I always say neoliberals will affirm your identity and support your right to be who you are!.. As you die in the gutter of exposure and capital defense force brutality. Sorry, free market forces! 🤷
You can’t eat pride ribbons. You can’t live in pride ribbons. A neoliberal is better than a scapegoating fascist, but so is an empty soda can. Neoliberals are also equally as effective as an empty soda can in opposing fascism, the inevitable outcome of capitalism when left to run amok instead of straightjacketed to serve society as it must be.
Look, what matters here is that everyone is included equally under oppressive capitalist movements which aim to drain of us of our lifeblood and monetize our very cells.
so… why didn’t the left stop fascism? I hear a lot of talk about killing people, but it’s been three months and nothing has happened.
Are we all just yappers?
You can bitch all you want, but the right won, and they won exactly what they wanted. So bitching about it on the left isn’t going to make us anymore likely to win, is it?
We have no leftwing party in the United States
I phone banked for Sanders on 2 campaigns.
I don’t see Neoliberals or Fascists as winning, just different degrees of losing.
I no longer have the slightest hope of ever “winning” a prosocial government here. We’re too oligarch captured.
I talk and comment to maintain my sanity in an insane capitalist hellscape I lack the power to change.
We have no leftwing party in the United States
probably because the left is so dysfunctional they cant form a cohesive group that people want to vote for.
I no longer have the slightest hope of ever “winning” a prosocial government here. We’re too oligarch captured.
perhaps join the liberal fight, and fight against things like oligarchy, which liberals are not for, because it’s obviously bad for institutions. The better the institution is at helping the people, the better the people are.
I talk and comment to maintain my sanity in an insane capitalist hellscape I lack the power to change.
Liberalism is basically the only option you have here, realistically. Anything you can do to change the political tide and get people to care about the importance of good governance, is a good thing.
You could plot a coup and overthrow the government, but we’re not delusional, and that’s obviously not happening anytime soon so, might as well explore other routes.
You should read about what happened to domestic left parties and people after WWII. Also what the US did to left elements abroad. The state of the left in the US today didn’t evolve naturally to its current status quo.
you mean like the communists? And japanese internment camps?
There’s definitely bad things in there, don’t get me wrong. But my original statement is still true.
Liberals are for oligarchy. How can you be anti-oligarchy if you are pro-capitalism and pro-markets?
Weird how the left is crushed and weak when the entirety of the US 20th and 21st century is crushing anti-oligarchy (a.k.a left) forces. Maybe it isn’t a failure of the goal, but that willing yourself into power isn’t going to magically make it happen.
Liberalism is not inconsistent with regulation. Oligarchy introduces inefficiencies to the market. Liberal Democrats have been generally open to and supportive of regulations which oppose oligarchic monopolies, and mitigate externalities. They certainly have their flaws, too many to enumerate here, but they generally want the market to run as “purely” as possible, without the confounding effects of oligarchy. Oligarchy and monopolies upset the mechanisms of the market, and the liberals are the ones passing regulations to try to prevent that. This much is obvious by the existence of regulations, and the near absence of legislators to the left of liberals.
Liberalism is not fully mutually exclusive with regulation, but liberal regulation is to try to maintain capitalist markets against their own failures. Yes, they can be willing to engage in some regulation to try to maximize future markets and capitalism. But they are pro-oligarch and pro-inequality, liberals are trying to maintain it long-term even if the most extreme excesses of oligarchs must be reigned in for the short term.
But most importantly, Oligarchy and monopolies aren’t an “upset” or disruption of markets, but the obvious and natural outcome. Profits are optimized by consolidation and removing competition. And even if competition is maintained, once one company wins the competition there is monopoly, and the fact that most capital intensive industries have a natural barrier to entry (it would take billions of dollars of venture capital to enter and be a very weak competitor with the incumbent) means that markets have oligarchy and monopoly as their natural and necessary outcome.
A homeless guy can’t just immediately become a billionaire by saying that there should be a competitor of genetic testing with 23andMe.
But they are pro-oligarch and pro-inequality, liberals are trying to maintain it long-term even if the most extreme excesses of oligarchs must be reigned in for the short term.
The liberal approach is stretching that short term out forever. They will always reign in outliers and apply bandaids to keep the charade going, directly targeting oligarchy and inequality to keep up appearances that liberal capitalism works. The other guys wanna get to the end already, where they own everything forever. Oligarchies stagnate markets, and liberals don’t want the music to stop.
The eligible voting population is about 30% for oligarchy, 30% for the liberal charade, 5% for some other opinion, and 35% totally politically apathetic. The point was that if you want to actually accomplish something in a democracy, you need demographics. You’ve gotta find 30% to challenge the actual pro-oligarchy demographic somewhere.
but liberal regulation is to try to maintain capitalist markets against their own failures.
wow you discovered why governments exist! Good job, do you want a gold star sticker? If the markets and economies didn’t fail, you wouldn’t need government, ever, for anything. The entire point of the government is to fix problems like this.
A homeless guy can’t just immediately become a billionaire by saying that there should be a competitor of genetic testing with 23andMe.
no, but if he’s a good public speaker, he might be able to get large investment rounds for a competitor to them, and then if the engineers and experts at that company, do a good job, he technically could become a billionaire, though that’s unlikely from just one success.
wow look another facetious argument.
I’m not pro “oligarchy” i’m pro liberal governance, oligarchy is by definition, not liberal. It gives excised power to people with money, that is by definition not liberal.
I’m pro capitalism because i think capitalism as a decentralized method of controlling the markets and businesses (i also think that regulation is important, because i don’t have brain damage like libertarians seem to, but for some reason anytime someone on the left hears that someone is a capitalist, they assume they must be anti-regulation also), is the best way to go about it. State controlled markets simply cannot work, unless someone proposes a white paper disproving me, i will maintain that point. But if you can deterministically create an economy, that supports the needs of everyone in that economy, feel free to disprove me. The problem is that you can’t because it’s such an incredibly complex problem.
pro market economy isn’t really a bad thing? I like people being able to buy and sell things, it’s good. It’s problematic sometimes, and rough other times, but that’s just how it is. The market will generally bring itself to a normalized position over time.
i am literally against elon musk being in the government, people in the government having and owning investments, i think it’s corruption plain and simple, i’m against corruption because it obviously leads to a negative outcome for the people the system is supposed to work for, again, liberalism does not like that.
Maybe it isn’t a failure of the goal, but that willing yourself into power isn’t going to magically make it happen.
it certainly won’t be the left doesn’t even have a plan of what to do when they get into power, the liberals don’t really either, but we at least know what we want governance to look like, and that’s a great start.
The left hates the current form of US government, and the things they want that they can clearly spell out, are not forms of governance, merely policy, so i’m not sure how they plan to get from step 2, to step 5 without falling in a hole somewhere.
Neoliberal doesn’t actually mean " The newest Brand of liberal" NeoLibralist regimes historically have also been exceedingly anti-queer. The term was coined in the 80’s to describe a burgeoning different brand of liberal government that focused on cutting spending by privatizing swaths of the government. Think Thatcher, Regan and the modern Republican party… See also the early Nazis who historically privatized huge amounts of government to pad the wallets of their supporters but the label was applied retroactively.
If they are getting rid of government services and outsourcing them to a private company that’s “Neoliberal politics”. You are right that they are effective as an empty soda can at stopping facism but that’s because they are usually better positioned to assume power, give up on democracy and go fascist but they aren’t the group you’re calling out here.
Really the bar for what “liberal” means is a system with a basic set of rights of the person that cannot be infringed upon by the government, universal rights of the person to own stuff (though not all stuff) and a dedication to some kind of democratic system. Basically it’s become democracy’s basic format and practically everyone in government who isn’t a fascist is some variation of liberal or at least playing by Libralism’s rules. It’s not a statement on socially progressive or socially conservative rhetoric. You’re probably better off specifying " Social Progressives" if you want to be accurate to whom you’re talking about.
It’s kind of the same rules as “NeoClassisism” which isn’t constantly updated to mean the newest thing. That term got coined to specifically refer to an art style that is now 300 years old. Neo these days practically never refers to anything cutting edge.
No they’re just using the Tankie definition of (neo)liberal: “my enemy”. It’s part of the theory of social fascism, which claims that everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist.
I don’t believe for a minute neoliberals would hold to that half women thing.
Can someone who identifies as a leftist explain to me what “neoliberal” means? I have no fucking clue at this point.
‘Free market,’ market-oriented reform capitalism; think Reagan, Bill Clinton, any moderate or conservative before the trump era.
It has been the sole economic theory in power in the US since the 1970s, with more or less a sliding scale between more neoliberal (republicans before 2016) and less neoliberal/more classical liberal (Biden’s and Harris’s campaign messaging, not Biden’s actual actions).
The reason it sounds confusing, especially in memes, is because you think dems and republicans have different economic theories behind their actions, when in actual legislative reality they’re just more or less neoliberal, and the minute differences get overblown in campaign rhetoric.
The reason it sounds confusing, especially in memes, is because you think dems and republicans have different economic theories behind their actions, when in actual legislative reality they’re just more or less neoliberal, and the minute differences get overblown in campaign rhetoric.
The funny thing is that it’s Trump, of all people, who represents the first genuine shift away from neoliberalism for the US in 50+ years. That fucker is downright mercantilist.
Too bad it’s a shift away from neoliberalism in the opposite of the direction the leftists wanted to go.
That fucker is downright mercantilist.
Also a fake populist. He says things that seem like he will work to benefit the working class, but completely lies to them and screws them over at every opportunity.
The imminent $6T tax cut for the rich and corporations will be Trump’s magnum opus.
fake populist
AKA “demagogue.” That’s the essential difference between Trump and a populist like Bernie Sanders: Trump is a demagogue; Sanders isn’t.
if you look at it in macro, you could argue this is true, but this is basically just strictly related to econ governance, which makes sense because it’s the most functional form of economy lmao.
If you look at social governance there are VAST differences.
Social governance in the US is mostly window dressing. The class oppression is the same, dems just don’t pretend poor whites are a higher class than other minorities. To the dem or republican leadership your gender, sex, nor race really matter. As long as you’re not trying to remove the class divide then you’re good enough. Even the most racist republican would happily go along with a black president as long as said president didn’t threaten the economic order. Its why Obama was allowed to do as much as he did.
there is some truth here, but this is also effectively a strawman argument.
There is really poor social governance in america, both under republicans and democrats, because nobody knows how to construct it properly. Whether this is a conceited class war effort from the left, idk.
It has been the sole economic theory in power in the US since the 1970s
I’m not American so I may be missing something, but I find it hard to say that, for example, Carter and Reagan shared the same economic policy, or Obama and Trump. Only by flattening away any nuance whatsoever would those be called identical.
First of all, Trump really is very different. All these tariffs are decidedly not neoliberal.
Trump aside, though, Carter, Reagan and Obama really did share broadly similar policy with regards to free trade treaties and whatnot. The Democrats were better on support for unions, but not so much better that they weren’t willing to throw them under the bus of cheap foreign labor.
Their idea of the rightful role of the state in everyday affairs was rather different though, wasn’t it? If support of free trade were all that’s needed to be a neoliberal, anarchists would be neoliberals too.
they shared the same broad economic policy.
They don’t share minute policy, they never will. Republicans have always been a more top down approach, while dems are usually more bottom up.
lol you don’t even know the ideology of your prime minister?
Maybe read a book idk
Tldw; liberals still want capitalism and the class hierarchy it creates. They just want capitalism that is supportive of gay and black people and social safety nets.
Lmao @ the idea of neolibs supporting socials sfety nets.
The post actually explains it really well
So weird how in all these memes, the leftists are always the hero, yet when the time comes to make the bare minimum of effort to stop a fascist from taking over America-
They are nowhere to be seen.
So weird how, every time there’s criticism of the Democratic Party, some pearl clutcher brings out a cynical argument to divert attention from the train wreck that they persist in simping for.
I’m super tired of the Schrödinger’s Leftist argument - somehow insignificant enough to ignore on policy proposals, yet simultaneously crucial enough to be bullied into electoral compliance.
If a meme is giving you badfeels because your party keeps taking a rough shit each election whilst choking out grassroots challengers, maybe you should demand a better party instead of posting drive-by takes online?
Smells like Tankie in here.
The middle panel is entirely superfluous. Take that out and you have an accurate representation of both the GOP and DNC.
Americans and tankies who don’t have a clue…
all i’m gonna say, is that i don’t see leftists proposing an actual function government model that would fix all of our problems and make society better.
I do see a lot talking about how shit america is though. So there’s that i guess.
For as much as you want to hate liberals and liberalism (and there are problems), it’s hard to do anything with a dysfunctional government, and classical western liberalism provides a great solution to that problem. The other options aren’t exactly better.
Classical Western Liberalism created this dysfunctional government and is defending and trying to maintain it. The entire reason there is an opening for fascism is that the current liberal government is so dysfunctional and failing. And since both parties are anti-left, the only real option for opposing the failures of the status quo is joining the MAGA-fascist right. This is a repeat of the 1920s, showing how Liberalism enables Fascism.
Redistribution of wealth. Housing as a human right. Workplace democracy. Minimum wage indexed to cost of living.there are lots of socialist platforms that go unadopted.
these are all great ideas. But it doesn’t make a functional government.
I’m not sure how anybody here is expecting to implement these if they hate liberal governance (the entire structure the US is based on) if you can’t even begin to theorize a functional structure of governance including those things.
Us had a 90% top tax rate at one time. Inheritance tax redistributes wealth. Nationalization of industries such as banking. Cubas economy grew after redistribution despite the embargo until the fall of the Soviet Union. China has a 90% rate of home ownership https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_China Germany requires a percentage of each company shareholders be employees https://insigniam.com/in-germany-a-law-to-give-employees-a-voice-and-a-vote/
It has been done before and can be done again, with or without liberal democracy.
