Here is the part in the article that describes what activism needs to take place:
persuasion, argument, nonviolent direct action or other means
That’s it. I don’t think this is an article about activism at all.
You and I have different definitions of activism. But I like where your heads at.
How did you conclude that so quickly and definitively?
Game recognizes game. Or projection. Probably projection.
It’s that good ol’ white washed MLK activism. Our world is boiling and all we gotta do is keep making good arguments, as though the ones given haven’t been enough.
The big problem with this argument is that it blames the ineffectual centrists and the ignored left, when the real villain is the anti-science suicide cult that is the Republican Party.
Republicans are Neoliberals too. Nice try at re-framing though.
Not really anymore. They’re just fascists.
Neoliberals who have realised that the only way to suppress wages further is with slavery.
That doesn’t seem very liberal, so this take seems doubtful
So here is an explanation of what “neoliberal” means.
Of course, modern neoliberalism isn’t genuinely about any of that. Those are just the excuses they use to push policies that benefit rich people almost exclusively.
They know wealth won’t trickle down. They know corporations do horrific things when not bound by regulation. They know that the “free market” has no genuine power to fix it since ethical competiton is prohibitively expensive for both companies and consumers.
And they’ve definitely done the calculations on the profitability of fascism.
You don’t need to define neoliberalism to me. I am a proud neoliberal.
Neoliberals believe the government’s role in economics is to address externalities. A significant number of neoliberals (including H.M. Hillary Clinton) are for things like universal health care or (Yang) even UBI.
Your link has accurate info. Your interpretation is inaccurate.
Interesting, I was about to agree with the post you replied to. I dont know what neo-liberalism is and the Wikipedia entry isn’t specific enough to this conversation,so o don’t know who to agree or is agree with, but ….
I don’t see how free market or capitalism is inherently the problem or can’t be the solution.
However it’s government’s job to establish the market, set a fair playing field, set common rules to encourage development toward the needs of society. However government is who abandoned their responsibility. At least in the US , we seem to rarely have a functional government, and much of the action taken shows we are owned by the market, rather than the other way around. Where is the government responsible to voters, rather than the rich or corporate interests? Where is our leadership dedicated to improving things for their constituents, rather than their benefactors? Where is the altriistic leadership, rather than petty or spiteful? Where is the leadership who actually believes in our form of government, our principles, the Constituion at the root, rather than taking advantage of them as a source of power and to accumulate wealth?
A significant number of neoliberals (including H.M. Hillary Clinton) are for things like universal health care or (Yang) even UBI
Neither of whom are in any danger of accomplishing their goals, both of which are designed to address the horrific situations that neoliberals have brought us.
Were you proud of the GFC? Are you proud to eat Nestlé chocolate? Were you proud when that train derailed in East Palestine? Are you proud when oil company talking points show up on social media?
Neoliberalism is been responsible for the wealth inequality, environmental degradation and political extremism that’s currently tearing societies apart.
I have no idea why you’d be proud of it unless you’re one of the ones pocketing the obscene profits at others expense.
! Son lo mismo !
Democrats are Neoliberals too. It’s a cool thing to be. Try it!
Maybe pre-2016
! Son lo mismo !
ineffectual
Complicit.
the real villain for global inaction on climate change is not the american republican party
Really couldn’t disagree more with this article but here’s the big one that stands out:
Second, what must be done runs directly counter to the way the economy currently works.
It does not run counter to our existing system at all. We don’t live in capitalist anarchy, we have a government that can act pretty broadly here, actually. The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.
If your complaint is that solutions to your prioritized issue are coming too slow, join the club, that’s definitely true. But that is a different complaint.
The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.
I presume you’re either joking or you’re trusting IPCC numbers to judge the severity of the problem. The examples you give are nowhere near what’s needed. We need massive reductions in construction, commercial air travel, cars, and manufacturing of most junk that you can buy at a store today. How are you going to accomplish any of this in the capitalist economic system?
Edit: what I mean regarding IPCC is that I understand that their numbers are completely unrealistic because they are assuming carbon capture technology and scales that don’t and won’t exist.
Edit 2: add meat consumption as another item that needs to be massively reduced.
I’m not saying my examples are the thing that solves climate change, just that there are paths other than “let corporations do whatever they want.” Government acted to reduce acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Government can act to reduce climate change. That means there is a path in our current system.
Total US greenhouse gas emissions are lower than they were in 1990 and they have been going down for years. The question is if we can get low enough, fast enough, globally, to prevent as many negative impacts as possible. That sort of balancing of priorities and costs and benefits is why we have government.
Imagine still believing that governments work for the people and not for the capitalists… 🤯
I gave examples of government solutions working. Your bumper sticker response does not refute that.
Government is the only player who can provide a solution short of a revolution.
The issue is that we have criters and their boomer enables who think this is the their turn to loot younger generations. So reforms are not ton the table.
Selection of critters up for vote does not install any confidance, at this rate something might happen in 2030s.
Government is the only player who can provide a solution short of a revolution.
Not all boomers are down with this sickness. And with climate change on its way, I think you answered your own question about what is needed.
You gonna fight in that revolution?
Depends. You gonna wear the buttress chaps I bought you?
So no, then.
I’d absolutely wear the chaps, btw.
Thanks for the links. If I could read, I might not be a liberal.
Ah yes, “blacklikemao” and “nyanarchist” - clearly sage wisdom.
I’ve never seen someone rail against neoliberalism while coherently defining neoliberalism. It always seems to be a buzzword lefties use when they describe people they disagree with who are more moderate. Kinda like the more polite version of shitlib.
Yeah, I get it, that’s just not how the term is used. I see it used to describe moderate liberals, not Reaganites.
I’m old. I thought it was odd when used against Reagan. Now I realize it wasn’t enough. Reagan was the red flag 🚩 of America’s fascist slide.
I meant to say, that l said, it really doesn’t describe neoliberalism. If the term has any meaningful definition, and the Wikipedia article doesn’t really give one, it’s someone hyperfocused on deregulation, privatization, free trade, and austerity economics. So, a Reagan or Thatcher. I’ve seen people call Joe Biden a neoliberal, when he is quite obviously a classic social liberal.
If it is a term with any actual meaning, it’s best used to describe a segment of explicitly conservative movements dedicated to shrinking government involvement in the economy, as opposed to the sections primarily dedicated to social issues. But the term isn’t usually used that way. I don’t hear Trump called a neoliberal, I hear Democrats called it, when the term doesn’t even describe Joe Manchin well.
Yes, they are just words. But the words are used to describe real world actions. Reagan was a neoliberal because of his adherence to capitalism and the free market. In the 90’s, Third Way Democrats under Bill Clinton became the Democratic Party. They too, we’re neoliberal because of their beliefs in the global free markets and capitalism. NAFTA was signed under Clinton. Any member of the Republican or Democratic Party could be considered neoliberal today. You can debate how much they are neoliberal, but the concept that we must let the capitalist free market reign is endemic in American politics. To say otherwise is denialism.
deleted by creator
Nope, that’s not how it is. Neoliberalism as an actual ideology is about deregulation, austerity, and opposition to Keynesian economics, as well as privatization and anti union activism.
None of that describes any Democrat in office.
Every serious politician since the end of WW2 in the US is a capitalist. Free trade isn’t exclusive to neoliberalism. The way you’re presenting the term, it’s just a meaningless insult for moderates you politically disagree with.
I’ll grant you there has been a senantic shift in the meaning of neoliberalism. Just because you don’t like the shift doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Or that the new meaning doesn’t apply. And the accepted definition applies to all capitalist politicians now. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with society’s definition of the word.
I mean, yeah, he really helped get going the Republican trend towards populism and anti-intellectualism tied in with reality denial when it’s convenient
You can’t start any action without Democrats in Congress and funding. That funding part is what progressives have a hard time understanding. Taxing the Rich is not funding.
If we’re being honest about funding, we need to tax wealth and access profits held in stocks better. That’ll get funding. For the big stuff we need to tax everyone, but that usually just results in net savings like in single payer healthcare. The wealthy control more of the wealth than ever before, meaning funding will more and more need to come from them.
The progressive wing of Congress is just veiled populism. That’s all they care about. So taxing the rich sounds sexy so it gets their focus.
I don’t think it’s veiled populism. Do you not agree with their policies? If you do, support them. No politician will be perfect. They are doing their best to work within the system.
