It was not so much window-dressing as it was an attempt to climb out of a number of ideological failures: the failure of state socialism, the failure of social democracy, and the popularity of the opposition parties. So while it tried to steal the idea of free markets from their opponents, it retained the collectivism and statism, and that’s where we’re at today.

So while it tried to steal the idea of free markets from their opponents, it retained the collectivism and statism, and that’s where we’re at today. — NOS4A2

Oh you mean the "opponents" that run to the state for bailouts and subsidies at every turn? Those statists and socialists?

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were neoliberals. Obvious from their policies. The rest is your own strange semantic contortions and residual Cold-War era fear of communism, apparently.

Yes that is what i meant. The ideology of it imo is based on the policies that were put in place so i agree with you on the policy aspect.

Oh you mean the "opponents" that run to the state for bailouts and subsidies at every turn? Those statists and socialists?

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were neoliberals. Obvious from their policies. The rest is your own strange semantic contortions and residual Cold-War era fear of communism, apparently.

I’m speaking of those in the state who give bailouts and subsidies. Milton Friedman said we don’t need central banks, that if it was up to him he would have abolished the Federal Reserve and the IMF, and was against conditional loans for their undemocratic character. The Washington Consensus was not a consensus, was short-lived, and the author left out supply-side economics, monetarism and small state policies that someone like Friedman seemed to prefer. So it beggars belief that all roads lead back to someone like Friedman or Hayek or… Pat Buchanan?. Politicians like Reagan and Thatcher appear as exceptions to the rule.

Not only that, but most of it disguises the failures of Keynesianism, of Marxist-Leninism, of socialism and social democracy, of Labour, as if these had nothing to do with the political triangulation of left-wing politicians, who needed to abandon some core tenets and adopt the principles of their enemies in order to regain power.

The “opposition parties” you speak of didn’t exist then. Because neither they nor Labour nor the democrats nixed subsidies or bailouts— from Reagan to Thatcher to Blair to Clinton to Bush and Obama.

In Friedman’s free market fantasies, perhaps things could have turned out well — who knows. Pretty much reduce the government to enforcers of contracts and private property laws, perhaps the military. It's never happened, so it's a nice story to tell while the ruling class transfers $50 from the working and middle classes to themselves over 40 years. Same with claims about "socialism" and communism and Marxism, incidentally -- it's a nice story to tell as you implement varying degrees of state capitalist policies, whether in Russia or China or Cuba or Sweden. But what Marx advocated for has never been tried.

Of the two, I opt for what socialism always meant: worker control of enterprise. Democracy through and through, including at work. Pretty simple.

adopt the principles of their enemies — NOS4A2

Again -- what principles? There's rhetoric, sure. Based on real policies, however -- no different than anyone else. But not only did they "steal" the rhetoric, they implemented the neoliberal policies I've referred to. Clinton is a prime example. He didn't just steal the "government is the problem" slogan ("The era of big government is over"), he got NAFTA through and deregulated industries far and wide -- from telecommunications to Wall Street.

So it beggars belief that all roads lead back to someone like Friedman or Hayek or… Pat Buchanan?. — NOS4A2

Yeah, but no one is saying all roads like back to Hayek or Friedman. Their ideas were very useful to the neoliberal assault, and they approved of a great deal of it.