(Some) ignorant leftbros: "Class first! No idpol!"
Scholars of right wing politics/economics: "All these right-wing thinkers are much more comfortable thinking about the blurred lines between sexual and economic politics than many thinkers on the left. And they understand that Keynesianism rests on a certain kind of sexual contract. Any challenge to this order—whether it be an escalation of wage or benefit claims, or the flight from sexual normativity, or unmarried women claiming welfare benefits—disrupts the fiscal and monetary calculus on which Keynesianism rests."
Above remark from "The Extravagances of Neoliberalism", an interview of Melinda Cooper (author of "Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance") by Benjamin Kunkel, in The Baffler.
Jonathan Chait is real mad that leftists aren't taking liberal shit anymore. I got the link from archive.is to avoid giving his BS any extra clicks. It's way longer than it needs to be. This paragraph caught my attention though because it's at least an attempt at clarifying what liberals see as leftism and why they're wrong (which is why they should shut the fuck up, because they have been proven so very fucking wrong, so often, and for so long):
I don’t want to bore you...
lol
by attempting the umpteenth definition of liberalism,
Funny how liberals hate defining liberalism
so I will lay out the distinction as briefly as possible. On economic questions, leftists have an overwhelming bias for state action over markets, while liberals are more selective.
This is incorrect. Leftists differ radically on how much state action over markets is needed. What unites leftists is the belief that we need democracy in economic realms as well as political ones. (I personally don't accept fully authoritarian MLs as leftists, one can debate that, but that's where I stand.) Liberals think it's just fine for us to have democratic politics but for most people to work for institutions that are run as dictatorships.
...On politics, liberals take very seriously notions of individual rights and universally applicable principles, while leftists tend to criticize political liberalism as a recipe for maintaining inequalities of power between the privileged and the oppressed.
Sort of true, but Chait tellingly leaves out the substance of the leftist critique, the reason why they think that political liberalism is a recipe for maintaining inequality, to wit: the lack of democracy in most people's workplaces. If economic power is concentrated while political power is distributed, then inevitably political power will become concentrated as well. Because money is power.
Anyway, Chait hates "Solidarity" the book and he also hates solidarity the concept. Of course he gets paid to represent left-of-center thought at major USA publications. Feel free to discuss your disgust for this type of guy further in replies.
"There is a reason for these broken promises and dysfunctions, which explains why the UK suffers more from them than most comparable nations. It’s called neoliberalism.|
"We're also competing against a lot of people in politics who come along and say... it's those rich people's fault, we'll just take even more money off them and give it to you."
This is the fundamental lie of neoliberal politics. A total inversion of the truth, which is that neoliberal parties say 'it's those poor people's fault, we'll just take the money off them and give it to you', and they do.
"breaking Scotland from the shackles of #neoliberal thinking should be very high on its agenda, and yet it keeps getting leaders who seem more than happy to embrace that approach, and make Scotland suffer for it" – @RichardJMurphy
"I get sick every time I go to the doctor that I still get subsidised and I can't opt out of the system. Now that's wrong. I was trying to take the welfare state off the middle class."
What this atomised mindset misses is that it's not her being subsidised, it's the doctor's surgery. If you want to contribute more according to your means, you do that by raising taxes, in ways that target those on higher incomes.
L'idea che il neoliberismo si sia imposto grazie ad una manciata di figure chiave (Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet) è a sua volta una fantasia neoliberale, perché rinforza l'idea che gli individui da soli (grazie al loro carisma e alle loro abilità) riescano a cambiare il mondo.
In realtà l'ideologia neoliberale si è imposta (e continua ad imporsi) grazie ai think-thank e alle fondazioni degli ultra-miliardari (e a tutto un reticolo di centri di potere). Dietro singoli rappresentanti ci sono sempre grandi gruppi.
Quando dite di voler pisciare sulla tomba di Margareth Thatcher, lei vi sorride dall'aldilà, perché è riuscita a colonizzare anche il vostro dissenso. È quello il segnale: hanno vinto loro.
"Governments since 1979 have either promoted neoliberalism and austerity (Thatcher, Cameron), or promoted neoliberalism and increased spending (Blair). Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour offered an end to neoliberalism, and more spending. Keir Starmer’s Labour is offering something radically new: a turn against neoliberalism, combined with a worsening of austerity. Nothing like this has been seen before in Britain"
James Meadway
In case you feel like climbing on board a 787 or 737 Max in the next little while... this might disabuse you of such a consideration:
“Discussing Swampy’s death and the whistleblower lawsuit he left behind, the longtime former Boeing executive told me, “I don’t think one can be cynical enough when it comes to these guys.” Did that mean he thought Boeing assassinated Swampy? “It’s a top-secret military contractor, remember; there are spies everywhere,” he replied. More importantly, he added, “there is a principle in American law that there is no such thing as an accidental death during the commission of a felony. Let’s say you rob a bank and while traveling at high speed in the getaway you run down a pedestrian and kill them. That’s second-degree murder at the very least.””
Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader ed. by Alfredo Saad-Filho & Deborah Johnston
Neoliberalism is the dominant ideology shaping our world today. It dictates the policies of governments, and shapes the actions of key institutions such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank and European Central Bank. Its political and economic implications can hardly be overstated.
It reminded me how contested and poorly documented NZ's political-economic history remains. To the enduring benefit of neoliberal ideologues, who still claim that Rogernomics and Ruthenasia were an unavoidable fix to problems created by Muldoonism.
We live in a country where I can: go out in public with a highly infectious, deadly disease, intentionally (forcibly) infect, harm, and potentially kill my fellow citizens.
...And I'd never be charged with a single crime.
I'd been seen as a good, freedom loving patriot, backed by the government.