tinkering at the edges of liberalism as it inevitably frayed, have wished for an ethical framework in which businesses are regulated as little as possible. And pretended that this was achievable.
This demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of ethics.
Ethics are, by definition, standards of behaviour. Standards of behaviour can only be enforced by regulation.
Liberalism is a fantasy.
It was of interest to me personally that Jackson noted that in this entire book about the crisis of capitalism and democracy, the term “neoliberalism” was only used once. This supports the comment from Chris Hedges I mentioned above, that “neoliberalism remains largely unmentioned and unexamined, especially by academia and media”.
I’ve made the point several times that the term is unsuitable, as it is a diversion in that it disguises the predictable downside of liberalism. It runs protection for liberalism.
Wiki seems to support this view. “In scholarly use, the term is often left undefined or used to describe a multitude of phenomena; however, it is primarily employed to delineate the societal transformation resulting from market-based reforms.”
Market-based reforms are simply liberal economics in action. Doing what it does best. But, in regard to the term, I guess I’ll have to learn to live with it.
The book review can be found here.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2025/01/16/never-too-much-the-crisis-of-democratic-capitalism-wolf/
I cannot recommend it too highly, and I thank Herbert again for providing it.
Steve, i have to partially agree with you.
“that liberal elites have created a fantasy framework to justify their development and forced imposition of the global economic structure,”
I would say its more local than global.
The only good thing to come out of the current global upheaval is that we are suddenly throwing a massive spot light on billionaires like Elon Musk. Now I dont subscribe to this guy being a genius, smart yes but no genius. This fruit cake has decided that he is now running the government and plans to shape it how HE WANTS. This un elected freak is just another power hungry turd. He has sacked those investigating his brain surgery implants, because he wants NO REGULATIONS. It may be a good thing he is experimenting with, but by god, we cant afford to have no oversight. The irony, they are all against big pharma but big tech is untouchable. And its clear what media outlets are the real criminals too. Which ones have bent the knee…….paid the godfather off. And this is what Dutton wants to emulate?