20 thoughts on “The Sunset of Neoliberalism

  1. Mr. Chandler, what do you think is important about the Jacobin commentary you link to?

    I was happy to read it, but other than the refernce to the growing popularity of Modern Monetary Theory, which has been a topic of discussion here before, the significance of the piece escapes me.

    Like

    1. It is significant because I found it interesting and thought others would as well. Or are you the only one allowed to create threads?

      Since Al has decided (probably wisely) not to join us here, I appear to be the only socialist roaming the board. It makes for strange bedfellows. Regarding social issues, I am in alliance with the more liberal and moderate members (see transgender articles). Regarding government surveillance/police state issues, I am in league with the more libertarian minded, though many of you are still chomping at the bit to see Antifa given a “domestic terror” designation. Regarding fiscal issues and immigration issues, I tend to have friends in neither camp.

      The article has much to say about the divisions between what we (socialists) consider the two very different and increasingly irreconcilable wings of the Democratic party. On the one hand, you have the Pelosis and Schumers who are basically just pro-choice Republicans (the Neoliberals), and on the other, you have Bernie and “the squad,” whom we’d like to see go further in their societal critiques, but in the mean time gladly support. But all the aforementioned people are indistinguishable Stalinists to most on the right.

      Further, there happens to be a Democratic (and, apparently, Republican) primary taking place as we speak. These divisions are front and center in the Democratic debates. Which side wins out may speak to a paradigmatic shift in our societal consciousness–either a wholesale rejection of the failed policies of the last 40 years, or a doubling-down on them.

      As my subheading implies, this piece offers a unique (to this board) perspective on the false Republican-Democrat dichotomy of this general election.

      This is why I found the article “important” and “significant.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I thought the article was a good breakdown of the distance between the ranges of Liberal/Progressive (Democrat) thinking.

        As to, “to this board”; you make a lot of assumptions on scant evidence of where people stand on complex social and political issues.

        Feeling the “Burn” is a prescription to zero movement toward the socialistic position(s) you seem to covet. As a pragmatist I’ll not be supporting him unless it is the ONLY choice available.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “Feeling the “Burn” is a prescription to zero movement toward the socialistic position(s) you seem to covet.”

          See? This is why you post an article like that! What makes you think so?

          Like

          1. Bernie has been pressed repeatedly to explain how his “plans” would be executed and financed. He continues to provide vague answers or answers that are so flawed as to be laughable.

            I have close friends that blindly support him and have had to do the leg work to make clear why his positions are untenable in the reality we find ourselves in. It has generally made no difference and I have accepted the fact that blind “faith” is just that.

            And no, I ain’t goin down that road here, but I do think a better form of socialistic/capitalism is mandatory for our survival and evolution.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I agree he is unlikely to accomplish much, given the makeup of the Senate and SCOTUS. However, I also find it strange that he seems to be the only candidate who is constantly asked for increasingly developed policy outlines, despite being pretty clear about how his two most identifiable platforms will be funded. Taxing high-volume trading for college and debt relief, and increased payroll taxes for M4A. Further, given the current occupant of the White House, I don’t think spending a lot of time on complex policy wonkery is what wins elections.

            Bernie strikes me as the only one capable of turning out enough young people and minorities, particularly in the face of Republican voter suppression. Any other candidate reelects Trump. Also, the election of a popular candidate with impeccable working class bona fides by a passionate voting bloc being stymied at every turn by archaic, undemocratic institutions is not without value. “Heightening the contradictions” as it were.

            Like

        2. I wish people would step back for just a second with regards the the term “socialist”. It causes heartburn on the right and accepting it by the left to be the antithesis of electability. Instead of that “s”-word, it would make more sense to me if the term Social Democrat were embraced by those with socialist tendencies, but not full on Venezuelan socialism. IMHO, it is a more accurate depiction of what the non-Bernies of the left are.

          I look at Warren in that context. I still question her electability, but she is a wonk and proves it regularly.

          In 2016, the EC rejected a policy wonk with excellent credentials to fill the Oval Office in favor of…(civility, Adam, civility) Donald Trump.

          Like

          1. You are correct that Bernie is a Democratic Socialist. His platform is very similar to FDR’s. I use the term “Socialist” to describe myself, because that’s what I am. That said, I wish people would stop conceding to the right that Venezuela is a socialist state. The state owns and operates the oil reserves and that’s about it. Like other South American countries, there are a handful of families who are holdovers from Spanish colonialism that control vast wealth and land. This, and lets not forget crippling US sanctions, is why Venezuela is failing.

            Warren is a head-scratcher for me. She says all the right things, but also swears she’s a capitalist. Voted Republican for years. She’s my number 2, but I’m not sure I trust her.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “It is significant because I found it interesting and thought others would as well. Or are you the only one allowed to create threads?”

        I’m only a guest here, just like you. In the spirit of the place, you needn’t justify your posts or commentary to me in any way, ever.

        I just wanted to know your thinking on the piece before deciding whether to share my own thoughts on it. So I appreciate your response.

        Like

      3. Are you truly socialist as in central planning of all manufacturing, food production, services, etc.?

        Or are you for universal and affordable health care along with higher education being more affordable with such solutions as tax funded community colleges?

        Minimum wage, decent housing, stronger retirement programs, union participation on boards, stronger banking rules, etc.?

        These are more in line with capitalism with social services. Like the Scandinavian countries.

        For what it may be worth that was the Business Roundtable memorandum that made the news last week was hinting at when they discussed the purpose of corporations.

        Sustainable capitalism.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You have correctly hit on a lot of nuance here. To keep it as brief as possible, I am a socialist in the sense that I believe the necessities of life should not be distributed according to the market. I also believe that private ownership of “the means of production” is inherently exploitative–workers should have control of their workplaces.

          This would obviously require some level of central planning, but that’s not a goal so much as a means of ending poverty, etc. There are leftist camps who make a strong case that this could be done locally (anarcho-syndacalists, for example).

          Where I perhaps most strongly disagree with the Social Democrat set is that I believe “sustainable capitalism” is an oxymoron. “Socialism or Barbarism,” if you like.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I have commented occasionally on major sites like NYT. I might be comment number 31, but by the time it as approved and posted I am lost in the salad of 350 more comments.

            I like to comment with some give and take on a local level.

            First, l learn about viewpoints and theories that I’m not familiar with.

            Next, the feedback is reasonable and current.

            Finally, I have a chance to question, disagree and/or agree and write IMHO.

            I looked up Anarcho-syndicalism and I am pretty sure I don’t agree with it insofar as investment and ownership.

            But that’s another day.

            Thanks for responding.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. “Any other candidate reelects Trump” ?

    I believe the opposite, Bernie is old and in the way. And “voter suppression” will be the least of the DEM’s worries.

    Also, some solid “policy wonkery” would be useful, if defensible.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. …” some solid “policy wonkery” would be useful, if defensible.”

    Jimmie, I believe you just described Elizabeth “I Have a Plan For That” Warren. If only she came off a little less screechy, a la Hillary (My mom’s description).

    Her plans might be worth looking at.

    Like

    1. As a “finance” guy her fairly well-defined plans are significantly more sensible and fleshed out than Bernie’s.

      I don’t find her “screechy”, in fact that type of gender-based pejorative is EXACTLY how females are reduced to second class and less able humans.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You’re right about the screechy part. But it was a phrase my mother used. And I identified it as such.

        She is a lot more professorial than screechy, but the right will call her a shrill women, if she is the nominee, and it is stereotype she will have to convince non-supporters that she is the opposite. Well thought out, planned and accurate.

        Like

  4. In response to Mr. Chandler’s comment on Bernie.

    …”Bernie is a Democratic Socialist.”… Just because he caucuses with he Dems in the Senate, does not make it true. He needs to identify as such and not just say he is a Socialist. It may not make much of a difference to our confused friends on the right, but it might open the eyes of Independents.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s