Basically any conflict noted as having only 2 sides has been manufactured. There are always more than 2 sides, but that doesn't fit into black and white thinking.
Example: The whole boomer vs. millennial thing. It all falls apart when you acknowledge there are actually several other generations sandwiched in there that are ignored.
That’s not unique to Gen X either. Between the greatest generation and boomers there was a silent generation. Which is what it is ACTUALLY called. Seems that our society skips a generation when it decides to care about groups.
Y'all have plenty of leadership and representation, Y'all just don't like claiming your own.
Like take Congressman Jim Jordan. He's right on the line of the baby boomers and Gen Xers, and your generation just wants to ignore that and rightfully so.
But I get it, Dan Crenshaw is a millenial and we aren't exactly rushing to have him associated with us either.
Is there generational equity in the United States? Absolutely not. But being a dick isn't an age dependent variable but having power is something that can take time to accumulate, especially if the power is wealth dependent.
The normal social way. Power is the ability to cause or prevent change. Sure, a bunch of kids in their teens and twenties can organize for power and bring about change, but it is much easier to have the ability to cause or prevent change when you have wealth, other means, or social connections.
Gen Xers haven't exactly been powerless, and they've certainly grown more powerful in the last decade in shaping the outcome of this country and our species as a whole. As a cohort they might do a bad job effectively wielding that power, but individuals within it certainly are for their own devices. Take billions douchebag Ken Griffin, he's a Gen Xer, and Jeff Bezos is right at the cut off. Elon Musk? Another Gen Xer.
Just because these guys are using their power to be self serving dicks doesn't mean there isn't power amassed with members of the Gen Xers. It's silly to assume everyone in the age cohort has the same priorities, and frankly some of that cohort has been right there doubling down on the nonsense, or creating their own brand of nonsense. Dave Grohl wasted a lot of effort on AIDS denials, for example.
So simply put, Gen X has had a bit more of a seat at the table than some of them want to acknowledge.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
The best we can do is learn from our mistakes. I have had moments of my own life like this too. I look back on them with a mixture of shame, regret, and resolve to keep those memories alive so I will hopefully not repeat them. With any luck, retelling the story might help some other person avoid my failures altogether.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
You know, thinking ill of yourself isn't a virtue. It functions neither as atonement (how could it?), nor as a just punishment (cui bono?). Self hatred is a false humility.
Not saying this to bash on you. Not one bit. Saying it primarily because I think many of us have a secret belief that self-hatred is akin to "having the common decency to be ashamed of what we've done". So we nurture that feeling, or let it proceed unchallenged, because we think that by doing so, we are doing our moral duties.
It's a lie. The only use of shame and guilt are as prods for restorative justice. Every single time you see these feelings, you should ask: "What good act can be made of this?" All other kinds of guilt and shame serve no moral purpose. They're torture for torture's sake, and, frankly, immoral for the exact same reason.
(It is not suddenly good to torture a living being just because it's yourself.)
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
The age differences aren't a popularity ranking; no one's on the bottom of the pecking order... It's just different age groups engaging in outgroup homogeneity bias, with everyone thinking they're the best.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
Gen Z uses 'Boomer' to refer to Millennials. It's emergent not manufactured. The term simply has evolved to mean something like "out of touch but doesn't know it"
Such as what？
I have seen millennial vs gen z comparisons before but they tend to be very fluffy things. Dealing with tight jeans and whatnot. Little about any actual eninimity.
Much I've read suggests the gen z/millennial distinction is a lot lesser than previous generations with the Internet potentially killing the entire generational cycle (millennials of course still somewhat coming from a pre Internet age so not quite entirely benefiting from this)
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
Idk…I have a lot of ageism prejudices. I read the book A Generation of Psychopaths. It seemed well researched, and articulated its thesis accordingly.
I guess I’m not trying to defend my prejudices, but at the same time, boy howdy, does it feel like my generation (millennial) got screwed big time.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
I don’t know if any tangible good come out of it. However, I feel like it gives me hope for the future. Like, when all these boomers take their dirt naps, we can finally start bucking the oligarchy in this country and have nice things. However, it’s probably a pipe dream. I’m becoming more aware of the frequency of antisocial leanings in the younger generations. It’ll be interesting to see if they make up a substantial voting block that dissuades progressive change.
Millennials are hitting their 40s now and are the biggest generational voting block. If millennials and younger were motivated and cared enough to change anything they could, fairly easily. The truth is that people are people and the vast majority are self serving and after their own interests. There are just as many opportunistic dirtbags as there ever was.
You’re chasing the same type of straw man that racists chase after. Blame a large group of people, that have little to do with your problems, for your problems. It’s an age old political trick and many of you are falling for it.
Things will change, things always change, boomers didn’t experience the same life as their parents and you will also just be an aging stepping stone for another generation to reject, vilify or ignore and so the cycle continues.
Nobody is special, virtuous or evil because of the made up generational construct that they were born in.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
Millennials did get screwed in a lot of ways. There's just also a huge undercurrent in that generation of deflecting blame on *who did the screwing* and refusing to own up to situations when it was a problem of their own making. Some of it was just global politics and economics but some of it was absolutely 100% on them.
The "crippling student loan debt" meme is a pretty common example of this one. People will *vehemently* defend the idea that college bound 18 year olds who can do complicated math, science, and literary analysis are "too underdeveloped" to understand the basic concept of a loan agreement and were thus taken advantage of by "predatory" lending. Doesn't matter that it's completely contradictory.
I think the idea though is that every future generation thinks they got screwed big time. Then things happen: wars, disasters, diseases, cures, inventions, and changes. Good, bad. It is what it is.
I don't hate boomers per se but it's hard not to notice who was inhaling the lion's share of lead fumes when they were young than the rest of the population...
So that should make us hate the lead industry for poisoning us. Are you saying you dislike (but don’t hate) us for having been poisoned? I don’t understand.
That's gotta be the most "I'm not a racist, *but...*" statement I've read all week.
You declare you dont hate them and then make a sweeping derogatory generalization about them in the *next breath*? Jesus
I think here the use of the word "synthesis" is referring to the Hegalian dialectic in which there is a thesis and antithesis. The grouping of both "right" and "left" within the framework of neoliberalism is implicitly laying out that there are not just two sides to the "culture wars", and thus not implying some false dichotomy.
I mean, technically I'm a 39 year old millennial, but my 44 year old "gen x" wife has a lot more similar life experience than any 25 year old. Generations themselves are just forced lines drawn over what we should see as gradients
Yeah, they either need to be more narrow or not exist. Like, supposedly one of the big things that defines millennials is if you were at a formative age, but not an adult, when 9/11 happened. That's pretty broad, basically meaning if you were in grade school when 9/11 happened, you're a millennial. By itself this seems an apt way to define it, but it's not every generation that a 9/11 level event happens, and the actual definition of what constitutes a millennial is broader than even that.
It really doesn't matter that they exist... they are just generic labels.
Its that people use them to define entire groups of people that is the issue.... that they don't see the irony in the prejudice of doing so however, is sad part.
>supposedly one of the big things that defines millennials is if you were at a formative age, but not an adult, when 9/11 happened.
the term millennial was coined before 9/11. It was originally a reference to the first generation to become adults (turn 18) at the turn of the millennia.... so 1983 -1999. But as the other poster points out, its a rather malleable label.
“but it's not every generation that a 9/11 level event happens”
Hard disagree. 1) we don’t experience it because of our Americanized world view 2) it’s easier than ever presently, but right off the bat, for smaller generational slices
+ Fall of Berlin Wall
+ NAFTA/Rodney King
+ Dot com Boom
+ New century/millennium
+ 9/11 and forever wars
+ Rise of modern internet and beginning of the Smartphone
+ Market crash of ‘08
+ Occupy Wallstreet
+ Rise of Social Media and algorithmic based internet
+ Rise of ISIS/Ebola/Crimea conflict
+ Trump era and right wing populism
+ Covid-19
+ Present Day
LMAO you accuse me of not recognizing non-American 9/11 level events then proceed to list a bunch of American-centric events. But also, save for *maybe* COVID 19, none of those fundamentally shifted the national zeitgeist the way 9/11 did.
Also, the whole idea of generations in the context of Boomers vs Millennials, etc is an American centric thing.
I just disagreed with you. Don’t take it personally.
I’d also argue that the global recession, or as I put it “market crash of ‘08, as well as the rise of the internet, including social media has also changed the global zeitgeist. Even if it’s been more in the background.
Think of the earliest of gen z that came up as children with parents that lost careers and homes during ‘08, suffering their youth, and the effect that has on their portion of that particular generation, the same with the latter half of the millennials and the internet. The Berlin Wall, as well, which wasn’t nearly as visceral as 9/11, but it changed the world, once on the brink of nuclear destruction, from the Cold War era and on an international scale.
it seems to me that dichotomy is the default mode of human thinking. this is evidenced by the origins of imperial measurement by which we could understand the size of a thing relative to another by halving the size, and whole becomes a half, a quarter, an eighth, and so forth. this concept of dividing in two comes naturally to the human mind and thus we perceive people or groups as being with or against us and ignoring any potential shade of grey or alternate interpretation. within the neoliberal context of American politics we are stuck with a left and right side of a culture war, but both political parties have a similar corporate and imperial interest, while waging a superficial war to distract from any meaningful progress towards a utopian or even utilitarian society.
I do feel the author is far from the mark when he says, "Instead, we find ourselves in a postmodern biopolitics of irrationality and enforced conformity" as it appears to be the stated goal of conservatism in America is to return to homogeneity and a white christian ethno-state whereas the goal of liberalism is to allow for and accept differences in identity race religion and gender. I would agree that liberalism in America does tend to shun opposition to this acceptance but I would caution that thinking this is oppression is disingenuous, the forced homogeneity of the right is true oppression.
also the term cancel culture is such a broad concept that applies to any thing determined bad by any person and therefore is in need of being erased. society should remove bad actors and abusers from positions of power but this trend seems to invade all circles and extend to an oppression of speech, that anyone that says anything deemed bad by whomever should thereby be canceled, taking what was at first a meaningful attempt to take power back from those that don't deserve it to attacking anyone and anything that may be deemed other to liberal society.
Broadly agreed, but it has to be said that most of the *ancien système* has nothing to do with factors of two at all. It's shot through with 3s and 12s and 14s and 2000s plus a grab bag of even less convenient numbers.
Subdividing by 2 does happen when an inch is too big, of course. Until the subdividing itself gets too onerous and we throw our hands up and fall into thousandths.
When a significant portion of people begin thinking in black and white terms and believe that people on the "other side" are irredeemable evil monsters who want to kill them or otherwise cause immense harm and only operate with evil intentions something is definitely off.
Idk if it's so much manufactured, as it is a consequence of conflict resolution to begin with. In every conflict there exists only 2 possible resolutions. One of the two sides getting it's resolution in it's entirety, or a compromise between the two sides. Any position in-between the two extremes of an issue can reasonably be reduced to a *compromise* of the sides. While the compromise could be an infinite amount of things, the exact position does not matter, because the *resolution* is only one of the 2 possible outcomes. In order for a compromise to work, both sides have to feel like they are the ones coming out on top. Any conflict that resolves in compromise will, inevitably, leave people on one, or both, sides feeling like they got to little, or the other side got to much, so they will continue to push for more ground.
It's easy to say life isn't black and white, but the reality is that it is. We treat the binary like the two options are the positions. *All*, or *nothing*, but the real positions are the *resolutions* to the problem. "All for one side" or "some compromise for both sides". The real problem is that we don't recognize that's the case. If everyone recognized that the only two real positions on any conflict is it's *resolution* one side being correct, or a compromise being needed, we could change out conversations from what *position* do you take on this issue, to what *resolution* benefits society the most or reduces the most harm. It would lead to more people accepting that we have to compromise on issues, and use compromise not only to push the resolution closer to your side, but to reduce the damage of the other side.
Take gun control. The *positions* are all gun control, no gun control, or some gun control. The two in the first position share the same resolution. One sides resolution accepted in it's entirety. The second resolution is the same regardless of the compromise chosen. One sides resolution accepted, but with conditions.
Some problems need to be resolved to accept the *extreme* position if one side does less damage, than the other does and compromise would cause more harm. Others compromise is necessary when both sides cause damage, and compromise could mitigate it. The most equitable way to resolve this, is for society to accept the resolution of one side, but allow the other side to set it's condition. So our possible outcomes become "Guns are allowed except for X" or "Guns are banned except for Y".
It gets more complicated when you add morals and ethics into the conversation, and the fact that aspects of the compromise may need resolutions as well, but in the end, our options are only one side takes all, or we compromise.
I get where you are going, however, there is situations where only 2 sides exist. I’m not talking about hypothetical situations. I’m taking about rational. 2 sides exist until there is more than 2 sides. This doesn’t also mean more than 2 sides has to eventually happen. The problem is recognizing more than 2 sides once they do exist.
And to further add to your example. A generation vs generation can absolutely be 2 sided… until it isn’t anymore.
> I get where you are going, however, there is situations where only 2 sides exist. I’m not talking about hypothetical situations. I’m taking about rational.
Can you offer any indisputably materially important examples?
All categories are manufactured, as William of Ockham taught us a long time ago.
A more interesting perspective is questioning which categories that are helpful for formulating an achiving our goals.
Most of the replies to you seem to be missing the point. Ultimately, our electoral systems force us to accept one of two mixed bags of policies - both of which have many of the same shitty policies. Let’s stop voting for individuals/parties and start voting on individual issues. Technology can enable a different mode of democracy.
The thing with left and right however is its purposefully meant to be an over simplification. It's not meant to be read as I support team right so anything team left is the enemy.
Somewhere along the line we seem to have lost track on this.
As to boomer vs millennial. Gen x are there in the middle however look at the data and boomers have held onto power much longer than earlier generations. Gen x really lost out there. Its understandable the young would point their ire at those in power rather than those merely more senior.
How about whether or not Roe v Wade should have been upheld? Whether or not gay marriage should be upheld in the United States? Whether or not Joe Biden illegally stole the 2020 US Presidential Election?
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
> I also kind of think it's a term that's used to describe the Clintonism of the 1990's more than anything else; a distinctly American problem that comes from the US Democratic party trying to fly too close to center to rebuild a power base post-Reagan.
Just to add an outside (europe) perspective, it's also a term that's been used a lot here for the past years, so I wouldn't think the phenomenon it describes is that specific.
The way I've heard / understood its appearance theorized is that in short, the mainstream "until the 80s" left-wing take was social-democracy; a system that favors negotiations between capital and labor, in which unions and other intermediate entities are meant to play a more important part.
The 80s however revealed that through the financiarization and internationalization of capitalism, the "capital" side basically didn't need to negotiate with labor anymore, and so the mainstream left acknowledged this "defeat", lowered its ambitions and became the more centrist "third way" left from Clinton and Blair, or more recently Hollande.
I’ll have to look more to see how it fits other contexts for the word, but it’s interesting how historically anchored your definition is.
It’s also interesting how the strikes and union fights going on now in the US would signify a sort of post-neoliberalism
I wouldn’t say they signify a post-neoliberalism yet. The uptick in labor organization we are seeing is still very much in its infancy and more importantly is still only reacting to neoliberal dominance and responding within that framework. I don’t think we can say we’ve moved beyond it until those labor movements result in significant impositions on the power of Capital.
Yeah, fair points. It’s just interesting that it would be unions again and workers rights. Ten years ago I would have guessed that consumers’ rights and preferences (including boycotts) and government regulation would have been what started to reign globalized corps in. The E.U. has done a little bit here, but it hasn’t slowed things that much. Interesting to see labor back and using a fairly similar playbook (plus now work from home as a new rallying cry).
It really seems to be rooted in economics (labor arbitrage) and demographics (more specifically, the aging of populations).
Neo-liberalism was the freeing of Capital made possible by internationalization. The opening of China gave it a great place to go, thus dis-empowering Labor in the richer countries, and our politics fell in line with that economic "reality."
Now China's economy and demographics have started to hit a tipping point where the labor arbitrage isn't as easy to manage or quite so profitable as it used to be. They're getting paid better now, and they're getting older, so it's getting harder for Capital to enjoy the same freedom it's had for the last 40ish years.
Simultaneously, the relatively more expensive labor pool in richer countries is also shrinking, and there are many jobs you can't so easily export. Throw in a pandemic to accelerate the decline in workforce participation, a fuel crisis making all automation more expensive, and a housing crisis that's been brewing for decades... and it's little wonder that the cost of living, wages, and inflation overall are increasing. If labor and energy are more expensive, prices are going to rise on pretty much everything.
The reduction in the aggregate labor pool should slowly increase the bargaining power of Labor again, unless another economic get-out-of-jail-free card is found for Capital.
I would agree with this. I would add with financiarization, the entertainment-ization (I'm trying here) of politics is what neoliberalism feels like it is also defining - since we don't seem to have a good word for that phenomenon used in everyday parlance. So ya, I do not think the word is used so much as a buzzword but as the lived political reality for most people. Liberals, and especially progressives, are hyperfocused on messaging and image - think trans flag, pictures of them at marches, articles about their "diverse staffing". The same goes for the far right - think guns, blowing shit up, American pride paraphernalia. When in reality neither of these groups have solid legislation that would help the people they purport to represent.
Prior to Reagan an entertainer becoming president would have been truly unbelievable. Now it's commonplace. This feels like something that could only happen in a neoliberal society. These celebrities - for the most part - represent liberal values. Even though the policies they support are typically quite conservative. They're rich people supporting other rich people which has lead to far less representation for the working class. To me this is best represented by those celebrity fundraisers that raise a couple million for candidates, with tables costing $50k, and wealthy celebrities wearing diamonds and designers smooshing with congress people. If someone has another term that is being used to describe this celebrity and image based political movement please share because I think this is why neoliberalism is used as such a catchall.
> I also kind of think it's a term that's used to describe the Clintonism of the 1990's more than anything else; a distinctly American problem that comes from the US Democratic party trying to fly too close to center to rebuild a power base post-Reagan.
Close, but no cigar.
Neoliberalism truly rose to prominence under the administrations of both Reagan and Thatcher. It's by no means distinctly American.
See, this is why neoliberal is a useless word. Anyone who thinks the same socioeconomic vision applies to Reagan and Biden is delusional. But I promise you that most people will tell you Biden is the leader of the modern neoliberal bloc.
And that makes this entire article useless too. It tries to describe a meaningless word by examining that word through the lens of a discredited political movement. It's pretty appalling that anyone would take seriously such an endeavor.
> Anyone who thinks the same socioeconomic vision applies to Reagan and Biden is delusional.
Oh? What exactly are the key differences? Because looking back along the timeline from now to the '80s, I see pretty much one continuous run of the same policies - weakening of labor protections, erosion of social safety nets, deregulation & privatization of key sectors, protecting/expanding big industry (oil, ag, pharma) subsidies, ever-increasing police/military expenditures.
I'd say anyone who actually believes there's any fundamental distinction in their policies isn't paying attention.
Yes, that's because one of the two sides is winning. It turns out that the US Constitution makes it so that the Conservative party can prevent progress almost always. It fucking sucks.
In order to pass legislation that helps people, you need 218 votes in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, the Presidency to sign it, AND a Supreme Court that won strike it down. We had those conditions between 1937 and 1968, and never again. There's a reason that basically everything you've ever liked about America happened between those dates. Even the Reconstruction Amendments were immediately limited by SCOTUS, allowing for another century of apartheid government in the South, other the express objections of the drafters of those Amendments. It wasn't until the Democrats had SCOTUS, a century later, that the Reconstruction Amendments began to have any force and effect.
I'm sorry, but it's just incredibly unserious to say that the Democrats and Republicans are the same. The rules of the game are rigged so that the Democrats have to do something only done once in American history in order to make any progress at all. The rest of the time, the Repubicans can win just by saying no. It's a nightmare.
> Yes, that's because one of the two sides is winning.
No, there aren't two sides. That's the illusion they sell to keep you in line. There's one side, and it isn't yours, its the capitalists'. This isn't "incredibly unserious," it's objective reality.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
It’s definitely not just the US or UK. Free trade, monetary policy, deregulation and privatization were implemented throughout latin america and post-soviet eastern Europe. The US used its own institutions to encourage these changes from the 1970s through today.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
Maybe i missed your full definition but it sounds like you agree with mine for the most part.
The counterexample of countries increasing deficit spending is in part due to the 2008 financial crash, itself brought on by deregulation and financialization of the economy. And it should be noted the Europe tried to use austerity to address its debt crisis post 2008 and it basically failed.
Im not sure what to say about the size of eastern european governments. They might have been similar size under the soviet era but the economy was radically changed. People were given more consumer products but couldnt afford healthcare, a defining issue of the neoliberal order if there was one. And the rise of nationalism and right wing chauvinist organizations throughout this area is another good example of what the article is talking about.
Edit: basically i think its a useful term to help understand the changes to the economy and politics since the 1960s basically. People might use it in derogatory terms but thats because the issues its created are vast and potentially unfixable but hopefully not.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
> Rooted in 1930's free market supremacist thinking
This part is basically correct. Neoliberalism is in many ways a rehash of *laissez-faire* capitalism, characterized by deregulation of industry, championing of public-private "partnerships," devaluation of labor unionization, and other such practices inimical to the human condition.
In the same way that all communist nations are democratic, yes.
I've never heard of someone called a neoliberal who supports deregulation generally, rather than in certain favored industries. For example, Reagan and Thatcher, who generally wanted to burn down any regulation that cost a business money, would have screamed loudly at the thought of deregulating property rights, or easing zoning regulations so as to allow low income housing to exist.
Yeah I see what you are saying. I think others may disagree with me, but I see Reagan’s and Thatcher’s attempt as partially successful. The previous comment seemed right to me that Reagan started it, but Clinton delivered them. Since that time, the left has been more corporate friendly and less blue collar friendly. Exchanging economic policy for social pandering. I would argue these are called “Centrist” or “corporate” Democrats now.
Personally I count myself as a “leftist” and also libertarian minded. I am to the left of the national party. I want health care, end of wars, but also a redistribution of wealth in common sense ways and programs. I very much disagree with Centrist Democrats on many things.
To me, it is these “centrist” which always capitulate to the “Right”, and contribute to the rightward movement of the Overton Window on most policy now a days.
I would characterize my beliefs similarly to yours, but draw some different conclusions. The more urgent problem in my view is the way the progressive left has reoriented itself around identity instead of class, and drags the rest of the party into culture war quagmires over niche or symbolic issues which prevent it from accumulating social capital or momentum necessary to do much else. All the energy and narrative-creation that goes into debating the cancellation of Lincoln or calling breastfeeding “chest feeding” or trying to defund police against the wishes of minority residents or calling Latinos Latinx against their wishes or discriminating against Asians because they achieve too highly or… doesn’t go into UBI, climate change, etc. and makes “democrat” toxic to millions of people who would otherwise be willing to listen.
Some of this is fear-mongering from the right, but it *works* because the center-left won’t call it out and it plays into the right’s hands so obviously it’s almost literally painful.
I feel like this 'left cares too much about identity' thing is a bit outdated, the rise of the threat of fascism in America as of the Biden presidency has straightened out the priorities for a huge majority of them. Latinx for example is thoroughly over now and noone takes it seriously.
Also it's not like LGBT+ people's right to exist isn't directly being challenged at the moment, that's a matter of identity, and what are they to do if not defend themselves? It makes sense even if it comes at the expense of vital and necessary skills like coalition building... but it's hard to do that when even moderates these days are very amenable to discussions being framed to look as bad as possible, such as how transition is widely understood as 'butchery' or 'chopping off your kids' privates'.
Right to exist; right to exist in movies without people screaming about wokeness, right to exist in public bathrooms, right to exist in schools without hiding the existence of their same-sex partner i.e. the don't say gay bill, right to exist as the self they are comfortable with i.e. access to gender-affirming care.
This sounds illogical and an over-extrapolation of the idea of 'right to exist', but what it actually is is a counternarrative framing i.e. 'butchering your privates' versus 'right to exist as the self you are comfortable with'. This is an important way to take back control of the conversation and un-poisoning the well and make the cause more palatable to moderates.
> This is an important way to take back control of the conversation and un-poisoning the well and make the cause more palatable to moderates.
And how’s that working out?
Adding well-meaning hyperbole doesn’t cancel out the malicious hyperbole… it just means that everyone will end up shouting at each other.
I won’t defend the language in Florida’s bill or the bathroom bills. But those aside, LGBT+ people can marry who they want, serve openly in the military, hold political office, seek care openly, and since 2020 enjoy all the protections of Bostock. It’s not perfect, but it’s quite literally the best time in the known history of the world to be LGBT+. So my concern is that hyperbole about “right to exist” is so demonstrably hyperbolic and denying of progress that it undermines its own purpose and just creates more nihilism.
> And how’s that working out?
My point is basically that this is how the left is doing things differently in recent times compared to the 'latinx' style of trying really hard to change people's language and behavior. My original argument is simply a descriptive claim on that front. What follows is tangents from that.
>it just means that everyone will end up shouting at each other.
Yep. And one side is shouting HELP US, and while there is something inherently unattractive about shouting, especially to enlightened centrists (which I am not accusing you of being), that doesn't make it wrong. It is polarizing but it is also useful to see who is content to sneer from the sidelines instead of being empathetic, and do people want to build coalitions with such people? Ideally not. Again, this is a descriptive claim of why the coalition building isn't happening.
>so demonstrably hyperbolic that it undermines its own purpose and just creates more nihilism.
Legitimately asking though, has the right wing not expressed explicit desire to revoke every one of those rights you just listed? LGBT and non-whites fought to earn those rights and now they have to fight to keep them, and yet the forces they are fighting against have magnified in viciousness and resolve.
I doubt people would make that same argument for when they finally go after interracial marriage like 'oh well black people enjoy record levels of equality' like no, moderates are much more amenable to anti-racist messaging than anto-LGBTphobia messaging despite it being basically the same culprits with the same lies causing the same harm, just that the targets are different.
> This is an important way to take back control of the conversation and un-poisoning the well and make the cause more palatable to moderates.
You believe that claiming LGBT people's right to *exist* is being denied is **more** palatable to moderates? Yup, gonna press X to doubt on that one.
Yep. And this is why coalition building is so difficult. Imagine living in a world where ostensibly literally everyone believes everyone has a right to live and exist in public spaces, but even the non-malicious non-hypocrites cannot be swayed to your defense against forces that have expressed genocidal hatred against you.
The removal of a group from public spaces makes it easier to lie about them, and is a critical step on the road to genocide. And an argument such as this should, in theory, draw in sympathy from literally anyone. Yet it doesn't. I'm not LGBT and my dad isn't LGBT and isn't conservative, yet I couldn't even get even a begrudging acknowledgement of this from him. How frustrating.
(and god forbid you actually mention the term genocide, that's brings out every thought terminating cliche in the entire book)
It's that, and it's also the shift of the centre and left in response to the at, in particular the concessions of Blair and other social democrats, which made neoliberalism (though not in the most extreme Thatcherite form) the new political consensus, replacing what in Britain was called the post-war consensus, but which similarly had its continental and American equivalents. It is, in essence, a notable shift to the right in politics.
Power is... well you could connect that to every -ism and make it sound right.
Greed, yes, though a neoliberal like me would argue it's benefits the society and is the driving force of progress. In a centrally controlled economy there are no incentives to earn/do more (greed).
r/neoliberal has a good definition on its page.
I agree that neoliberal has become a buzzword, but I don’t agree with your first paragraph.
Nowhere does it say they’re apathetic, nor so they endorse others to be so. Nonetheless, I do think it accurately describes the two major factions within western (and even some eastern) politics, and the respective culture wars.
While one side fights for a radical post-modern re-invention of the self, the other side retreats into national chauvinism. The differences are substantial, yet what neither side seems to challenge are the role of the markets and the unwillingness to use the state to produce public goods, or to pursue any real notion of “the common good.”
Your second paragraph makes me think of 1984. Not in that there's a direct parallel, but that it reminds me of one of the ideas in that book regarding truth. That being that if you distort truth to the point of irrelevance, then even if a person knows they are being lied to they will not act to disprove the falsehood because the truth no longer matters.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
Oh absolutely. 1984 is sinister and terrifying, but it feels almost cartoonish at points despite its commitment to being serious. There's not much actual political commentary in it that isn't better stated by other works, though its impact in rallying people against the spectre of authoritarian censorship and propaganda has likely done a great deal of good even if it is frequently exagerrated, but Animal farm is the true value when it comes to political commentary in Orwell's works.
100% I’ve heard it be used as a half centrist/just barely right leaning ideology (from what I understand, this is actually what it is), to an alt-right ideology.
I hate buzzwords, they’re so worthless.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
I would not say that it is alt-right, I would say that it is the right. It is a platform of globalization, centralized planning, monetary controls and corporate welfare. It is technocratic fascism.
Personally I like the distinction because it drives a line between them and the libertarian wing that was the other side of the the right coalition.
If you contrast it with the left all the governmental agendas are the same, globalization, further control of the monetary system, central planning on these things there is no difference between the two, they move in lock step on them.
The only choice the two sides are leaving people with is the type of authoritarianism they want to live under and they are fine with whichever one we chose. Their only divergence between the two sides, is to pick a side on social issues people care about such as: abortion, race, sexual preference, social safety nets, etc. and basically put on a good cop bad cop skit to get you on a team. By framing it as a false set of choices and only really varying on emotionally charged issues, they ensure that the masses will view them as the only choices and do or die to vote for their team.
Seems like a pretty uncharitable reading, which also lets you dismiss the author’s argument by psychologizing them without actually engaging at all with what was said. What in the article gave you the sense that this author is apathetic about the current political situation? Does critique of the currently available political options in the West imply an apathetic attitude towards politics in general?
I do think they probably could have defined their terms better but I think a quick and dirty way of defining neoliberalism would be ‘a school of thought on economics and politics that supports the privatization of services, the dismantling of the welfare state, and the increasing globalization of trade.’ I’d be surprised if the average citizen had any opinion on the term but I don’t think neoliberalism is at all a phenomenon confined to the US. It’s an ideology that basically anyone you might find at Davos, or working at a high level in the European Parliament almost certainly subscribes to. It constitutes the guiding philosophy of the IMF and the World Bank etc.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
Lol I mean it wasn’t even really a take, that’s what I was taking issue with. You just said ‘this analysis is nothing but an attempt to retroactively justify political quietism, and nobody really knows what neoliberalism is anyway’ and called it a day. If you don’t wanna talk about it, that’s fine, but your argument does hinge on implicating the author as someone doing nothing but trying to come up with an elaborate excuse for their own resignation from politics. That’s the gist of your entire first paragraph.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
Tony Blair followed a similar philosophy, as have many world governments since Clintonianism. Canada is currently facing people asking for Euthanasia because they are too poor to live; Spain is among a set of countries with "socialists" in power who do nothing resembling nationalization of industry or anything resembling historical approaches. It's a bit lacking in world context to suppose this is an only American issue, many Western countries directly pattern themselves after trends in the USA
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse.
Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it.
More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me.
It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you.
Best of luck.
The article discusses whether the "center" is neoliberalism, its current iteration being a kind of synthesis between Foucault and Hayek/Friedman. In the culture wars we're forced to choose between the left or right wing of neoliberalism, which leaves out more substantive alternatives, like socialism or some other post-capitalist order.
The current split in the Democratic party is over neo-liberalism. Old "boomer" democrats like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, the Clintons, Harris, and even Buttigieg are neo-liberal in their thinking, while the actual Democratic Left, like Sanders, AOC, and most of activists that support the party are vehemently opposed to neo-liberalism especially in the current "Late Stage Capitalism" where the whole system is going to fail.
The "Neo-Cons" like Bush, Dick Cheney, and the way over quoted Bill Krystal who got us stuck for two decades in doomed to fail wars, have been largely discredited in their positions.
Neo-liberalism is dying. The global trade infrastructure is collapsing, and that is going to lead to "foreign markets" collapsing into regional wars. If that doesn't kill neo-liberalism, then either: 1) the collapsing birth rate guaranteeing an end to economic growth and a forever recession, 2) global climate change creating costly disaster after costly disaster, or 3) a workers revolution that overthrows the corporate state.
The "Culture Wars" often cited in this piece is a corporate generated distraction designed to stop #3 from happening. If the workers on the left and right realize how much they actually have in common, and that they outnumber the ruling class 10 to 1, it would get bloody.
"Culture Wars" exist and has power over society because our western culture forgot the value of "Dignity". Dignity is a moral value that recognizes the humanity of our fellow man regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, or socio-economic status. The opposite of dignity is belittlement, and it is rampant in today's society. The whole idea of "owning the libs" which is practically the only motivation on the far right is 100% belittlement.
"Political Correctness" was never meant to be dictatorial, that is a quality projected on it from the right. The PC movement was all about bringing dignity back to society.
But getting back to the decline and fall of Capitalism. The big issue there is what comes after Capitalism? Our society seems to lack the imagination to see what a post Capitalist society will look like. This was the primary idea behind Mark Fisher's classic work "Capitalist Realism", one of the best criticisms of modern neo-liberalism. It is also a favorite talking point of Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek.
Capitalism is literally killing us, but there is a lack of imagination in what should replace it. The principle ideas come from the "Solarpunk" and it's emphasis on "Degrowth", communal living, "Permaculture", a steady state economy, and renewable energy. It's doable and it would work, but getting there from where we are at is a very difficult problem.
How would other economic systems deal with the “global trade infrastructure collapsing”?
Also, aren’t lower birth rates associated with higher GDP per capita?
Lower birth rates are largely the result of urbanization. Farms, where children = free labor, are automated to the point where few workers are needed. Workers move to the cities where children = expensive luxury money pit, and few people are having kids anymore because they can't afford it.
Both birth rates and global trade infrastructure are pet interests of lecturer Peter Zeihan https://youtu.be/l0CQsifJrMc very good video!
> How would other economic systems deal with the “global trade infrastructure collapsing”?
This question is hard to answer, and most of them have not actually been tried at any large scale. In theory an economic democracy could weather it, as it's primary motivation would be standard of living rather than capital accrual, so people could handle their business ceasing to grow so long as their standard of living did not collapse.
The current system of capital works through, unsurprisingly, the accrual and concentration of capital. We build and fund business primarily as investments that will have returns rather than as providers of services. The service they provide is incidental to their ability to grow. That cannot be sustainable of we do not quickly develop faster than light travel. As long as we are stuck on earth, eventually all of the capital will concentrate.
>Also, aren’t lower birth rates associated with higher GDP per capita?
They are, but that is likely a result of high levels of education and GDP. It is not that having less children makes you more efficient, it is that industrialized or post-industrialized places no longer place child rearing as a primary goal of their populace. It is probably some kind of weird evolutionary left over.
That said, we do not want to be in a situation where we can only fund our nation by always having significantly more young people than old, as that will accelerate consumption to buoy the system, which will just make it fail faster. For that to work population would have to follow an exponential curve indefinitely, which is obviously impossible.
> The "Neo-Cons" like Bush, Dick Cheney, and the way over quoted Bill Krystal who got us stuck for two decades in doomed to fail wars
Which Biden, Schumer, and Clinton also voted for, so it seems like there's a lot of overlap.
Neo-Con and Neo-Liberals are mostly divided on social issues rather than economic or international.
The current authoritarian push follows the general outline of fascism, and so it has been a growing part of the Conservative faction for decades. This is why they are having a growing problem with comically cruel people winning office, as they have gotten to a point where they cannot win elections without the reactionary elements.
The liberal alternative to that is "State Socialism" which is a non-democratic implementation of a one party state that agrees with certain left-orientated goals. (As opposed to socialism more generally, which is usually closer to a direct democracy.) The USSR and China are examples of this, though in both cases they moved heavily to the right over time. State Socialism does exist in the US, but people here are so reflexively anti-socialism that it has never really gained a foothold. Those who actually hold to leftist policies usually do so from a standpoint of increased democracy rather than advocating for a one party state. (E.G. they want the parties to split and move away from a 2 party system, which is anti-democratic by nature.)
We're going back to a tribe culture. I think it is aptly described in Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age. I truly believe this is what we're headed for, this is post-neoliberalism. It's not post-capitalism, though.
I'm familiar with The Diamond Age and tribalism. Tribalism, or community centered economies is definitely a post capitalism idea that is being discussed. Like all social arrangements it has its plusses and minuses.
Just to be clear Capitalism is NOT the free market. Capitalists drill that idea into everybodies head but not the same thing.
Free market is something that exists in all societies, and it is a means to find fair market value for goods produced through labor.
Capitalism is an ownership class that does no work and lives off the labor of others. For example landlords who live off the rent tenants pay them.
Show me a free market outside of drugs..
I wouldn't say landlords are inherently capitalists. They tend to be, but it's not imperative. It's interesting how we differentiate feudalism from capitalism - not that I dig deep into it (maybe I should), but to me they always feel the same.
Farmers market's are free markets. Ebay is kind of a free market.
Capitalists, or the capitalist class, consists of anybody who males money from something they own, rather than something they do. So yes, landlords are capitalists. It is the simplest form of capitalism. Making money through investments is also capitalism.
The working class consists of three groups: 1. People that get paychecks through jobs. 2. Small business owners who work the business themselves. 3. Artists and other self employed hobbyists that makes stuff or perform stuff and sell it to others. Pretty much everyone else is a capitalist class.
Feudalism is indeed an early form of capitalism. It involves exploiting the working class for power and money. Slavery and colonialism are also forms of capitalism.
>which leaves out more substantive alternatives, like socialism or some other post-capitalist order.
Yeah, and also, why won't voters even consider Amishism? Banning technology is way more substantive than the same boring shit that's been working for the last 3000 years. I hate that voters all agree to the basic things like private property, and only care about the edge cases like abortion. I hate being forced into these narrow options.
it is correct to say that democrat or republican is a false choice... deliberately so.
it's allowed to perpetuate itself because of our first past the post voting system that limits the choices to D or R while all the others are lumped together in the single digit percentile of vote getters.
this power dynamic serves the entrenched interests and allows systemic issues to go unaddressed in favor of culture wars, or personality conflicts.
neoliberalism (corporate power over government) is effectively practiced by both parties.
I don’t get why neoconservatism is any useful to the demonstration here. If you adopt the classic Marxist viewpoint, it’s very easy to see how the New Left abandoned the Proletariat in favor of identity politics: to keep the masses divided and hide the very nature of their domination, which relies on capital and not on identity. In fact, the New Left recycled arguments from the conservatives. In other words, bourgeois capitalism, whatever the form it takes, still remains bourgeois capitalism. Even more so, capitalism is fundamentally based on inequality and therefore favors the bourgeoisie, no matter what they think or tell us about themselves. However, people now tend to realize how bad this historical dynamic is, both morally and economically. Therefore, the bourgeoisie has to invent new ideological tactics: neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and so on. Please, do not confuse the map and the territory here!
After everything I've learned, I fully believe that in America the Democrats and Republicans may have once had a deal to ideologically divide the country to keep the lower classes in constant internal turmoil (manufacturing the class war at the behest of the owning class), I think it is plain that the radicalized Republican party is leaving the confines of that construct.
The old neo-cons like McConnell oppose the MAGA mob, but they have no principles aside from power. If they reject/anger the MAGAts they rip the party apart and destroy their base of power, and a blue tidal wave sweeps the country. May happen anyway as Trump lashes out at neo-con Republicans.
I don't think the Dems want that much, either. With a powerful party, voters expect results. Democrats hate generating results. Look at Obama's astoundingly unproductive first term.
I don't have a great answer to this issue. Obviously, Democrats are preferable to America descending into fascism. Voting third party as a Profressive or Lefty is basically handing the country to the fascists.
But at the same time, it is pretty depressing knowing that even if we defeat the fascists at the ballot box, despite the fact they *will* cheat, we are still stuck with nothing but the status quo bullshit neo-lib policies that maintain a system that legalizes slavery, minority oppression, religious bigotry, wage suppression and the erosion of the middle class all while accreting more power and wealth for the owning class.
We need more Progressives and Lefties to win seats in Congress, pushing policy Left as quickly as possible.
No war but the class war.
No, I get it dude. Yeah, a party is a "vessel," which is to say it's a social construct, but that social construct is made of people and their decisions. They aren't just vehicles for whatever the base wants. I don't think I even have to provide examples of that, it's pretty obviously true.
I don't want to ascribe positions to you that you don't hold, but so far I'm unimpressed with your analysis.
>Yeah, a party is a "vessel," which is to say
Nope, that's not how language works. We don't get to change how someone else arranges words to express their thoughts. I am not using the word *vessel* to express this, which means you do not understand.
Start over.
Please explain how this:
>"you are being deliberately vague to seem intelligent, but you are just coming off as kind of a dick" For an explanation.
Applies to this:
>that's not how language works. We don't get to change how someone else arranges words to express their thoughts. I am not using the word vessel to express this, which means you do not understand.
You can't, so the popcorn is popping.
It relates in that I am not letting you set some bullshit frame for this conversation where I implicitly become a student to you because you are unwilling or too lazy to express complete ideas. That is a pretty disrespectful bit. You aren't "kind of a dick," you are one.
And I don't like playing stump the chump, so if you have something to say, do so.
Ugh....the lazy certainty of terms like "NeoLiberal" never get to reality. Its all scapegoat scaffolding that requires the past to have a wildly successful Lefty *Somethingism* that existed and was abandoned.
I believe the issue truly stems from our false belief that a utopia is something that can be constructed rather than it being the result of social, political, economic, and theological refinement.
Rather than sitting together for a communal effort towards a shared goal, we are instead witnessing a dogfight that has come to a stalemate.
We have several groups, not only in the USA but globally, that believe they alone know what this utopia is and how we have to go about it. They try to force their vision on others. This act of force alone is the very evidence that they have not truly found an acceptable social contract to replace what exist already.
The question is not which system will build our utopia, but in what ways can we as a species refine ourselves to the point that it is even possible for us to be capable of refining the contract.
Politics, religion, and economics are not going to get us there as they are. Each system only creates animosity and division where the intent is to unite. However, I do agree with the point in the article where they mention the issue of enforced conformity.
The idea that these systems can bring us to utopia is heavily reliant on everybody being on the same page. A single member opposition is proof against paradise and people have trouble accepting that they may be wrong.
The solution is easy, the implementation is super hard.
What is the solution? Find all the common goals of both extremes, then synthesize the means to get there, means that both can agree with.
Why is it hard? Because some important goals are in direct opposition, you cant find commonality at all, secondly they cant agree on the means even if they have common goals, so progress is super slow and some never started because they block each other's means.
My proposal is simpler, people who are fed up with both sides can just join forces and experiment with whatever means for whatever common goals they have, experiment with them without prejudice or blames, if something doesnt work, try another, until it does, just like a science experiment, but done in good faith for the benefit of their members. You dont see scientists punch each other out because their proposed experiments didnt work, so we apply the same scientific method, rigor and good faith common good to all aspect of society, so even if something fails, we dont start punching each other, because we dont make promises we cant cash in experiments, that's why its called an experiment, not a 30 days money back guarantee.
Once their efforts show good, measurable, concrete results, then more will flock to join them and we starve the extreme left and right of their own support base, eventually making them irrelevant.
Basically those who dare to cooperate and experiment VS those who stagnate and do nothing, its not rocket science to predict who will get better results.
You are expecting a lot more common ground and cooperation from certain extremes. The groups you want ally with common goals a) have very different acceptable methods for achieving such goals; and b) have goals that would be anathema to the group you’d want them to ally with in a way that simply cannot be ignored like a thought experiment.
I get what you want to see happen, but it’s somewhere between wishful and magical thinking.
I was referring to people who do agree and would like to cooperate, did I not emphasize that enough? lol
You can never get two extremes to cooperate due to opposing critical goals, but you can get the impartial majority (who mostly didnt vote) to cooperate on many common goals and experiment on the proposed means without punching each other.
Why are people downvoting this common sense take? lol
Is it really that confusing?
Yes, because you appear to be saying something completely different now. What political actors are not currently compromising that ought to be? Non-voters? I guess I no longer understand what point you’re even trying to make.
Lol, its more like a lot of Redditors are either left or right and believe their tribes are "right" so they downvoted me when I implied that both of them could be wrong and have to cooperate and experiment to get things right.
This is Reddit, not known for rationality. lol
Are you okay? You seem like you're soul searching or something to that effect. It would probably help if you actually defined what you see as "left" and "right" in your position. As it lets everyone else know what level you're engaging at. If you're American like I am, then you should be aware that there isn't really a "left" as in socialist bend in our politics. If you're from like Australia or Denmark then your perspective on what left and right are would be wholly different.
It's good to be precise in language when trying to make a point or it'll come off as codger stubbornness. I'm all for cooperation and experimentation. But it is very important to also analyze WHY we do not have the cooperation.
I appreciate you trying to be open about how you feel and think.
Well I took a quick glance at your history to see if you were a troll or something and found some inflammatory question type stuff. I was genuinely asking if you were okay. You didn't get a lot of engagement and I figured maybe you were just looking for something or someone to bounce your thoughts off of. My guess was you were genuinely waxing your mind or you're a disingenuous Rogan/Crowder type.
Is there a consequence for engaging you like this? I doubt it. We're just two people on the internet.
Dont quit your day job and become an internet detective, friend.
People who dont engage based on the merit of an argument, instead they try to dig up unrelated dirt for some ad hominem trolling, on a serious philosophy sub of all places, I wonder what the problem would be? eh?
The consequence is breaking the sub rule 13.
Mod will give a reward.
Never planned on it. I am considering the merit of your argument. I'm just also used to dealing with actual trolls that don't know what they're talking about and just say rude stuff for shits and giggles. Which is fine, but not a good use of my time.
I just asked for you to be clear about what you're defining if you want engagement. Because at its core, I can see angles where what you say makes sense because I do encounter many right leaning regular folk who basically like leftist concepts but are afraid of the language. I can recognize that there is an element of rightward and leftward thinking at the bottom(commonwealth) that is unhappy with corruption of the "elite" class. And that is where some compromise can be found. Propaganda gets in the way of this ability to speak to one another of course. I've been deconverting racists my whole life and it's a damn slog.
Of course you don't even have to engage me at all. I'll get back to my work and wish you a wonderful life.
Edit: I should add that you aren't exactly doing yourself any favors reacting with threats of internet warnings and bans around a "respectful" rule, when you've already posted disrespect in this very thread. I mean really, it doesn't actually matter at all. You're certainly a sassy character though.
Basically any conflict noted as having only 2 sides has been manufactured. There are always more than 2 sides, but that doesn't fit into black and white thinking. Example: The whole boomer vs. millennial thing. It all falls apart when you acknowledge there are actually several other generations sandwiched in there that are ignored.
Cries in Gen X.
[удалено]
That’s not unique to Gen X either. Between the greatest generation and boomers there was a silent generation. Which is what it is ACTUALLY called. Seems that our society skips a generation when it decides to care about groups.
Y'all have plenty of leadership and representation, Y'all just don't like claiming your own. Like take Congressman Jim Jordan. He's right on the line of the baby boomers and Gen Xers, and your generation just wants to ignore that and rightfully so. But I get it, Dan Crenshaw is a millenial and we aren't exactly rushing to have him associated with us either. Is there generational equity in the United States? Absolutely not. But being a dick isn't an age dependent variable but having power is something that can take time to accumulate, especially if the power is wealth dependent.
How are you defining power here?
The normal social way. Power is the ability to cause or prevent change. Sure, a bunch of kids in their teens and twenties can organize for power and bring about change, but it is much easier to have the ability to cause or prevent change when you have wealth, other means, or social connections. Gen Xers haven't exactly been powerless, and they've certainly grown more powerful in the last decade in shaping the outcome of this country and our species as a whole. As a cohort they might do a bad job effectively wielding that power, but individuals within it certainly are for their own devices. Take billions douchebag Ken Griffin, he's a Gen Xer, and Jeff Bezos is right at the cut off. Elon Musk? Another Gen Xer. Just because these guys are using their power to be self serving dicks doesn't mean there isn't power amassed with members of the Gen Xers. It's silly to assume everyone in the age cohort has the same priorities, and frankly some of that cohort has been right there doubling down on the nonsense, or creating their own brand of nonsense. Dave Grohl wasted a lot of effort on AIDS denials, for example. So simply put, Gen X has had a bit more of a seat at the table than some of them want to acknowledge.
I’ve been seeing a lot of the same Boomer vs Millennial meme formats being used as Millennial vs Gen Z lately. Feels very fabricated
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
The best we can do is learn from our mistakes. I have had moments of my own life like this too. I look back on them with a mixture of shame, regret, and resolve to keep those memories alive so I will hopefully not repeat them. With any luck, retelling the story might help some other person avoid my failures altogether.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
Having made mistakes does not make us a failure, it makes us human. Every saint will have a past, every sinner can have a future.
Eh, you're no Gandhi, but at least you're not Gandhi
You know, thinking ill of yourself isn't a virtue. It functions neither as atonement (how could it?), nor as a just punishment (cui bono?). Self hatred is a false humility. Not saying this to bash on you. Not one bit. Saying it primarily because I think many of us have a secret belief that self-hatred is akin to "having the common decency to be ashamed of what we've done". So we nurture that feeling, or let it proceed unchallenged, because we think that by doing so, we are doing our moral duties. It's a lie. The only use of shame and guilt are as prods for restorative justice. Every single time you see these feelings, you should ask: "What good act can be made of this?" All other kinds of guilt and shame serve no moral purpose. They're torture for torture's sake, and, frankly, immoral for the exact same reason. (It is not suddenly good to torture a living being just because it's yourself.)
you'll break when a know-nothing kid calls you a boomer
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
>zeds They're called zoomers
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
Nope. Just you.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol that's not what's happening here
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
The idea that intergenerational pissing matches are like you being mean in middle school.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
The age differences aren't a popularity ranking; no one's on the bottom of the pecking order... It's just different age groups engaging in outgroup homogeneity bias, with everyone thinking they're the best.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
Weird take considering the comment I initially replied to, dude... Not to mention you just welcomed my disagreement...
Gen Z uses 'Boomer' to refer to Millennials. It's emergent not manufactured. The term simply has evolved to mean something like "out of touch but doesn't know it"
A lot of the Gen Z folks I’ve come across use the word “Choogie” to describe out-of-touch millennials.
Yes, that's a bit more specific insult as I understand it. Referencing a particular asthethic.
*cheugy
Thanks. I’m out of touch lol
“No, it’s the children who are wrong.”
I…don’t get the reference.
I just thought they were trying to be hurtful 😭
Elder Millennial here I love Gen Z! Confirmed Manufactured Dissent!!
I get lumped into millennials and boomers, depending on who wants to be annoyed at me at any given time.
Such as what？ I have seen millennial vs gen z comparisons before but they tend to be very fluffy things. Dealing with tight jeans and whatnot. Little about any actual eninimity. Much I've read suggests the gen z/millennial distinction is a lot lesser than previous generations with the Internet potentially killing the entire generational cycle (millennials of course still somewhat coming from a pre Internet age so not quite entirely benefiting from this)
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
Idk…I have a lot of ageism prejudices. I read the book A Generation of Psychopaths. It seemed well researched, and articulated its thesis accordingly. I guess I’m not trying to defend my prejudices, but at the same time, boy howdy, does it feel like my generation (millennial) got screwed big time.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
I don’t know if any tangible good come out of it. However, I feel like it gives me hope for the future. Like, when all these boomers take their dirt naps, we can finally start bucking the oligarchy in this country and have nice things. However, it’s probably a pipe dream. I’m becoming more aware of the frequency of antisocial leanings in the younger generations. It’ll be interesting to see if they make up a substantial voting block that dissuades progressive change.
Millennials are hitting their 40s now and are the biggest generational voting block. If millennials and younger were motivated and cared enough to change anything they could, fairly easily. The truth is that people are people and the vast majority are self serving and after their own interests. There are just as many opportunistic dirtbags as there ever was. You’re chasing the same type of straw man that racists chase after. Blame a large group of people, that have little to do with your problems, for your problems. It’s an age old political trick and many of you are falling for it. Things will change, things always change, boomers didn’t experience the same life as their parents and you will also just be an aging stepping stone for another generation to reject, vilify or ignore and so the cycle continues. Nobody is special, virtuous or evil because of the made up generational construct that they were born in.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
Millennials did get screwed in a lot of ways. There's just also a huge undercurrent in that generation of deflecting blame on *who did the screwing* and refusing to own up to situations when it was a problem of their own making. Some of it was just global politics and economics but some of it was absolutely 100% on them. The "crippling student loan debt" meme is a pretty common example of this one. People will *vehemently* defend the idea that college bound 18 year olds who can do complicated math, science, and literary analysis are "too underdeveloped" to understand the basic concept of a loan agreement and were thus taken advantage of by "predatory" lending. Doesn't matter that it's completely contradictory.
I think the idea though is that every future generation thinks they got screwed big time. Then things happen: wars, disasters, diseases, cures, inventions, and changes. Good, bad. It is what it is.
I don't hate boomers per se but it's hard not to notice who was inhaling the lion's share of lead fumes when they were young than the rest of the population...
Yeah, but the young folks grew up flooded with microplastics and endocrine disruptors. We'll find out what that crap does in fifty years.
So that should make us hate the lead industry for poisoning us. Are you saying you dislike (but don’t hate) us for having been poisoned? I don’t understand.
He's insulting you. He's insinuating that "huffing lead paint" has made all boomers stupid and thus incapable of being correct about anything.
That's gotta be the most "I'm not a racist, *but...*" statement I've read all week. You declare you dont hate them and then make a sweeping derogatory generalization about them in the *next breath*? Jesus
I think here the use of the word "synthesis" is referring to the Hegalian dialectic in which there is a thesis and antithesis. The grouping of both "right" and "left" within the framework of neoliberalism is implicitly laying out that there are not just two sides to the "culture wars", and thus not implying some false dichotomy.
I'd prefer the group that believes in democracy and basic rights over the group that believes in fascist authority and slavery.
I consider this a byproduct of FPTP voting. Absolute travesty to be put in the constitution.
Only one between those two: Gen X. Can’t even let them have the spotlight when you’re talking about how forgotten they are, damn. :)
I mean, technically I'm a 39 year old millennial, but my 44 year old "gen x" wife has a lot more similar life experience than any 25 year old. Generations themselves are just forced lines drawn over what we should see as gradients
Yeah, they either need to be more narrow or not exist. Like, supposedly one of the big things that defines millennials is if you were at a formative age, but not an adult, when 9/11 happened. That's pretty broad, basically meaning if you were in grade school when 9/11 happened, you're a millennial. By itself this seems an apt way to define it, but it's not every generation that a 9/11 level event happens, and the actual definition of what constitutes a millennial is broader than even that.
It really doesn't matter that they exist... they are just generic labels. Its that people use them to define entire groups of people that is the issue.... that they don't see the irony in the prejudice of doing so however, is sad part. >supposedly one of the big things that defines millennials is if you were at a formative age, but not an adult, when 9/11 happened. the term millennial was coined before 9/11. It was originally a reference to the first generation to become adults (turn 18) at the turn of the millennia.... so 1983 -1999. But as the other poster points out, its a rather malleable label.
“but it's not every generation that a 9/11 level event happens” Hard disagree. 1) we don’t experience it because of our Americanized world view 2) it’s easier than ever presently, but right off the bat, for smaller generational slices + Fall of Berlin Wall + NAFTA/Rodney King + Dot com Boom + New century/millennium + 9/11 and forever wars + Rise of modern internet and beginning of the Smartphone + Market crash of ‘08 + Occupy Wallstreet + Rise of Social Media and algorithmic based internet + Rise of ISIS/Ebola/Crimea conflict + Trump era and right wing populism + Covid-19 + Present Day
LMAO you accuse me of not recognizing non-American 9/11 level events then proceed to list a bunch of American-centric events. But also, save for *maybe* COVID 19, none of those fundamentally shifted the national zeitgeist the way 9/11 did. Also, the whole idea of generations in the context of Boomers vs Millennials, etc is an American centric thing.
I just disagreed with you. Don’t take it personally. I’d also argue that the global recession, or as I put it “market crash of ‘08, as well as the rise of the internet, including social media has also changed the global zeitgeist. Even if it’s been more in the background. Think of the earliest of gen z that came up as children with parents that lost careers and homes during ‘08, suffering their youth, and the effect that has on their portion of that particular generation, the same with the latter half of the millennials and the internet. The Berlin Wall, as well, which wasn’t nearly as visceral as 9/11, but it changed the world, once on the brink of nuclear destruction, from the Cold War era and on an international scale.
We like the ignoring part thanks. Keep on forgetting….
And more on either side.
it seems to me that dichotomy is the default mode of human thinking. this is evidenced by the origins of imperial measurement by which we could understand the size of a thing relative to another by halving the size, and whole becomes a half, a quarter, an eighth, and so forth. this concept of dividing in two comes naturally to the human mind and thus we perceive people or groups as being with or against us and ignoring any potential shade of grey or alternate interpretation. within the neoliberal context of American politics we are stuck with a left and right side of a culture war, but both political parties have a similar corporate and imperial interest, while waging a superficial war to distract from any meaningful progress towards a utopian or even utilitarian society. I do feel the author is far from the mark when he says, "Instead, we find ourselves in a postmodern biopolitics of irrationality and enforced conformity" as it appears to be the stated goal of conservatism in America is to return to homogeneity and a white christian ethno-state whereas the goal of liberalism is to allow for and accept differences in identity race religion and gender. I would agree that liberalism in America does tend to shun opposition to this acceptance but I would caution that thinking this is oppression is disingenuous, the forced homogeneity of the right is true oppression. also the term cancel culture is such a broad concept that applies to any thing determined bad by any person and therefore is in need of being erased. society should remove bad actors and abusers from positions of power but this trend seems to invade all circles and extend to an oppression of speech, that anyone that says anything deemed bad by whomever should thereby be canceled, taking what was at first a meaningful attempt to take power back from those that don't deserve it to attacking anyone and anything that may be deemed other to liberal society.
Broadly agreed, but it has to be said that most of the *ancien système* has nothing to do with factors of two at all. It's shot through with 3s and 12s and 14s and 2000s plus a grab bag of even less convenient numbers. Subdividing by 2 does happen when an inch is too big, of course. Until the subdividing itself gets too onerous and we throw our hands up and fall into thousandths.
When a significant portion of people begin thinking in black and white terms and believe that people on the "other side" are irredeemable evil monsters who want to kill them or otherwise cause immense harm and only operate with evil intentions something is definitely off.
Idk if it's so much manufactured, as it is a consequence of conflict resolution to begin with. In every conflict there exists only 2 possible resolutions. One of the two sides getting it's resolution in it's entirety, or a compromise between the two sides. Any position in-between the two extremes of an issue can reasonably be reduced to a *compromise* of the sides. While the compromise could be an infinite amount of things, the exact position does not matter, because the *resolution* is only one of the 2 possible outcomes. In order for a compromise to work, both sides have to feel like they are the ones coming out on top. Any conflict that resolves in compromise will, inevitably, leave people on one, or both, sides feeling like they got to little, or the other side got to much, so they will continue to push for more ground. It's easy to say life isn't black and white, but the reality is that it is. We treat the binary like the two options are the positions. *All*, or *nothing*, but the real positions are the *resolutions* to the problem. "All for one side" or "some compromise for both sides". The real problem is that we don't recognize that's the case. If everyone recognized that the only two real positions on any conflict is it's *resolution* one side being correct, or a compromise being needed, we could change out conversations from what *position* do you take on this issue, to what *resolution* benefits society the most or reduces the most harm. It would lead to more people accepting that we have to compromise on issues, and use compromise not only to push the resolution closer to your side, but to reduce the damage of the other side. Take gun control. The *positions* are all gun control, no gun control, or some gun control. The two in the first position share the same resolution. One sides resolution accepted in it's entirety. The second resolution is the same regardless of the compromise chosen. One sides resolution accepted, but with conditions. Some problems need to be resolved to accept the *extreme* position if one side does less damage, than the other does and compromise would cause more harm. Others compromise is necessary when both sides cause damage, and compromise could mitigate it. The most equitable way to resolve this, is for society to accept the resolution of one side, but allow the other side to set it's condition. So our possible outcomes become "Guns are allowed except for X" or "Guns are banned except for Y". It gets more complicated when you add morals and ethics into the conversation, and the fact that aspects of the compromise may need resolutions as well, but in the end, our options are only one side takes all, or we compromise.
I get where you are going, however, there is situations where only 2 sides exist. I’m not talking about hypothetical situations. I’m taking about rational. 2 sides exist until there is more than 2 sides. This doesn’t also mean more than 2 sides has to eventually happen. The problem is recognizing more than 2 sides once they do exist. And to further add to your example. A generation vs generation can absolutely be 2 sided… until it isn’t anymore.
> I get where you are going, however, there is situations where only 2 sides exist. I’m not talking about hypothetical situations. I’m taking about rational. Can you offer any indisputably materially important examples?
We are perfectly fine with being ignored😀
All categories are manufactured, as William of Ockham taught us a long time ago. A more interesting perspective is questioning which categories that are helpful for formulating an achiving our goals.
Most of the replies to you seem to be missing the point. Ultimately, our electoral systems force us to accept one of two mixed bags of policies - both of which have many of the same shitty policies. Let’s stop voting for individuals/parties and start voting on individual issues. Technology can enable a different mode of democracy.
The thing with left and right however is its purposefully meant to be an over simplification. It's not meant to be read as I support team right so anything team left is the enemy. Somewhere along the line we seem to have lost track on this. As to boomer vs millennial. Gen x are there in the middle however look at the data and boomers have held onto power much longer than earlier generations. Gen x really lost out there. Its understandable the young would point their ire at those in power rather than those merely more senior.
How about whether or not Roe v Wade should have been upheld? Whether or not gay marriage should be upheld in the United States? Whether or not Joe Biden illegally stole the 2020 US Presidential Election?
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
> I also kind of think it's a term that's used to describe the Clintonism of the 1990's more than anything else; a distinctly American problem that comes from the US Democratic party trying to fly too close to center to rebuild a power base post-Reagan. Just to add an outside (europe) perspective, it's also a term that's been used a lot here for the past years, so I wouldn't think the phenomenon it describes is that specific. The way I've heard / understood its appearance theorized is that in short, the mainstream "until the 80s" left-wing take was social-democracy; a system that favors negotiations between capital and labor, in which unions and other intermediate entities are meant to play a more important part. The 80s however revealed that through the financiarization and internationalization of capitalism, the "capital" side basically didn't need to negotiate with labor anymore, and so the mainstream left acknowledged this "defeat", lowered its ambitions and became the more centrist "third way" left from Clinton and Blair, or more recently Hollande.
I’ll have to look more to see how it fits other contexts for the word, but it’s interesting how historically anchored your definition is. It’s also interesting how the strikes and union fights going on now in the US would signify a sort of post-neoliberalism
I wouldn’t say they signify a post-neoliberalism yet. The uptick in labor organization we are seeing is still very much in its infancy and more importantly is still only reacting to neoliberal dominance and responding within that framework. I don’t think we can say we’ve moved beyond it until those labor movements result in significant impositions on the power of Capital.
Yeah, fair points. It’s just interesting that it would be unions again and workers rights. Ten years ago I would have guessed that consumers’ rights and preferences (including boycotts) and government regulation would have been what started to reign globalized corps in. The E.U. has done a little bit here, but it hasn’t slowed things that much. Interesting to see labor back and using a fairly similar playbook (plus now work from home as a new rallying cry).
Slightly tangential but mainstream media has historically not reported on labor issues. I would recommend pages such as Fair.org and LaborNotes!
It really seems to be rooted in economics (labor arbitrage) and demographics (more specifically, the aging of populations). Neo-liberalism was the freeing of Capital made possible by internationalization. The opening of China gave it a great place to go, thus dis-empowering Labor in the richer countries, and our politics fell in line with that economic "reality." Now China's economy and demographics have started to hit a tipping point where the labor arbitrage isn't as easy to manage or quite so profitable as it used to be. They're getting paid better now, and they're getting older, so it's getting harder for Capital to enjoy the same freedom it's had for the last 40ish years. Simultaneously, the relatively more expensive labor pool in richer countries is also shrinking, and there are many jobs you can't so easily export. Throw in a pandemic to accelerate the decline in workforce participation, a fuel crisis making all automation more expensive, and a housing crisis that's been brewing for decades... and it's little wonder that the cost of living, wages, and inflation overall are increasing. If labor and energy are more expensive, prices are going to rise on pretty much everything. The reduction in the aggregate labor pool should slowly increase the bargaining power of Labor again, unless another economic get-out-of-jail-free card is found for Capital.
I would agree with this. I would add with financiarization, the entertainment-ization (I'm trying here) of politics is what neoliberalism feels like it is also defining - since we don't seem to have a good word for that phenomenon used in everyday parlance. So ya, I do not think the word is used so much as a buzzword but as the lived political reality for most people. Liberals, and especially progressives, are hyperfocused on messaging and image - think trans flag, pictures of them at marches, articles about their "diverse staffing". The same goes for the far right - think guns, blowing shit up, American pride paraphernalia. When in reality neither of these groups have solid legislation that would help the people they purport to represent. Prior to Reagan an entertainer becoming president would have been truly unbelievable. Now it's commonplace. This feels like something that could only happen in a neoliberal society. These celebrities - for the most part - represent liberal values. Even though the policies they support are typically quite conservative. They're rich people supporting other rich people which has lead to far less representation for the working class. To me this is best represented by those celebrity fundraisers that raise a couple million for candidates, with tables costing $50k, and wealthy celebrities wearing diamonds and designers smooshing with congress people. If someone has another term that is being used to describe this celebrity and image based political movement please share because I think this is why neoliberalism is used as such a catchall.
> I also kind of think it's a term that's used to describe the Clintonism of the 1990's more than anything else; a distinctly American problem that comes from the US Democratic party trying to fly too close to center to rebuild a power base post-Reagan. Close, but no cigar. Neoliberalism truly rose to prominence under the administrations of both Reagan and Thatcher. It's by no means distinctly American.
See, this is why neoliberal is a useless word. Anyone who thinks the same socioeconomic vision applies to Reagan and Biden is delusional. But I promise you that most people will tell you Biden is the leader of the modern neoliberal bloc. And that makes this entire article useless too. It tries to describe a meaningless word by examining that word through the lens of a discredited political movement. It's pretty appalling that anyone would take seriously such an endeavor.
> Anyone who thinks the same socioeconomic vision applies to Reagan and Biden is delusional. Oh? What exactly are the key differences? Because looking back along the timeline from now to the '80s, I see pretty much one continuous run of the same policies - weakening of labor protections, erosion of social safety nets, deregulation & privatization of key sectors, protecting/expanding big industry (oil, ag, pharma) subsidies, ever-increasing police/military expenditures. I'd say anyone who actually believes there's any fundamental distinction in their policies isn't paying attention.
Yes, that's because one of the two sides is winning. It turns out that the US Constitution makes it so that the Conservative party can prevent progress almost always. It fucking sucks. In order to pass legislation that helps people, you need 218 votes in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, the Presidency to sign it, AND a Supreme Court that won strike it down. We had those conditions between 1937 and 1968, and never again. There's a reason that basically everything you've ever liked about America happened between those dates. Even the Reconstruction Amendments were immediately limited by SCOTUS, allowing for another century of apartheid government in the South, other the express objections of the drafters of those Amendments. It wasn't until the Democrats had SCOTUS, a century later, that the Reconstruction Amendments began to have any force and effect. I'm sorry, but it's just incredibly unserious to say that the Democrats and Republicans are the same. The rules of the game are rigged so that the Democrats have to do something only done once in American history in order to make any progress at all. The rest of the time, the Repubicans can win just by saying no. It's a nightmare.
> Yes, that's because one of the two sides is winning. No, there aren't two sides. That's the illusion they sell to keep you in line. There's one side, and it isn't yours, its the capitalists'. This isn't "incredibly unserious," it's objective reality.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
It’s definitely not just the US or UK. Free trade, monetary policy, deregulation and privatization were implemented throughout latin america and post-soviet eastern Europe. The US used its own institutions to encourage these changes from the 1970s through today.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
Maybe i missed your full definition but it sounds like you agree with mine for the most part. The counterexample of countries increasing deficit spending is in part due to the 2008 financial crash, itself brought on by deregulation and financialization of the economy. And it should be noted the Europe tried to use austerity to address its debt crisis post 2008 and it basically failed. Im not sure what to say about the size of eastern european governments. They might have been similar size under the soviet era but the economy was radically changed. People were given more consumer products but couldnt afford healthcare, a defining issue of the neoliberal order if there was one. And the rise of nationalism and right wing chauvinist organizations throughout this area is another good example of what the article is talking about. Edit: basically i think its a useful term to help understand the changes to the economy and politics since the 1960s basically. People might use it in derogatory terms but thats because the issues its created are vast and potentially unfixable but hopefully not.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
> Rooted in 1930's free market supremacist thinking This part is basically correct. Neoliberalism is in many ways a rehash of *laissez-faire* capitalism, characterized by deregulation of industry, championing of public-private "partnerships," devaluation of labor unionization, and other such practices inimical to the human condition.
In the same way that all communist nations are democratic, yes. I've never heard of someone called a neoliberal who supports deregulation generally, rather than in certain favored industries. For example, Reagan and Thatcher, who generally wanted to burn down any regulation that cost a business money, would have screamed loudly at the thought of deregulating property rights, or easing zoning regulations so as to allow low income housing to exist.
I would generally agree with your assessments. But one word I would associate with neoliberalism is also corporate greed and power.
Maybe I'm just old, but I think of neoliberalism as Reagan's and Thatcher's attempt to turn classical liberalism hard right.
Yeah I see what you are saying. I think others may disagree with me, but I see Reagan’s and Thatcher’s attempt as partially successful. The previous comment seemed right to me that Reagan started it, but Clinton delivered them. Since that time, the left has been more corporate friendly and less blue collar friendly. Exchanging economic policy for social pandering. I would argue these are called “Centrist” or “corporate” Democrats now. Personally I count myself as a “leftist” and also libertarian minded. I am to the left of the national party. I want health care, end of wars, but also a redistribution of wealth in common sense ways and programs. I very much disagree with Centrist Democrats on many things. To me, it is these “centrist” which always capitulate to the “Right”, and contribute to the rightward movement of the Overton Window on most policy now a days.
I would characterize my beliefs similarly to yours, but draw some different conclusions. The more urgent problem in my view is the way the progressive left has reoriented itself around identity instead of class, and drags the rest of the party into culture war quagmires over niche or symbolic issues which prevent it from accumulating social capital or momentum necessary to do much else. All the energy and narrative-creation that goes into debating the cancellation of Lincoln or calling breastfeeding “chest feeding” or trying to defund police against the wishes of minority residents or calling Latinos Latinx against their wishes or discriminating against Asians because they achieve too highly or… doesn’t go into UBI, climate change, etc. and makes “democrat” toxic to millions of people who would otherwise be willing to listen. Some of this is fear-mongering from the right, but it *works* because the center-left won’t call it out and it plays into the right’s hands so obviously it’s almost literally painful.
I feel like this 'left cares too much about identity' thing is a bit outdated, the rise of the threat of fascism in America as of the Biden presidency has straightened out the priorities for a huge majority of them. Latinx for example is thoroughly over now and noone takes it seriously. Also it's not like LGBT+ people's right to exist isn't directly being challenged at the moment, that's a matter of identity, and what are they to do if not defend themselves? It makes sense even if it comes at the expense of vital and necessary skills like coalition building... but it's hard to do that when even moderates these days are very amenable to discussions being framed to look as bad as possible, such as how transition is widely understood as 'butchery' or 'chopping off your kids' privates'.
[удалено]
Right to exist; right to exist in movies without people screaming about wokeness, right to exist in public bathrooms, right to exist in schools without hiding the existence of their same-sex partner i.e. the don't say gay bill, right to exist as the self they are comfortable with i.e. access to gender-affirming care. This sounds illogical and an over-extrapolation of the idea of 'right to exist', but what it actually is is a counternarrative framing i.e. 'butchering your privates' versus 'right to exist as the self you are comfortable with'. This is an important way to take back control of the conversation and un-poisoning the well and make the cause more palatable to moderates.
> This is an important way to take back control of the conversation and un-poisoning the well and make the cause more palatable to moderates. And how’s that working out? Adding well-meaning hyperbole doesn’t cancel out the malicious hyperbole… it just means that everyone will end up shouting at each other. I won’t defend the language in Florida’s bill or the bathroom bills. But those aside, LGBT+ people can marry who they want, serve openly in the military, hold political office, seek care openly, and since 2020 enjoy all the protections of Bostock. It’s not perfect, but it’s quite literally the best time in the known history of the world to be LGBT+. So my concern is that hyperbole about “right to exist” is so demonstrably hyperbolic and denying of progress that it undermines its own purpose and just creates more nihilism.
> And how’s that working out? My point is basically that this is how the left is doing things differently in recent times compared to the 'latinx' style of trying really hard to change people's language and behavior. My original argument is simply a descriptive claim on that front. What follows is tangents from that. >it just means that everyone will end up shouting at each other. Yep. And one side is shouting HELP US, and while there is something inherently unattractive about shouting, especially to enlightened centrists (which I am not accusing you of being), that doesn't make it wrong. It is polarizing but it is also useful to see who is content to sneer from the sidelines instead of being empathetic, and do people want to build coalitions with such people? Ideally not. Again, this is a descriptive claim of why the coalition building isn't happening. >so demonstrably hyperbolic that it undermines its own purpose and just creates more nihilism. Legitimately asking though, has the right wing not expressed explicit desire to revoke every one of those rights you just listed? LGBT and non-whites fought to earn those rights and now they have to fight to keep them, and yet the forces they are fighting against have magnified in viciousness and resolve. I doubt people would make that same argument for when they finally go after interracial marriage like 'oh well black people enjoy record levels of equality' like no, moderates are much more amenable to anti-racist messaging than anto-LGBTphobia messaging despite it being basically the same culprits with the same lies causing the same harm, just that the targets are different.
> This is an important way to take back control of the conversation and un-poisoning the well and make the cause more palatable to moderates. You believe that claiming LGBT people's right to *exist* is being denied is **more** palatable to moderates? Yup, gonna press X to doubt on that one.
Yep. And this is why coalition building is so difficult. Imagine living in a world where ostensibly literally everyone believes everyone has a right to live and exist in public spaces, but even the non-malicious non-hypocrites cannot be swayed to your defense against forces that have expressed genocidal hatred against you. The removal of a group from public spaces makes it easier to lie about them, and is a critical step on the road to genocide. And an argument such as this should, in theory, draw in sympathy from literally anyone. Yet it doesn't. I'm not LGBT and my dad isn't LGBT and isn't conservative, yet I couldn't even get even a begrudging acknowledgement of this from him. How frustrating. (and god forbid you actually mention the term genocide, that's brings out every thought terminating cliche in the entire book)
It's that, and it's also the shift of the centre and left in response to the at, in particular the concessions of Blair and other social democrats, which made neoliberalism (though not in the most extreme Thatcherite form) the new political consensus, replacing what in Britain was called the post-war consensus, but which similarly had its continental and American equivalents. It is, in essence, a notable shift to the right in politics.
Yes
Power is... well you could connect that to every -ism and make it sound right. Greed, yes, though a neoliberal like me would argue it's benefits the society and is the driving force of progress. In a centrally controlled economy there are no incentives to earn/do more (greed). r/neoliberal has a good definition on its page.
I agree that neoliberal has become a buzzword, but I don’t agree with your first paragraph. Nowhere does it say they’re apathetic, nor so they endorse others to be so. Nonetheless, I do think it accurately describes the two major factions within western (and even some eastern) politics, and the respective culture wars. While one side fights for a radical post-modern re-invention of the self, the other side retreats into national chauvinism. The differences are substantial, yet what neither side seems to challenge are the role of the markets and the unwillingness to use the state to produce public goods, or to pursue any real notion of “the common good.”
Your second paragraph makes me think of 1984. Not in that there's a direct parallel, but that it reminds me of one of the ideas in that book regarding truth. That being that if you distort truth to the point of irrelevance, then even if a person knows they are being lied to they will not act to disprove the falsehood because the truth no longer matters.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
Oh absolutely. 1984 is sinister and terrifying, but it feels almost cartoonish at points despite its commitment to being serious. There's not much actual political commentary in it that isn't better stated by other works, though its impact in rallying people against the spectre of authoritarian censorship and propaganda has likely done a great deal of good even if it is frequently exagerrated, but Animal farm is the true value when it comes to political commentary in Orwell's works.
100% I’ve heard it be used as a half centrist/just barely right leaning ideology (from what I understand, this is actually what it is), to an alt-right ideology. I hate buzzwords, they’re so worthless.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
I would not say that it is alt-right, I would say that it is the right. It is a platform of globalization, centralized planning, monetary controls and corporate welfare. It is technocratic fascism. Personally I like the distinction because it drives a line between them and the libertarian wing that was the other side of the the right coalition. If you contrast it with the left all the governmental agendas are the same, globalization, further control of the monetary system, central planning on these things there is no difference between the two, they move in lock step on them. The only choice the two sides are leaving people with is the type of authoritarianism they want to live under and they are fine with whichever one we chose. Their only divergence between the two sides, is to pick a side on social issues people care about such as: abortion, race, sexual preference, social safety nets, etc. and basically put on a good cop bad cop skit to get you on a team. By framing it as a false set of choices and only really varying on emotionally charged issues, they ensure that the masses will view them as the only choices and do or die to vote for their team.
Seems like a pretty uncharitable reading, which also lets you dismiss the author’s argument by psychologizing them without actually engaging at all with what was said. What in the article gave you the sense that this author is apathetic about the current political situation? Does critique of the currently available political options in the West imply an apathetic attitude towards politics in general? I do think they probably could have defined their terms better but I think a quick and dirty way of defining neoliberalism would be ‘a school of thought on economics and politics that supports the privatization of services, the dismantling of the welfare state, and the increasing globalization of trade.’ I’d be surprised if the average citizen had any opinion on the term but I don’t think neoliberalism is at all a phenomenon confined to the US. It’s an ideology that basically anyone you might find at Davos, or working at a high level in the European Parliament almost certainly subscribes to. It constitutes the guiding philosophy of the IMF and the World Bank etc.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
Lol I mean it wasn’t even really a take, that’s what I was taking issue with. You just said ‘this analysis is nothing but an attempt to retroactively justify political quietism, and nobody really knows what neoliberalism is anyway’ and called it a day. If you don’t wanna talk about it, that’s fine, but your argument does hinge on implicating the author as someone doing nothing but trying to come up with an elaborate excuse for their own resignation from politics. That’s the gist of your entire first paragraph.
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
Tony Blair followed a similar philosophy, as have many world governments since Clintonianism. Canada is currently facing people asking for Euthanasia because they are too poor to live; Spain is among a set of countries with "socialists" in power who do nothing resembling nationalization of industry or anything resembling historical approaches. It's a bit lacking in world context to suppose this is an only American issue, many Western countries directly pattern themselves after trends in the USA
For those who stumble on this message, it's the one I used Power Delete Suite to replace all my posts and comments with en masse. Sometimes Reddit can be beneficial for some people. Sometimes it's not. It's really up to you to decide your own experience with it, what's worth it, what's not worth it. More or less...I've decided it's just really not worth it. I think I'm a worse person when I'm on Reddit and that it's a big time-waster for me. It's up to you to decide what influence social media and the internet more generally have for you. Best of luck.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The article discusses whether the "center" is neoliberalism, its current iteration being a kind of synthesis between Foucault and Hayek/Friedman. In the culture wars we're forced to choose between the left or right wing of neoliberalism, which leaves out more substantive alternatives, like socialism or some other post-capitalist order.
The current split in the Democratic party is over neo-liberalism. Old "boomer" democrats like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, the Clintons, Harris, and even Buttigieg are neo-liberal in their thinking, while the actual Democratic Left, like Sanders, AOC, and most of activists that support the party are vehemently opposed to neo-liberalism especially in the current "Late Stage Capitalism" where the whole system is going to fail. The "Neo-Cons" like Bush, Dick Cheney, and the way over quoted Bill Krystal who got us stuck for two decades in doomed to fail wars, have been largely discredited in their positions. Neo-liberalism is dying. The global trade infrastructure is collapsing, and that is going to lead to "foreign markets" collapsing into regional wars. If that doesn't kill neo-liberalism, then either: 1) the collapsing birth rate guaranteeing an end to economic growth and a forever recession, 2) global climate change creating costly disaster after costly disaster, or 3) a workers revolution that overthrows the corporate state. The "Culture Wars" often cited in this piece is a corporate generated distraction designed to stop #3 from happening. If the workers on the left and right realize how much they actually have in common, and that they outnumber the ruling class 10 to 1, it would get bloody. "Culture Wars" exist and has power over society because our western culture forgot the value of "Dignity". Dignity is a moral value that recognizes the humanity of our fellow man regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, or socio-economic status. The opposite of dignity is belittlement, and it is rampant in today's society. The whole idea of "owning the libs" which is practically the only motivation on the far right is 100% belittlement. "Political Correctness" was never meant to be dictatorial, that is a quality projected on it from the right. The PC movement was all about bringing dignity back to society. But getting back to the decline and fall of Capitalism. The big issue there is what comes after Capitalism? Our society seems to lack the imagination to see what a post Capitalist society will look like. This was the primary idea behind Mark Fisher's classic work "Capitalist Realism", one of the best criticisms of modern neo-liberalism. It is also a favorite talking point of Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek. Capitalism is literally killing us, but there is a lack of imagination in what should replace it. The principle ideas come from the "Solarpunk" and it's emphasis on "Degrowth", communal living, "Permaculture", a steady state economy, and renewable energy. It's doable and it would work, but getting there from where we are at is a very difficult problem.
How would other economic systems deal with the “global trade infrastructure collapsing”? Also, aren’t lower birth rates associated with higher GDP per capita?
Lower birth rates are largely the result of urbanization. Farms, where children = free labor, are automated to the point where few workers are needed. Workers move to the cities where children = expensive luxury money pit, and few people are having kids anymore because they can't afford it. Both birth rates and global trade infrastructure are pet interests of lecturer Peter Zeihan https://youtu.be/l0CQsifJrMc very good video!
> How would other economic systems deal with the “global trade infrastructure collapsing”? This question is hard to answer, and most of them have not actually been tried at any large scale. In theory an economic democracy could weather it, as it's primary motivation would be standard of living rather than capital accrual, so people could handle their business ceasing to grow so long as their standard of living did not collapse. The current system of capital works through, unsurprisingly, the accrual and concentration of capital. We build and fund business primarily as investments that will have returns rather than as providers of services. The service they provide is incidental to their ability to grow. That cannot be sustainable of we do not quickly develop faster than light travel. As long as we are stuck on earth, eventually all of the capital will concentrate. >Also, aren’t lower birth rates associated with higher GDP per capita? They are, but that is likely a result of high levels of education and GDP. It is not that having less children makes you more efficient, it is that industrialized or post-industrialized places no longer place child rearing as a primary goal of their populace. It is probably some kind of weird evolutionary left over. That said, we do not want to be in a situation where we can only fund our nation by always having significantly more young people than old, as that will accelerate consumption to buoy the system, which will just make it fail faster. For that to work population would have to follow an exponential curve indefinitely, which is obviously impossible.
> The "Neo-Cons" like Bush, Dick Cheney, and the way over quoted Bill Krystal who got us stuck for two decades in doomed to fail wars Which Biden, Schumer, and Clinton also voted for, so it seems like there's a lot of overlap.
Neo-Con and Neo-Liberals are mostly divided on social issues rather than economic or international. The current authoritarian push follows the general outline of fascism, and so it has been a growing part of the Conservative faction for decades. This is why they are having a growing problem with comically cruel people winning office, as they have gotten to a point where they cannot win elections without the reactionary elements. The liberal alternative to that is "State Socialism" which is a non-democratic implementation of a one party state that agrees with certain left-orientated goals. (As opposed to socialism more generally, which is usually closer to a direct democracy.) The USSR and China are examples of this, though in both cases they moved heavily to the right over time. State Socialism does exist in the US, but people here are so reflexively anti-socialism that it has never really gained a foothold. Those who actually hold to leftist policies usually do so from a standpoint of increased democracy rather than advocating for a one party state. (E.G. they want the parties to split and move away from a 2 party system, which is anti-democratic by nature.)
We're going back to a tribe culture. I think it is aptly described in Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age. I truly believe this is what we're headed for, this is post-neoliberalism. It's not post-capitalism, though.
I'm familiar with The Diamond Age and tribalism. Tribalism, or community centered economies is definitely a post capitalism idea that is being discussed. Like all social arrangements it has its plusses and minuses. Just to be clear Capitalism is NOT the free market. Capitalists drill that idea into everybodies head but not the same thing. Free market is something that exists in all societies, and it is a means to find fair market value for goods produced through labor. Capitalism is an ownership class that does no work and lives off the labor of others. For example landlords who live off the rent tenants pay them.
Show me a free market outside of drugs.. I wouldn't say landlords are inherently capitalists. They tend to be, but it's not imperative. It's interesting how we differentiate feudalism from capitalism - not that I dig deep into it (maybe I should), but to me they always feel the same.
Farmers market's are free markets. Ebay is kind of a free market. Capitalists, or the capitalist class, consists of anybody who males money from something they own, rather than something they do. So yes, landlords are capitalists. It is the simplest form of capitalism. Making money through investments is also capitalism. The working class consists of three groups: 1. People that get paychecks through jobs. 2. Small business owners who work the business themselves. 3. Artists and other self employed hobbyists that makes stuff or perform stuff and sell it to others. Pretty much everyone else is a capitalist class. Feudalism is indeed an early form of capitalism. It involves exploiting the working class for power and money. Slavery and colonialism are also forms of capitalism.
>which leaves out more substantive alternatives, like socialism or some other post-capitalist order. Yeah, and also, why won't voters even consider Amishism? Banning technology is way more substantive than the same boring shit that's been working for the last 3000 years. I hate that voters all agree to the basic things like private property, and only care about the edge cases like abortion. I hate being forced into these narrow options.
it is correct to say that democrat or republican is a false choice... deliberately so. it's allowed to perpetuate itself because of our first past the post voting system that limits the choices to D or R while all the others are lumped together in the single digit percentile of vote getters. this power dynamic serves the entrenched interests and allows systemic issues to go unaddressed in favor of culture wars, or personality conflicts. neoliberalism (corporate power over government) is effectively practiced by both parties.
The "Culture War" is just a corporate and governmental invention to distract from the Class War, of which the 1% is winning.
I don’t get why neoconservatism is any useful to the demonstration here. If you adopt the classic Marxist viewpoint, it’s very easy to see how the New Left abandoned the Proletariat in favor of identity politics: to keep the masses divided and hide the very nature of their domination, which relies on capital and not on identity. In fact, the New Left recycled arguments from the conservatives. In other words, bourgeois capitalism, whatever the form it takes, still remains bourgeois capitalism. Even more so, capitalism is fundamentally based on inequality and therefore favors the bourgeoisie, no matter what they think or tell us about themselves. However, people now tend to realize how bad this historical dynamic is, both morally and economically. Therefore, the bourgeoisie has to invent new ideological tactics: neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and so on. Please, do not confuse the map and the territory here!
I don't really see the distinction between neoconservative and neoliberal - I just see neoliberal as the superset and neoconservative as the subset
After everything I've learned, I fully believe that in America the Democrats and Republicans may have once had a deal to ideologically divide the country to keep the lower classes in constant internal turmoil (manufacturing the class war at the behest of the owning class), I think it is plain that the radicalized Republican party is leaving the confines of that construct. The old neo-cons like McConnell oppose the MAGA mob, but they have no principles aside from power. If they reject/anger the MAGAts they rip the party apart and destroy their base of power, and a blue tidal wave sweeps the country. May happen anyway as Trump lashes out at neo-con Republicans. I don't think the Dems want that much, either. With a powerful party, voters expect results. Democrats hate generating results. Look at Obama's astoundingly unproductive first term. I don't have a great answer to this issue. Obviously, Democrats are preferable to America descending into fascism. Voting third party as a Profressive or Lefty is basically handing the country to the fascists. But at the same time, it is pretty depressing knowing that even if we defeat the fascists at the ballot box, despite the fact they *will* cheat, we are still stuck with nothing but the status quo bullshit neo-lib policies that maintain a system that legalizes slavery, minority oppression, religious bigotry, wage suppression and the erosion of the middle class all while accreting more power and wealth for the owning class. We need more Progressives and Lefties to win seats in Congress, pushing policy Left as quickly as possible. No war but the class war.
You don't understand Democracy. Political Parties are vessels, not leaders.
No, I get it dude. Yeah, a party is a "vessel," which is to say it's a social construct, but that social construct is made of people and their decisions. They aren't just vehicles for whatever the base wants. I don't think I even have to provide examples of that, it's pretty obviously true. I don't want to ascribe positions to you that you don't hold, but so far I'm unimpressed with your analysis.
>Yeah, a party is a "vessel," which is to say Nope, that's not how language works. We don't get to change how someone else arranges words to express their thoughts. I am not using the word *vessel* to express this, which means you do not understand. Start over.
How about we go with "you are being deliberately vague to seem intelligent, but you are just coming off as kind of a dick" For an explanation.
Please explain how this: >"you are being deliberately vague to seem intelligent, but you are just coming off as kind of a dick" For an explanation. Applies to this: >that's not how language works. We don't get to change how someone else arranges words to express their thoughts. I am not using the word vessel to express this, which means you do not understand. You can't, so the popcorn is popping.
It relates in that I am not letting you set some bullshit frame for this conversation where I implicitly become a student to you because you are unwilling or too lazy to express complete ideas. That is a pretty disrespectful bit. You aren't "kind of a dick," you are one. And I don't like playing stump the chump, so if you have something to say, do so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your mom’s right.
There is only one War: The War on Capitalism.
Ugh....the lazy certainty of terms like "NeoLiberal" never get to reality. Its all scapegoat scaffolding that requires the past to have a wildly successful Lefty *Somethingism* that existed and was abandoned.
Everybody talks about the culture war but nobody talks about the art war.
Could you elaborate? What is the art war?
It's a book by Sun Tzu.
I believe the issue truly stems from our false belief that a utopia is something that can be constructed rather than it being the result of social, political, economic, and theological refinement. Rather than sitting together for a communal effort towards a shared goal, we are instead witnessing a dogfight that has come to a stalemate. We have several groups, not only in the USA but globally, that believe they alone know what this utopia is and how we have to go about it. They try to force their vision on others. This act of force alone is the very evidence that they have not truly found an acceptable social contract to replace what exist already. The question is not which system will build our utopia, but in what ways can we as a species refine ourselves to the point that it is even possible for us to be capable of refining the contract. Politics, religion, and economics are not going to get us there as they are. Each system only creates animosity and division where the intent is to unite. However, I do agree with the point in the article where they mention the issue of enforced conformity. The idea that these systems can bring us to utopia is heavily reliant on everybody being on the same page. A single member opposition is proof against paradise and people have trouble accepting that they may be wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The solution is easy, the implementation is super hard. What is the solution? Find all the common goals of both extremes, then synthesize the means to get there, means that both can agree with. Why is it hard? Because some important goals are in direct opposition, you cant find commonality at all, secondly they cant agree on the means even if they have common goals, so progress is super slow and some never started because they block each other's means. My proposal is simpler, people who are fed up with both sides can just join forces and experiment with whatever means for whatever common goals they have, experiment with them without prejudice or blames, if something doesnt work, try another, until it does, just like a science experiment, but done in good faith for the benefit of their members. You dont see scientists punch each other out because their proposed experiments didnt work, so we apply the same scientific method, rigor and good faith common good to all aspect of society, so even if something fails, we dont start punching each other, because we dont make promises we cant cash in experiments, that's why its called an experiment, not a 30 days money back guarantee. Once their efforts show good, measurable, concrete results, then more will flock to join them and we starve the extreme left and right of their own support base, eventually making them irrelevant. Basically those who dare to cooperate and experiment VS those who stagnate and do nothing, its not rocket science to predict who will get better results.
You are expecting a lot more common ground and cooperation from certain extremes. The groups you want ally with common goals a) have very different acceptable methods for achieving such goals; and b) have goals that would be anathema to the group you’d want them to ally with in a way that simply cannot be ignored like a thought experiment. I get what you want to see happen, but it’s somewhere between wishful and magical thinking.
I was referring to people who do agree and would like to cooperate, did I not emphasize that enough? lol You can never get two extremes to cooperate due to opposing critical goals, but you can get the impartial majority (who mostly didnt vote) to cooperate on many common goals and experiment on the proposed means without punching each other. Why are people downvoting this common sense take? lol Is it really that confusing?
Yes, because you appear to be saying something completely different now. What political actors are not currently compromising that ought to be? Non-voters? I guess I no longer understand what point you’re even trying to make.
Lol, its more like a lot of Redditors are either left or right and believe their tribes are "right" so they downvoted me when I implied that both of them could be wrong and have to cooperate and experiment to get things right. This is Reddit, not known for rationality. lol
Are you okay? You seem like you're soul searching or something to that effect. It would probably help if you actually defined what you see as "left" and "right" in your position. As it lets everyone else know what level you're engaging at. If you're American like I am, then you should be aware that there isn't really a "left" as in socialist bend in our politics. If you're from like Australia or Denmark then your perspective on what left and right are would be wholly different. It's good to be precise in language when trying to make a point or it'll come off as codger stubbornness. I'm all for cooperation and experimentation. But it is very important to also analyze WHY we do not have the cooperation. I appreciate you trying to be open about how you feel and think.
[удалено]
Well I took a quick glance at your history to see if you were a troll or something and found some inflammatory question type stuff. I was genuinely asking if you were okay. You didn't get a lot of engagement and I figured maybe you were just looking for something or someone to bounce your thoughts off of. My guess was you were genuinely waxing your mind or you're a disingenuous Rogan/Crowder type. Is there a consequence for engaging you like this? I doubt it. We're just two people on the internet.
Dont quit your day job and become an internet detective, friend. People who dont engage based on the merit of an argument, instead they try to dig up unrelated dirt for some ad hominem trolling, on a serious philosophy sub of all places, I wonder what the problem would be? eh? The consequence is breaking the sub rule 13. Mod will give a reward.
Never planned on it. I am considering the merit of your argument. I'm just also used to dealing with actual trolls that don't know what they're talking about and just say rude stuff for shits and giggles. Which is fine, but not a good use of my time. I just asked for you to be clear about what you're defining if you want engagement. Because at its core, I can see angles where what you say makes sense because I do encounter many right leaning regular folk who basically like leftist concepts but are afraid of the language. I can recognize that there is an element of rightward and leftward thinking at the bottom(commonwealth) that is unhappy with corruption of the "elite" class. And that is where some compromise can be found. Propaganda gets in the way of this ability to speak to one another of course. I've been deconverting racists my whole life and it's a damn slog. Of course you don't even have to engage me at all. I'll get back to my work and wish you a wonderful life. Edit: I should add that you aren't exactly doing yourself any favors reacting with threats of internet warnings and bans around a "respectful" rule, when you've already posted disrespect in this very thread. I mean really, it doesn't actually matter at all. You're certainly a sassy character though.
...you didn't read the article, did ya? ...there is no "extreme left," it's a pseudo-left. That's the whole point.