Clinton and Obama were neoliberals as well, yes. — Xtrix

More precise would be to talk of Democrats trying to adapt to a neoliberal global economy.

But are they really Reaganites? Did they have the same discourse? Rosy small government speak?

Don't forget socialism. — James Riley

Harry S. Truman, October 10th 1952.

HA! That's perfect, @James Riley, absolutely perfect.

It’s a regretful quote. “Socialism” fits better than “progress”.

That's a bit shallow, sought, don't you think, ? Drop "the common good" sloganeering, et voilà, sewage systems and clean water is common good. Not sure why you'd complain about that. It's not particularly about "the state" either, but about doing them. We can, and do, figure out common good.

Except neoliberalism is a socioeconomic program that we've been living with for 40 years — Xtrix

Calling basically globalization a socioeconomic program isn't the way I would put it. But of course some want to see it as this "specific program" instigated by (whoever they don't like) to the entire globe. Anyone will do to be neoliberal, just if they are in power and the economy policy hasn't been the one in Venezuela.

It’s a regretful quote. — NOS4A2

On the contrary. A Democrat with balls saying the truth. And of course, why wouldn't Truman be for the New Deal? Odd if he would be against it. Tells actually also a lot about the Democrats, in fact.

It’s a regretful quote. “Socialism” fits better than “progress”. — NOS4A2

Speaking of progress, as I remember it, the lilly-livered left ran from the honorable term "liberal" when Newt, Limbaugh, and crew spit it out like a dirty word. Rather than punch those fucks in the face and wrap themselves in "liberal" like a Republican in a flag, they scurried around and scrounged up the word "progressive" as their new self-identifier. Whatever. Only a fascist would consider "socialism" better than "progress." "Liberal is the proper word. Indeed, all the good progress that man has ever made was brought to us by liberals, over the kicking and screaming of contemporary conservatives. Then, when conservatives realized they were wrong, and grew to love the new thing, they now hold on tight to it when liberals bring on the best new thing. Rinse, repeat.

Except neoliberalism is a socioeconomic program that we've been living with for 40 years
— Xtrix
Calling basically globalization a socioeconomic program isn't the way I would put it. — ssu

That's because neoliberalism is not the same as globalization. Neoliberalism is a program involving deregulating industry, cutting taxes, and increasing privatization.

Neoliberalism is a program involving deregulating industry, cutting taxes, and increasing privatization. — Xtrix

You're just making this up as you go. :lol:

Speaking of progress, as I remember it, the lilly-livered left ran from the honorable term "liberal" when Newt, Limbaugh, and crew spit it out like a dirty word. — James Riley

This country leans conservative, beyond a doubt. It's our puritanical heritage. NOS is just confused because neoliberalism contains the word "liberal." Yet he's a neoliberal himself, being in favor of the deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts that it involves -- all under the guise of shrinking "big government," of course.

It's a great trick. Lewis Powell goes over the plan pretty well.

You'll figure it out eventually. Read the Harvey book.

You first.

That's because neoliberalism is not the same as globalization. Neoliberalism is a program involving deregulating industry, cutting taxes, and increasing privatization. — Xtrix

And what do you think has been the engine for globalization, for companies going off to other countries at ease other than the deregulation of industry, cutting taxes, making the trade barriers go away? Sorry, but having more trade has also made the World more prosperous.

Besides, a change that has happened all over the World isn't because one specific program (by Reagan and Thatcher). The changes have happened in China (that is still controlled by the CCP) and India, various countries lead by social democrats etc. It's a myth that there's this "neoliberal program" just like it is a myth that Universities have been taken over a program of the Frankfurt School: a broad loose change thought to be implemented by a small cabal that fits a specific narrative.

There's an established meaning in political science what neo-liberal policies entail and that's basically the free capitalism thinking of the time of robber barons: minimal government and everything that goes with that such as deregulation and low taxes.

It's hard to imagine any more uninformed and ignorant takes than "neoliberalism = more free trade". The idea that there has not been a neoliberal program is the stupidest of them all.

:up:

Globalization allowed liberalism to be disembedded. It was a tool for undermining labor.

Pretty much. Fascism, socialism, communism get thrown around all the time by those who don't have a clue about what they mean. — Xtrix

That's because they're all based on the same flaw: the use of government as a tool to impose subjective views on others. Whether they are views of ultranationailsm, egalitarianism, collectivism, philanthropy - it doesn't matter. It's all based on the same lack of awareness of the subjectiveness of one's views, which, if understood, would automatically disqualify those views as being suitable to be imposed on others.

"I have views and I want the rest of the world to act in accordance with them." It's simple will to power, sometimes with a pretense, like socialism, to soothe the conscience.

All of these systems rely on big governments, because they're all trying the same thing: to make the world act in accordance with their subjective views - something which can only be achieved through the copious use of force, until eventually reality catches up with it (not to mention the more powerful a government is, the quicker it shall fall prey to corruption).

I hope this is his rationale for saying he will run again at 83. I do wish he had picked a more charismatic heir apparent.

It's all based on the same lack of awareness of the subjectiveness of one's views, which, if understood, would automatically disqualify those views as being suitable to be imposed on others. — Tzeentch

Okay, assuming that is correct, I don't think being aware of the subjectiveness of ones will to power to automatically qualifies one's views as being suitable to be imposed on others. To paraphrase Genghis Khan, the greatest happiness is scatter your enemies and drive them before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes and his loved ones shrouded in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters.

So, what's the alternative? No government at all? How would that be enforced when confronting a will to power?

It would seem a pretense, like socialism, would be better than anything else we've come up with. Unless we could make a religion out of worshipping the Earth. Even then, there are going to be issues.

So, one more time, what is the alternative?

And what do you think has been the engine for globalization, for companies going off to other countries at ease other than the deregulation of industry, cutting taxes, making the trade barriers go away? — ssu

It’s not that globalization doesn’t exist. Globalization in itself is not neoliberalism.

The national engine was the financialization of the economy. It’s the most mobile of industries.

Sorry, but having more trade has also made the World more prosperous. — ssu

What they call “trade,” for example in NAFTA, is a complete disaster for the economy.

What’s made the world more “prosperous” is the millions of people that have come out of poverty in China and within the Asian tigers. Odd that we’d attribute that to neoliberal capitalism. Looks like it involved massive state intervention to me.

It's a myth that there's this "neoliberal program" — ssu

It’s not a myth, it’s a very real set of policies systematically implemented over 40 years. It begins with Pinochet, Reagan, and Thatcher — that doesn’t mean there’s a “cabal” out there. This isn’t a conspiracy theory.

Pretty much. Fascism, socialism, communism get thrown around all the time by those who don't have a clue about what they mean.
— Xtrix

That's because they're all based on the same flaw: the use of government as a tool to impose subjective views on others. — Tzeentch

The biggest and most deadly being capitalism, of course — with better propaganda; propaganda that tells people (like you) that the government should be small and that this means freedom. Small for the population, that is— not for business. The state should be a corporate welfare state— and that’s what we have. Vehemently defended by Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman “free market” capitalists like you, naturally. All why decrying “socialism” and “big government.” It’s always quite a sight.

To paraphrase Genghis Khan, the greatest happiness is scatter your enemies and drive them before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes and his loved ones shrouded in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters. — James Riley

I thought that was Conan the Barbarian. :lol:

So, what's the alternative? — James Riley

The alternative is to not impose one's views on others.

If one comes to the conclusion that is incompatible with politics, then don't partake in politics.

One's alternative is not to associate with, defend or support a system that is fundamentally flawed.

But if your question is, what alternative is there for man should he be hellbent on maintaining a system that is fundamentally flawed, then the entire state apparatus should be drenched in the awareness of the very thin moral line it is treading between being a necessary evil and a birthplace of tyranny. The United States was, and certain European countries were, but where there is power there is corruption, and even countries built upon the right principles will eventually fall, as the US and Europe have. Corruption - another fatal flaw of power structures.

You ask me for solutions, but I cannot fix something that is broken. I can only distance myself from it.

The biggest and most deadly being capitalism — Xtrix

I think that is demonstrably untrue, by a very large margin. But no system is perfect, and no system that relies on the use of force to obtain compliance ever will be.

Vehemently defended by Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman “free market” capitalists like you. — Xtrix

Me, a capitalist?

You must not know me very well. :chin:

You ask me for solutions, but I cannot fix something that is broken. I can only distance myself from it. — Tzeentch

Probably should have lead with that, but thanks. Sounds like Street. A list of alternatives that are not alternatives.

At least you gave a tip 'o the hat what the U.S. used to be. The aspirational stuff in the organic documents is still there, as a template for the people, if they ever decide to take their country back from the Plutocracy.

But if it's irreparably broke, and everyone just distances themselves from it, we'll just have rinse-repeat with no progress. I say give the kids a chance. After all, that arc keep bending, albeit slowly.

Not looking for a fight this morning. Just wonder what all the critics have in mind.

I thought that was Conan the Barbarian. :lol: — Xtrix

They stole it from the original. 1210, if I recollect correct. Not that I was there, but I saw it on t-shirt attributed to the Khan. :grin:

P.S. Just found this: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/5272307.Genghis_Khan

The biggest and most deadly being capitalism
— Xtrix

I think that is demonstrably untrue, by a very large margin. — Tzeentch

For those with eyes closed, I guess.

I believe that power can be justified and legitimate. Some forms of social organization is important -- not necessarily a nation-state, but some kind of organization. The way US society is organized now is that there is very limited representative democracy for our political system and a neo-feudal, wage-slavery economic system where there is no democracy allowed.

Libertarians want to shift power away from "big government," and endlessly yap about how big government limits our "freedom," and are completely silent about the economic system. It's striking.

On the contrary. A Democrat with balls saying the truth. And of course, why wouldn't Truman be for the New Deal? Odd if he would be against it. Tells actually also a lot about the Democrats, in fact.

He was equating a massive transfer of wealth and power with “every advance the people have made in the last 20 years”. As is common, he confuses the state’s aggrandizement with that of their subjects. Insofar as socialism routinely pretends that state ownership is social ownership, his critics are not far off the mark.

He was equating a massive transfer of wealth — NOS4A2

The New Deal was supposed to push the economy out of depression so someone could actually accumulate wealth. It wasn't socialism.

Sure, it arrived at a time when people were nervous about having to pay the just penalty of their collective ignorance and greed. There is no better way to absolve man of his failings than to devise a state program to cover for him.

Sure, it arrived at a time when people were nervous about having to pay the just penalty of their collective ignorance and greed. — NOS4A2

This comment suggests you have some ideas about what caused the Great Depression. What dastardly deeds were done?

There is no better way to absolve man of his failings than to devise a state program to cover for him. — NOS4A2

What was the failing? I know what Marx would have said. I'm just wondering how your story differs.

it arrived at a time when people were nervous about having to pay the just penalty of their collective ignorance and greed. — NOS4A2

"People" did indeed pay a penalty for the greed and stupidity of the capitalist class who caused the depression, yes.