- cross-posted to:
- libjerk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- libjerk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or # to comment.
The middle panel is entirely superfluous. Take that out and you have an accurate representation of both the GOP and DNC.
“I’m a centrist”
“I’m a centrist”
Actually republican but doesn’t want to admit it
I always say neoliberals will affirm your identity and support your right to be who you are!.. As you die in the gutter of exposure and capital defense force brutality. Sorry, free market forces! 🤷
You can’t eat pride ribbons. You can’t live in pride ribbons. A neoliberal is better than a scapegoating fascist, but so is an empty soda can. Neoliberals are also equally as effective as an empty soda can in opposing fascism, the inevitable outcome of capitalism when left to run amok instead of straightjacketed to serve society as it must be.
Neoliberal doesn’t actually mean " The newest Brand of liberal" NeoLibralist regimes historically have also been exceedingly anti-queer. The term was coined in the 80’s to describe a burgeoning different brand of liberal government that focused on cutting spending by privatizing swaths of the government. Think Thatcher, Regan and the modern Republican party… See also the early Nazis who historically privatized huge amounts of government to pad the wallets of their supporters but the label was applied retroactively.
If they are getting rid of government services and outsourcing them to a private company that’s “Neoliberal politics”. You are right that they are effective as an empty soda can at stopping facism but that’s because they are usually better positioned to assume power, give up on democracy and go fascist but they aren’t the group you’re calling out here.
Really the bar for what “liberal” means is a system with a basic set of rights of the person that cannot be infringed upon by the government, universal rights of the person to own stuff (though not all stuff) and a dedication to some kind of democratic system. Basically it’s become democracy’s basic format and practically everyone in government who isn’t a fascist is some variation of liberal or at least playing by Libralism’s rules. It’s not a statement on socially progressive or socially conservative rhetoric. You’re probably better off specifying " Social Progressives" if you want to be accurate to whom you’re talking about.
It’s kind of the same rules as “NeoClassisism” which isn’t constantly updated to mean the newest thing. That term got coined to specifically refer to an art style that is now 300 years old. Neo these days practically never refers to anything cutting edge.
No they’re just using the Tankie definition of (neo)liberal: “my enemy”. It’s part of the theory of social fascism, which claims that everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist.
Ah yes the same argument as the litteral nazis. Good point, I’m sure you will convert a lot of TanKie
It’s more like the definition used by Right leaning government to cast Progressive social agendas as the downfall of society because in their case you slap “Neo” on something to mean “Untested and scary”. This isn’t so much a “Tankie” thing so much as a Fox News thing.
They get away with it because people aren’t taught or don’t absorb the actual technical meanings of different labels for subtypes of political philosophy. Hence why “liberal” has become buzz word to mean “civil rights and social emancipation enthusiasts”, “conservative” is abandoned to be this wishy-washy ground that evokes both a retaliatory resistance to social movements and/or a sort of nebulous (often false) vision of fiscal austerity and “communist” a brush to tar a variety of social movements with that handily has an implicit conspiracy aspect.
None of these definitions are accurate but they serve to muddy the water. That’s really the point of it. To rob us all of accurate ways to discuss political matters and to create team sport like voting blocks.
Look, what matters here is that everyone is included equally under oppressive capitalist movements which aim to drain of us of our lifeblood and monetize our very cells.
so… why didn’t the left stop fascism? I hear a lot of talk about killing people, but it’s been three months and nothing has happened.
Are we all just yappers?
You can bitch all you want, but the right won, and they won exactly what they wanted. So bitching about it on the left isn’t going to make us anymore likely to win, is it?
We have no leftwing party in the United States
I phone banked for Sanders on 2 campaigns.
I don’t see Neoliberals or Fascists as winning, just different degrees of losing.
I no longer have the slightest hope of ever “winning” a prosocial government here. We’re too oligarch captured.
I talk and comment to maintain my sanity in an insane capitalist hellscape I lack the power to change.
We have no leftwing party in the United States
probably because the left is so dysfunctional they cant form a cohesive group that people want to vote for.
I no longer have the slightest hope of ever “winning” a prosocial government here. We’re too oligarch captured.
perhaps join the liberal fight, and fight against things like oligarchy, which liberals are not for, because it’s obviously bad for institutions. The better the institution is at helping the people, the better the people are.
I talk and comment to maintain my sanity in an insane capitalist hellscape I lack the power to change.
Liberalism is basically the only option you have here, realistically. Anything you can do to change the political tide and get people to care about the importance of good governance, is a good thing.
You could plot a coup and overthrow the government, but we’re not delusional, and that’s obviously not happening anytime soon so, might as well explore other routes.
You should read about what happened to domestic left parties and people after WWII. Also what the US did to left elements abroad. The state of the left in the US today didn’t evolve naturally to its current status quo.
probably because the left is so dysfunctional they cant form a cohesive group that people want to vote for.
yeah I wonder if all the demonization and litteral killing of communists for the last hundred years have something to do with that.
perhaps join the liberal fight, and fight against things like oligarchy, which liberals are not for, because it’s obviously bad for institutions.
ah yeah the clinton are notoriously not part of the oligarchy lmao\
You could plot a coup and overthrow the government, but we’re not delusional, and that’s obviously not happening anytime soon so, might as well explore other routes.
Classic prisonner’s dilemma. It takes two not to collaborate and eat the cake, but you’re too much of a coward
Liberals are for oligarchy. How can you be anti-oligarchy if you are pro-capitalism and pro-markets?
Weird how the left is crushed and weak when the entirety of the US 20th and 21st century is crushing anti-oligarchy (a.k.a left) forces. Maybe it isn’t a failure of the goal, but that willing yourself into power isn’t going to magically make it happen.
Liberalism is not inconsistent with regulation. Oligarchy introduces inefficiencies to the market. Liberal Democrats have been generally open to and supportive of regulations which oppose oligarchic monopolies, and mitigate externalities. They certainly have their flaws, too many to enumerate here, but they generally want the market to run as “purely” as possible, without the confounding effects of oligarchy. Oligarchy and monopolies upset the mechanisms of the market, and the liberals are the ones passing regulations to try to prevent that. This much is obvious by the existence of regulations, and the near absence of legislators to the left of liberals.
Yeah Margaret Tatcher was a great person. Every decent communism should ally with her and her spiritual descendant
lmao
Who said Margaret Thatcher was a great person? That’s a wild straw man.
Liberalism is not fully mutually exclusive with regulation, but liberal regulation is to try to maintain capitalist markets against their own failures. Yes, they can be willing to engage in some regulation to try to maximize future markets and capitalism. But they are pro-oligarch and pro-inequality, liberals are trying to maintain it long-term even if the most extreme excesses of oligarchs must be reigned in for the short term.
But most importantly, Oligarchy and monopolies aren’t an “upset” or disruption of markets, but the obvious and natural outcome. Profits are optimized by consolidation and removing competition. And even if competition is maintained, once one company wins the competition there is monopoly, and the fact that most capital intensive industries have a natural barrier to entry (it would take billions of dollars of venture capital to enter and be a very weak competitor with the incumbent) means that markets have oligarchy and monopoly as their natural and necessary outcome.
A homeless guy can’t just immediately become a billionaire by saying that there should be a competitor of genetic testing with 23andMe.
But they are pro-oligarch and pro-inequality, liberals are trying to maintain it long-term even if the most extreme excesses of oligarchs must be reigned in for the short term.
The liberal approach is stretching that short term out forever. They will always reign in outliers and apply bandaids to keep the charade going, directly targeting oligarchy and inequality to keep up appearances that liberal capitalism works. The other guys wanna get to the end already, where they own everything forever. Oligarchies stagnate markets, and liberals don’t want the music to stop.
The eligible voting population is about 30% for oligarchy, 30% for the liberal charade, 5% for some other opinion, and 35% totally politically apathetic. The point was that if you want to actually accomplish something in a democracy, you need demographics. You’ve gotta find 30% to challenge the actual pro-oligarchy demographic somewhere.
Well said.
Can someone who identifies as a leftist explain to me what “neoliberal” means? I have no fucking clue at this point.
The post actually explains it really well
lol you don’t even know the ideology of your prime minister?
Maybe read a book idk
Carney is a Keynesian.
An economic theory isn’t an ideology. The ideology is neoliberalism. Ya know, the idea that “economists” should run the country because money is God.
And North Korea is very democratic
It mostly means a dedication to deregulation and free markets. More specifically, private-public partnerships. That is the difference between them and Libertarians or Anarcho-Capitalists, since Neoliberals see that the government needs to provide things like courts, military, police, etc. but want to insert private companies to provide government services (e.g. in WW2, soldiers cleaned and laundered the military’s uniforms internally, now a private company will do the laundry for a military base at a 50% markup).
As all political ideology, in its original formulation, Neoliberalism was a deviation from liberalism, in the Vienna Circle, by its rejection of “political liberalism”. It didn’t believe in formal freedom, democracy, equality, etc. Real freedom is the freedom to buy and sell on an unregulated market, real democracy is the ability to vote with your wallet, and real equality is the lack of regulations protecting one group from another. This is why neoliberals of the 1920s and 30s were pro-fascist, since the fascists were so dedicated to privatization and repressing socialists and communists. Thus preserving the freedom of the market, even if later neoliberals want to walk that back.
‘Free market,’ market-oriented reform capitalism; think Reagan, Bill Clinton, any moderate or conservative before the trump era.
It has been the sole economic theory in power in the US since the 1970s, with more or less a sliding scale between more neoliberal (republicans before 2016) and less neoliberal/more classical liberal (Biden’s and Harris’s campaign messaging, not Biden’s actual actions).
The reason it sounds confusing, especially in memes, is because you think dems and republicans have different economic theories behind their actions, when in actual legislative reality they’re just more or less neoliberal, and the minute differences get overblown in campaign rhetoric.
The reason it sounds confusing, especially in memes, is because you think dems and republicans have different economic theories behind their actions, when in actual legislative reality they’re just more or less neoliberal, and the minute differences get overblown in campaign rhetoric.
The funny thing is that it’s Trump, of all people, who represents the first genuine shift away from neoliberalism for the US in 50+ years. That fucker is downright mercantilist.
Too bad it’s a shift away from neoliberalism in the opposite of the direction the leftists wanted to go.
That fucker is downright mercantilist.
Also a fake populist. He says things that seem like he will work to benefit the working class, but completely lies to them and screws them over at every opportunity.
The imminent $6T tax cut for the rich and corporations will be Trump’s magnum opus.
fake populist
AKA “demagogue.” That’s the essential difference between Trump and a populist like Bernie Sanders: Trump is a demagogue; Sanders isn’t.
It’s a circle tho right. Eventually it will all spin back around? /s
It has been the sole economic theory in power in the US since the 1970s
I’m not American so I may be missing something, but I find it hard to say that, for example, Carter and Reagan shared the same economic policy, or Obama and Trump. Only by flattening away any nuance whatsoever would those be called identical.
First of all, Trump really is very different. All these tariffs are decidedly not neoliberal.
Trump aside, though, Carter, Reagan and Obama really did share broadly similar policy with regards to free trade treaties and whatnot. The Democrats were better on support for unions, but not so much better that they weren’t willing to throw them under the bus of cheap foreign labor.
Their idea of the rightful role of the state in everyday affairs was rather different though, wasn’t it? If support of free trade were all that’s needed to be a neoliberal, anarchists would be neoliberals too.
they shared the same broad economic policy.
They don’t share minute policy, they never will. Republicans have always been a more top down approach, while dems are usually more bottom up.
if you look at it in macro, you could argue this is true, but this is basically just strictly related to econ governance, which makes sense because it’s the most functional form of economy lmao.
If you look at social governance there are VAST differences.
Social governance in the US is mostly window dressing. The class oppression is the same, dems just don’t pretend poor whites are a higher class than other minorities. To the dem or republican leadership your gender, sex, nor race really matter. As long as you’re not trying to remove the class divide then you’re good enough. Even the most racist republican would happily go along with a black president as long as said president didn’t threaten the economic order. Its why Obama was allowed to do as much as he did.
White Karens who drive around with awareness ribbons on their prius and chastise you for calling black people black instead of “African American” and really think that someone needs to do something about the current social crisis as long as it doesn’t upset anyone or anything and as long as everything stays exactly the same, and as long as nobody messes with their investments. They secretly cannot stand people different than themselves and want to retire on a golf course.
Aka not a liberal. The neolibs people bitch about are not the same as a garden variety liberal who believes human rights(liberty) must take precedent over economic forces. That aligns with a lot of leftist views, but they will be ree-ing after this comment about how marx was an unfathomable god and the only path to utopia is forced authoritarianism under martial law. Eventually the dictator will give up his power when the means are seized because he was the true communist all along.
Thats all so much easier and less of a gamble than unifying the commoners amirite
I don’t care about labels so long as I have someone to blame!
Then blame the ilk among bezos and musk and we cant forget murdoch and koch
u ok bro
Im pretty fuckin far from ok
Tldw; liberals still want capitalism and the class hierarchy it creates. They just want capitalism that is supportive of gay and black people and social safety nets.
social safety nets
That’s Social Democracy. Neoliberals don’t care about safety nets.
True
Lmao @ the idea of neolibs supporting socials sfety nets.
True I almost didn’t add that. Liberals in principle do not but I know a lot of people who call themselves liberals that do.
Most of them don’t know either, but they’ll get back to you after they as that brooding cool kid in school.
On Liberalism:
In contrast, neoliberalism is sometimes constructed as an ideological antagonist of both critical theorists and progressive liberal identities. Marxist scholars conceptualize neoliberalism as a particular historical regime of capitalism, more corrosive and iniquitous than the “embedded liberalism” of the post-war era in Europe and the United States. Similarly, socially progressive liberals criticize neoliberalism for subordinating public life to market forces and for displacing the welfare state commitments of the Keynesian era. Some on the political left collapse the distinction between liberalism and neoliberalism, seeing them as simply two ways of ideologically justifying capitalist rule. Conversely, some of those most likely to be identified as neoliberals are motivated by a deep hostility to political liberals, particularly in right-wing political discourses where liberal operates as code for left-liberal, even socialist, values that are opposed to a free market identity.
Additional:
On Leftist ideologies:
An alternative to both neoclassical and Keynesian explanations and solutions for capitalist crises emanates from the Marxian tradition. Its explanation stresses neither what Keynesians focus on (destabilizing maneuvers by self-seeking individual consumers, producers, merchants, and banks facing an inherently uncertain economy and/or possessing asymmetrical information in regard to markets) nor what neoclassicists pinpoint (market-destabilizing concentrations of private power by market participants and/or public power by the state). Rather, Marxian theory pursues the connections between capitalism’s crises and its distinctive class structure (its particular juxtaposition of capitalists appropriating and distributing the surpluses workers produce). We propose to show these connections in the rest of this paper. On that basis, Marxian theory reaches very different conclusions from those of the neoclassical and Keynesian economists. Briefly, durable solutions to capitalist crises require, in the Marxian view, transition to a different class structure. That is because capitalism’s class structure has so systematically and repeatedly contributed to crises in both the regulated and deregulated forms of capitalism. That is why Marxian theory does not share the fundamental conservatism of both neoclassical and Keynesian economics vis-à-vis capitalism.
Additional:
basically the meme among the left is that everybody who “dragged their feet” is a “liberal” or “neoliberal”
the left tends to have a problem where they leech off of existing parties and groups, but then immediately throw them under the bus when convenient for their party. This is just an extension of that.
The modern vernacular for liberal is, weird… To say the least, but in short, basically the average democrat is “a liberal” the average voting democrat specifically.
Historically, a liberal is someone who believes in government, and the institutions it provides, the fact that you should respect it, lest you ruin it. And the fact that you can achieve the best outcomes, for all people when everybody is represented. Liberals traditionally don’t have an issue with competing, or opposing viewpoints, they have issues with people who don’t respect institutions, or don’t want them to exist at all. A “Liberal democrat” may be fine with the republican voter, but have a problem with the way the republican base is campaigning, and running the country. Or even specific demographics of the republican voter, like MAGA for example.
Joe Biden is a good example of this, and if you look at his term, he was very, and i mean very successful, had some of the most effective legislative work in a long time. Was popular across the aisle to a significant degree (not MAGA obviously) and respected those that were.
The problem with the modern day left, is that they have outgroup problem. They want everybody who isn’t “left” and exactly in sync with their ideology to get fucked, basically. This extends further, since the left doesn’t respect the government, or it’s institutions, but i’ve yet to see any good whitepapers talking about a more effective form of government, it’s all just performative yapping about why “government bad and leftism good”
I’m not going to dive into the specifics of leftism here, because frankly, not relevant, it’s pretty similar to liberalism, minus the government stuff, and some slight differences, but the modern left doesn’t in any way shape or form adhere to that.
And before anybody yaps at me, calls me a slur or whatever, i just want to say, i’m not doing a both sides meme, i think the republican party is far, far worse. I think the democratic party is far more suited to running the country effectively, as evidenced by historical terms in office (the left would VEHEMENTLY disagree with me on this one, but the facts back me up here) The problem i think is specifically with the far left, the online far left in particular.
as you may have gleaned, i would consider myself a liberal, specifically a “governmental classical western liberal” if you want to get into the weeds of it, i think the lack of respect for government institution, and the role it plays in society has ruined our country. And there is simply no way back into a respectable position, without reinstating that within the public, i don’t care how it’s done, it needs to happen. I’m very sure most scholars on this topic would agree with me when i say that this is the most important thing to fix right now.
As a liberal should, i’m not picky about political views or ideology, as long as you respect the one thing keeping this country from grinding to a complete halt and being nothing more than a thought in the wind 20 years down the line. Unfortunately i don’t think the right even posses enough brain power or will to comprehend this, and i don’t think the far left is physically capable of comprehending this fact fully. (they are more than willing to mentally comprehend it, but they get mad the second anybody crosses them, and calls them wrong, so they never actually give it any serious thought)
Anyway, inb4 people yell at me all angry like.
Perfectly said. Thank you! This needs to be required reading on the subject.
Neolibs: Half of those people should be women #blm #acab #pride
Ftfy
#freepalestineButIsraelHasOurUnconditionalSupport*
Needs some awareness ribbons too.
I do wonder what the makeup of 100 people would have to look like to be perfectly (or as perfect as possible) representative of all demographics, every way we chop them up. Race, nationality, gender identity, sexuality, permanent disfigurement, financial class, whatever.
There’s more than 100 possible combinations of race, nationality, gender identity, sexuality disability, etc, so you couldn’t accurately represent the whole human population with 100 people.
you don’t need to though. Sure you could represent every european ethnicity, but that seems pretty stupid doesn’t it? The optimal solution is to just select people from the global population at complete random. Whatever you get is going to be pretty close. Not perfect, but close enough.
Not really trying to get every combination…but that would be an interesting challenge at a larger scale.
More so…a group of 100 people that is representative of the exact proportion of each individual demographic.
Not if they are all nonbinary pansexual…have to think outside the boxes.
it’s pretty simple, you just RNG select people from the population, whatever you’re left with is statistically, about as close as you can get to a representative demographic.
I am amused by the verbiage of “every way we chop them up” followed by “permanent disfigurement.” Which is exactly what they would have if they were chopped up. 😏
Dios mio! (Draws a cross.) A LIBERAL!
I don’t believe for a minute neoliberals would hold to that half women thing.
They’re free-marketeers, if it is useful as branding, they’ll do it. If it is not, they are fine with everyone in control being white men.
Yeah you’ll get one board member, maybe, if they feel like it. The steps needed even just to reform capitalism to eliminate gender inequality are considered way too radical by neoliberals.
They sure love to pitch men against women and vice versa deliberately to silence worker rights movements and they’re doing it in more ways than most people are willing to admit. Ask them to close the gender pay gap and a neoliberal will tell you about their women quota and how they placed a woman in a “leading” position (she has no power and didn’t get a raise) and how progressive they are already. Ask them for a raise and a neoliberal will tell you how women have it worse than you. You’re right in a way of course. It’s a convenient diversion for them and nothing more.
Back when I lived in Britain and participated in the comments section of The Guardian, I had a local “Feminist” literally tell me that it was more important to flatten the 23% difference in income between the cleaning lady and the night watchman than to flatten the 30,000% difference in income between both of them and the CEO.
That very same crown generally focused on “breaking the glass ceiling” (i.e. get upper middle class and upper class women such as themselves into those 300x minimum wage positions) and I have never once read a concrete suggestion about addressing the gender inequality for the poorer social classes.
That last box of the meme matches exactly my own experience with “Modern Feminists” in Britain.
(Mind you, I lived in other countries and also met older Feminists and they’re generally different and their version of Feminism is actually Egalitarian, though I’ve seen some young women were I live mindlessly ape this Anglo-Saxon neoliberal “Feminism”).
yeah probably because they disagree with the premise at hand entirely lmao
HIRE 👏 MORE 👏 WOMEN 👏 GUARDS 👏
Finally a meme distinguishing libs and neoliberals
Idk man, Clinton is pretty lib
No, both are pretty neolib. Even though Carter was the first Democrat neoliberal, Bill Clinton made neoliberalism unquestionable bipartisan orthodoxy post-Reagan, and killed any remnants of New Dealers in the Democratic party.
And neoliberalism has been the dominant economic political policy of both parties since then.
Ergo - libs are neolibs
Well it doesn’t show the libs at all, but liberalism and neoliberalism are basically the same thing. Libs think a free market is all that’s needed, NeoLibs think a market needs state intervention.
I’m convinced that 95% of people that use the word neoliberal don’t know what it means.
I feel that way about people using liberal as well.
this would also be correct lmao
No, it is just that both Reps and Dems are so thoroughly neoliberal that partisan horse-race observers can’t recognize the water that they swim in. Like fish getting angry because everyone keeps talking about this “water” they are swimming in.
Exhibit A.
“Reality has a left-wing bias”
you would be correct lmao
The author of this stupidity certainly didn’t.
neither did you apparently lol
So weird how in all these memes, the leftists are always the hero, yet when the time comes to make the bare minimum of effort to stop a fascist from taking over America-
They are nowhere to be seen.
You couldn’t even stop a genocide, retard.
So weird how, every time there’s criticism of the Democratic Party, some pearl clutcher brings out a cynical argument to divert attention from the train wreck that they persist in simping for.
I’m super tired of the Schrödinger’s Leftist argument - somehow insignificant enough to ignore on policy proposals, yet simultaneously crucial enough to be bullied into electoral compliance.
If a meme is giving you badfeels because your party keeps taking a rough shit each election whilst choking out grassroots challengers, maybe you should demand a better party instead of posting drive-by takes online?
Wait, when was there anti-fascist options for control of America? Was one of the two major parties anti-genocide, or opposed to putting minorities in concentration camps without due process? I think that you just want lower tariffs, so that your Nintendo is cheaper.
It’s always easy to ask those loaded questions, isn’t it? Especially when they come from a place where there’s no such thing as nuance, and everything is purely black and white for the sake of those that refuse to see the world any other way.
How dare you say air is a gas? this table is air and this water is air! You can’t keep to this unreasonable purity politics by saying that my laptop isn’t just solid air! Saying my desk can’t be water is “black and white thinking”.
You people crack me up!
all i’m gonna say, is that i don’t see leftists proposing an actual function government model that would fix all of our problems and make society better.
I do see a lot talking about how shit america is though. So there’s that i guess.
For as much as you want to hate liberals and liberalism (and there are problems), it’s hard to do anything with a dysfunctional government, and classical western liberalism provides a great solution to that problem. The other options aren’t exactly better.
Redistribution of wealth. Housing as a human right. Workplace democracy. Minimum wage indexed to cost of living.there are lots of socialist platforms that go unadopted.
Classical Western Liberalism created this dysfunctional government and is defending and trying to maintain it. The entire reason there is an opening for fascism is that the current liberal government is so dysfunctional and failing. And since both parties are anti-left, the only real option for opposing the failures of the status quo is joining the MAGA-fascist right. This is a repeat of the 1920s, showing how Liberalism enables Fascism.
Americans and tankies who don’t have a clue…
deleted by creator
Smells like Tankie in here.
I love westoids. They dare to whine about tankies knowing their stupid country sent billions dollar worth of litteral tanks to israel last year lmao
Hypocrisy in oneself is hard to detect
Removed by mod
