I'm not in the US anymore. But I have to ask, how the heck do you get people together for a long enough time to manage significant changes that would help the many? I'm mostly thinking of greatly expanding welfare and a generous UBI, which is perhaps more of my hippie-ish ideals.

In any case, by now the ideology of "freedom" and "leave me alone" is so strong in the US (and being fair, is also growing in other parts of the world), that I don't know what could overcome it. Not that it cannot be defeated, just that I don't see how at the moment.

To be fair, BLM was very important in the George Floyd protests. Occupy was important too.

Occupy could not be sustained to the degree it had attained when it was in Zuccotti Park. BLM on the other hand, seems to still be active.

Then there's these sporadic demonstrations, such as the recent ones condemning Israel or even back to the women's protest when Trump won.

But these protests are only a few days long.

I know others have, correctly in my view, said that neoliberalism cannot possibly account for everything. True. But it does account for a large part of our current global problems. They've been organizing for more than 80 years.

The left does not have that...

In any case, by now the ideology of "freedom" and "leave me alone" is so strong in the US (and being fair, is also growing in other parts of the world), that I don't know what could overcome it. Not that it cannot be defeated, just that I don't see how at the moment. — Manuel

Based on post-election surveys, Piketty argues that what we're seeing in Western democracies is the breakdown of the old left/right class structure into a system of multiple elites: an educated left wing elite and an income / wealth right wing elite, both of which are inegalitarian. The left wing elite is interested in cooperation, but not to the point where is would endanger it's privileges, and the right wing is committed to competition as the basic principle.

There is still an egalitarian, internationalist left, but it's not yet fully crystallized and vying for the support of the disadvantaged classes with the nationalist movements.

I'm not denying that some people genuinely hoped that they could built a Marxist state. But i'm not talking about what people hoped or wished for, I'm looking at what existing communities actually were built around. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't know if we're just talking (metaphorically) different languages here, but this juxtaposition makes no sense to me. What people hope and wish for is usually a central part of what communities are "actually" build around.

Marxist movements where political movements looking to overthrow the existing structure, looking to tear down... in the first place. Whatever came after was something else. — ChatteringMonkey

That's basically the exact opposite of how I see things. The whole reason Marxism was so powerful and ended up so terrible was because it had, as it's goal, a powerful utopian vision - the classless society. A Rousseauean paradise. And because it was such a grand goal, people were willing to do grand things for it - including grand destruction.

And I mean this shouldn't be surprising really, if you look at what the common values of the left are, they are critical or reactionary for the most part... they don't stand on their own. It's freedom from something else, non-discrimination in reaction to some discriminatory traditional practice, equality as a reaction to inequalities created by existing societal structures, etc... — ChatteringMonkey

I think you're retroactively applying a judgement (justified or not) of modern left-wing intellectuals onto the entirety of traditionally "left" movements. Any political position is a "reaction" to the status quo, even wanting to keep said status.

into a system of multiple elites: an educated left wing elite and an income / wealth right wing elite, both of which are inegalitarian. The left wing elite is interested in cooperation, but not to the point where is would endanger it's privileges, and the right wing is committed to competition as the basic principle. — Echarmion

I think that makes sense. I'd only add that some of this left elite may be willing to "give back", in terms of paying slightly higher taxes and some may even want modest welfare reform. But this does not mean "endangering it's privileges" in a manner that would actually cause them to lose privileges.

If they were smart, they'd want modest "reform", because it gives something to the people and could serve to temper the anger which is felt throughout the world. And then they would look good and perhaps even do some good, while staying safe. But even that's too radical for most elites.

As for the right, yes. I've seen it pop-up specifically within the neoliberal/liberal (liberals can be anything these days, from right to left) framework, "competition" is a dogma. But this mindset is going to kill us all. Almost no one is safe from global warming, nor massive war. All which increase drastically due to this "competition" mentality.

The egalitarian/socialist left seems to me to suffer from serious problems in coordination and sustaining the movement. There's way too much fighting in the left: you aren't left enough, Marxist that's nothing I'm an anarchist, anarchist how naïve I'm social democrat, etc, etc. It's crazy.

Sorry for the long rant. It's just that the problems facing us as a species cannot wait for much...

This to me seems to be a classic statement of what is generally more an American frame of society versus individualism. I imagine it would have wide support. — Tom Storm

Probably. But it's also complete BS.

It's not just neo-liberal ideology that is to blame though, that's only part of the story I'd say and a bit short-sighted. Socialism historically has been instrumental in breaking down any societal story that connects communities, be it religion, nationalism, ethnic traditions etc... . Granted a lot of those stories are suspect in that they also serve to justify certain power structures and all inequalities and injustices that come with that. But still, what have ideologies on the left been other than 'critical', i.e. aimed at tearing down something rather than building up a community around shared ideas. — ChatteringMonkey

Then your notion of "socialism" is strange indeed, and scope of history limited.

my intention is not to bash the left here, just to say that neo-liberalism is far from the only cause, — ChatteringMonkey

No one said it's the only cause.

So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too? — ChatteringMonkey

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. There's risk in anything -- whether we join together or not. There is far greater risk, in my view, of clinging to this dogma of rugged individualism, and so keeping ourselves isolated and trying to "go it alone" on everything. There is far greater power in numbers, working as a team, collaboration, networking, solidarity, education, etc. This is the only point. It has been systematically beaten out of people's heads for decades.

You appear to be overthinking it.

The lack of organization comes from the fact that both political parties are inconsistent and hypocritical. They adopt opposing view points. The left asserts that they are all about "choice" in one domain, but then deny choice in other domains. This is because both parties have both liberal and authoritarian tendencies. What about a party that has only liberal tendencies? Well, that would be the Libertarian party. — Harry Hindu

Not even close. To be "Libertarian" today is to be essentially a corporatist. The term is almost the opposite of what it once meant -- as is true for most political terminology in the United States.

"Government should leave us alone" and "support free markets." That's at the core of neoliberalism through and through. Translation: Big Government is bad, so reduce it. It's no solution, it's the problem. What IS the solution? Private business -- privatize everything, take it out of the public ("Big Government") sphere and put it into the hands of private power, which is unaccountable to the public.

No honest business person believes in free markets. It's a fantasy. They value socialism and big government more than anyone -- they simply believe the government should serve them. Subsidies, bailouts, tax cuts, deregulation, etc.

Capitalism cannot survive without state intervention. Never has in any developed country.

:100:

I don't know if we're just talking (metaphorically) different languages here, but this juxtaposition makes no sense to me. What people hope and wish for is usually a central part of what communities are "actually" build around. — Echarmion

Here's how to make sense of it. There were no marxist communities, but political parties that in most countries didn't get to rule the community. When a community is 'actually' build around an ideology you have institutions that represent and embody those ideas... like say the church in Western Christian communities of old.

That's basically the exact opposite of how I see things. The whole reason Marxism was so powerful and ended up so terrible was because it had, as it's goal, a powerful utopian vision - the classless society. A Rousseauean paradise. And because it was such a grand goal, people were willing to do grand things for it - including grand destruction. — Echarmion

Maybe what I said makes more sense in light of my answer above. Marxism was aiming to tear down existing structures and institutions that embodies ideologies that where counter to marxist ideology. You cannot have marxism if those institutions are still operating.

I know others have, correctly in my view, said that neoliberalism cannot possibly account for everything. True. But it does account for a large part of our current global problems. They've been organizing for more than 80 years.

The left does not have that... — Manuel

True. If you really want a big-picture view, the development of neoliberalism emerging in the late 70s was simply one expression of a reaction against the 1960s, which were themselves a result of the New Deal. So when you say "80 years," you're right. The wealthy never liked the New Deal, and they've been fighting a gradual and sophisticated fight on all fronts to dismantle it ever since.

Lead by intellectuals like Milton Friedman (and to a lesser extend Ayn Rand), the underlying beliefs and justifications were provided. By the 80s, they were becoming policies. We've been living with the effects of said policies.

This to me seems to be a classic statement of what is generally more an American frame of society versus individualism. I imagine it would have wide support.
— Tom Storm

Probably. But it's also complete BS. — Xtrix

Could you put up a succinct paragraph in ordinary language against this proposition of Thatcher and Hayek's?

Yes. First, it’s creating a problem that didn’t exist. Much like welfare queens, it’s a myth created to justify shifting power from the public to the private sphere. If all Thatcher sees is people wanting government to solve all their problems, that’s her own delusions. People should demand their government do more to help them.

Secondly, this nonsense about “there is no society” is laughable. Of course societies consist of individuals, just as forests consist of trees. So what? Doesn’t mean there’s no forests or societies. Any more than saying “there aren’t any individuals, because individuals consist only of cells.”

All she’s doing is creating a false picture as a pretext to shift responsibility away from collective action and the public sphere, to individuals and private ownership. Hence the policies against unions and the rhetoric about “government is the problem.”

It’s complete BS. Always has been.

Then your notion of "socialism" is strange indeed, and scope of history limited. — Xtrix

No much of an argument to respond to here. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that socialism was instrumental in tearing down existing societal structures... like say religious institutions.

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. There's risk in anything -- whether we join together or not. There is far greater risk, in my view, of clinging to this dogma of rugged individualism, and so keeping ourselves isolated and trying to "go it alone" on everything. There is far greater power in numbers, working as a team, collaboration, networking, solidarity, education, etc. This is the only point. It has been systematically beaten out of people's heads for decades.

You appear to be overthinking it. — Xtrix

The point you are making (one which I agree with to be clear) has implication, not mere eventualities or risks... and I'm not sure people realise this and/or are willing to accept those implications.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, or maybe most don't think things through far enough... It's easy to point at this or that in isolation, it's another thing to figure out how things hang together and what the ramifications are of changing one variable in the equation. I'm saying individualism is a package deal of sorts with other things we might or might not value. I agree with you point, and I was looking to take it bit further... but it's fine, we can leave it at this.

Personally, I'm confused about all the slings and arrows toward socialism. When I look up the definition, yeah, I get it. But isn't socialism, like capitalism, a nuanced thing with many shades? For example, what do we call every first world country on the planet, besides the U.S. (that's assuming the U.S. is first world)? I don't know what all those European countries are, but I like their single payor/universal and lots of other things. And I don't see their forms of government tearing into existing social structures. Am I missing something here?

It goes even before that. The term "neoliberalism" was coined Walter Lippman Colloquium in Paris in 1938 by liberal (market based) minded intellectuals and economists, in part as a reaction to the New Deal but also in general because they saw the liberal project as conceived by property rights and competition being corrupted in the late 19th and early 20th century, more or less.

It comes in large part from the Austrian School whose most lauded member is Von Mises. But it included Joseph Schumpeter, Willheim Röpke, Hayek and many others. They thought about how to save market society for a very long time. And only really started implementing such views, in as much as they could, by the time of Reagan and Thatcher, although as you know, it was forced down on the people of Chile under Pinochet. Friedman was a member, but quite simple minded compared to others.

Quinn Slobodian documents this very well in Globalists: The End of Empire and The Birth of Neoliberalism. Recommended to me by you know who.

There are others too by different authors: Marginal Revolutionaries by Wasserman, The Morals of the Market by Whyte, Never Let A Serious Crises Go to Waste by Mirowski, etc., etc.

In any case, it has very much managed to seep into all of us to some extent or other. It may be starting to crack, as evidenced by Biden's agenda, which far, far from ideal, is a step away from austerity.

Personally, I'm confused about all the slings and arrows toward socialism. — James Riley

I'm not against socialism, even said so explicitly, just trying to be honest about its role historically.

I'm European, most governments in Europe aren't really socialist at this point. But that's a bit besides the point. Socialist movement were fiercely anti-clerical, they sure did have a big hand in secularisation... and failed to provide a alternative story that inspired forming communities around. Now a lot of their traditional voting public have shifted to voting for extreme right parties that do try to provide some kind of story, however BS it is. Anyway that's the long story short, and probably a bit unnuanced, but I don't really have the time right now.

Edit: Or here is another angle to maybe help you understand it, socialism is somewhat of an intellectual or "dialectical" movement that is typically at odds with tradition (even aside from religion). The "people" like their traditions, it's something they can identify with and build communities around.

Dialectics is a dissolvent for traditions... Socrates VS Homer/the gods.

Secondly, this nonsense about “there is no society” is laughable. Of course societies consist of individuals, just as forests consist of trees. So what? Doesn’t mean there’s no forests or societies. Any more than saying “there aren’t any individuals, because individuals consist only of cells.”

All she’s doing is creating a false picture as a pretext to shift responsibility away from collective action and the public sphere, to individuals and private ownership. Hence the policies against unions and the rhetoric about “government is the problem.”

It’s complete BS. Always has been. — Xtrix

You see my problem? The Thatcher position is much easier to articulate and is elegant to read and hear. Yours is jagged and defensive. 'Complete BS' is not an argument.

Can you write a paragraph of simple elegance to rival hers, from a communitarian perspective?

As someone who has advised governments and fought neoliberal excesses here, I have tried for years and have found it difficult.

I'm European, most governments in Europe aren't really socialist at this point. — ChatteringMonkey

What are they? Or, more precisely, what were they before the recent response to immigration? The reason I ask is, I want some of that, and yet my fellow Americans scream "Socialism" at the top of their lungs whenever anyone mentions the tax rates and benefits in the rest of the developed world.

Socialist movement were fiercely anti-clerical, they sure did have a big hand in secularisation... and failed to provide a alternative story that inspired forming communities around. — ChatteringMonkey

That almost sounds like communism.

What are they? Or, more precisely, what were they before the recent response to immigration? The reason I ask is, I want some of that, and yet my fellow Americans scream "Socialism" at the top of their lungs whenever anyone mentions the tax rates and benefits in the rest of the developed world. — James Riley

Well what we have is not the accomplishment of current socialist parties, but something socialist, Christian-democrats and liberals worked out after WWII. What they are now is hard to tell actually, they have been part of the establishment so long now that that's probably what defines them the most... another faction trying to keep themselves in power.

But yeah, I get that you are sceptical of the 'socialism scare' that has been promoted in the US since the cold war. I'm not coming from that point of view.

You see my problem? The Thatcher position is much easier to articulate and is elegant to read and hear. Yours is jagged and defensive. 'Complete BS' is not an argument.

Can you write a paragraph of simple elegance to rival hers, from a communitarian perspective?

As someone who has advised governments and fought neoliberal excesses here, I have tried for years and have found it difficult. — Tom Storm

That's different. If you want slogans and propaganda, there are all kinds out there. Plenty to rival Thatchers. "Things are better together" -- simple, easy. Strength in numbers. "We are the 99%". Resist "divide and conquer." "Come together" (to quote the Beatles). Whatever you like.

If you can't find that stuff, you're not looking hard enough. And frankly, I don't think Thatchers paragraph is very "elegant" at all. Not just grammatically but also in content. But to each his own.

No much of an argument to respond to here. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that socialism was instrumental in tearing down existing societal structures... like say religious institutions. — ChatteringMonkey

So's capitalism, for that matter. Capitalism is also responsible for far more deaths, if that's how we want to measure things. But that's not really the point.

The point you are making (one which I agree with to be clear) has implication, not mere eventualities or risks... and I'm not sure people realise this and/or are willing to accept those implications. — ChatteringMonkey

I really don't see the difference in the words, as they're all effects of choices and actions, but fine -- yes, there are also "implications." There are also "implications" in deciding whether to take the bus to work or not. There are implications for voting, for protesting, for living alone in the woods. I don't understand why you choose to point out truisms here.

The point is that we've been brainwashed, for 40 years, to believe that an ideal of life is to be an individual consumer and to disassociate from others, whether it be from unions or political involvement or community organizing. Which is exactly what the plutocratic class wants and has encouraged. No conspiracy, just an obvious reflection of the ideology of the powerful.

I agree with you point, and I was looking to take it bit further... but it's fine, we can leave it at this. — ChatteringMonkey

If you want to take it a bit further, I don't see how pointing out that there are "implications" involved in shifting the focus away from rugged individualism, of which we've internalized over the last 40 years, and towards collective action, solidarity, unionization, organization, etc., is doing so. But perhaps I'm missing something.

That's different. If you want slogans and propaganda, there are all kinds out there. Plenty to rival Thatchers. "Things are better together" -- simple, easy. Strength in numbers. "We are the 99%". Resist "divide and conquer." "Come together" (to quote the Beatles). Whatever you like.

If you can't find that stuff, you're not looking hard enough. And frankly, I don't think Thatchers paragraph is very "elegant" at all. Not just grammatically but also in content. But to each his own. — Xtrix

No one is looking for slogans - did I even mention that word? Nor did I say I can't find useful paragraphs elsewhere. What I said was, I bet you would struggle write a simple elegant paragraph articulating community over individualism in the manner of that speech of Thatcher's. Whatever you may think of her she and her team had a solid grasp of communication. To this day her ideas resonate and it is not just a media and oligarchical conspiracy. And I say this as someone who is not a fan of MT.

What I said was, I bet you would struggle write a simple elegant paragraph articulating community over individualism in the manner of that speech of Thatcher's. Whatever you may think of her she and her team had a solid grasp of communication. — Tom Storm

Again, I really don't see the paragraph you mentioned as all that eloquent and, frankly, not very impressive. The fact that it resonates -- true, but so did Donald Trump's speeches. "We're gonna build a wall and Mexico will pay for it, because they're sending over rapists and drugs."

But yes, speechwriters are hired for a reason, and proponents of neoliberalism are very good at propaganda. Was this really your only point? In that case: yes, agreed.

What I said was, I bet you would struggle write a simple elegant paragraph articulating community over individualism in the manner of that speech of Thatcher's. — Tom Storm

Telling people what they want to hear has always had an easier go of it, especially with those a mile wide and an inch deep. (I'm talking about you.)

In any case, it has very much managed to seep into all of us to some extent or other. It may be starting to crack, as evidenced by Biden's agenda, which far, far from ideal, is a step away from austerity. — Manuel

Yes, and that's encouraging. That in fact was the hope -- that he could be pushed towards more progressive policies. So far there's only proposals, which are still short of ideal, and some haven't been pushed hard enough -- but it's a start. It's light years away from anything that would have happened under Trump, where we would not only not have these proposals, we'd be fending off attempts to go in the opposite direction. People still don't realize just how dangerous that would have been, and how important it was to vote him out. Which is very discouraging.

Thanks for the book recommendations.

What's so individualistic about being poor, unless this is just trite satire?

Telling people what they want to hear has always had an easier go of it, especially with those a mile wide and an inch deep. (I'm talking about you.) — James Riley

But Thatcher did not tell the voters what they wanted to hear. What is fascinating is how neoliberalism has made people vote against their own interests, through ideas such as her paragraph above. It isn't in anyone's interests to minimize community. But the ideas grab hold of people.

proponents of neoliberalism are very good at propaganda. Was this really your only point? In that case: yes, agreed. — Xtrix

It's much deeper than this. The mainstream Left seems to have been bad at articulating rival narratives. And there is no question that Murdoch hasn't helped. I don't wish to dwell on this.

What's so individualistic about being poor, unless this is just trite satire? — Shawn

Who said being poor was "individualistic"? What are you talking about?

Who said being poor was "individualistic"? What are you talking about? — Xtrix

It's promoted as the title of your thread:

"Socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor."

But Thatcher did not tell the voters what they wanted to hear. What is fascinating is how neoliberalism has made people vote against their own interests, through ideas such as her paragraph above. It isn't in anyone's interests to minimize community. But the ideas grab hold of people. — Tom Storm

I think you are confusing what people want to hear with what they need to hear. People like to think of themselves as rugged individualists, risk-taking, bootstrapping, captains of daring-do. And even if they are content, they will champion those who they perceive to be championing the myth they tell themselves about themselves, especially when a boogey man is coming to take what think they got on their own, with the sweat of their own brow and thier superior knowledge and work ethic. She told them what they wanted to hear and that's an easier haul than telling them they are dummies getting screwed by charlatans. Nobody wants to think they've been had.

I don't think you're understanding that quotation.

Martin Luther King isn't saying that being poor is individualistic, he's exposing a common attitude taken by those in power: they decry socialism and encourage "rugged individualism." In reality, it's actually the reverse of that -- i.e., what we actually have is socialism for the rich, where they get tax cuts, subsidies, bailouts, and protections, while the poor are told to be rugged individuals who shouldn't be asking for handouts from the "Welfare state."

I don't think you're understanding that quotation.

Martin Luther King isn't say that being poor is individualistic, he's exposing a common attitude taken by those in power: they decry socialism and encourage "rugged individualism." In reality, it's actually the reverse of that -- i.e., what we actually have is socialism for the rich, where they get tax cuts, subsidies, bailouts, and protections, while the poor are told to be rugged individuals who shouldn't be asking for handouts from the "Welfare state." — Xtrix

Yeah, so I'm asking what's so individualistic about being poor? Are you only arguing for what the right tells to do?

Maybe for some. I have sometimes advised on government policy to both political parties and it is clear that off the record Labor guys will tell you that the right has easier arguments to articulate.