Neoliberalism versus populist nationalism or social democracy. Neoliberalism is generating a reaction, as dialectics would predict. The dominant reaction presently is populist nationalism tending toward authoritarianism on the right of the political spectrum. The left is still stuck with the globalist (corporatist) neoliberalism adopted by Third Way politicians like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair in reaction to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher's conservatism.
What would it take for the parties of the left to embrace the pro-working class [social democratic] policies described here? And is the underlying suspicion voiced by Rothstein above actually correct: that the Democratic Party is so beholden to large corporate interests that it is incapable of adopting these kinds of platforms?
Understanding Society
Strategies for resisting right-wing populism
Daniel Little | Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Professor of Philosophy at UM-Dearborn and Professor of Sociology at UM-Ann Arbor
See also
Longish.
Noahpinion
The siren song of homogeneity
See also
Longish.
Noahpinion
The siren song of homogeneity
Noah Smith
ANTIFA has a strategy...
ReplyDeleteANTIFA has a strategy...
ReplyDeleteNot really. The present strategy is oppositional and those involved don't necessarily agree on a solution that would replace neoliberal globalization if populist nationalism would go away as an option.
The left is largely made up of globalists, and that fits right in with globalist neoliberalism, as Daniel Little points out.
The so-called left is so caught up in identity politics and social justice, they have no coherent economic program to replace neoliberalism yet.
Until the left can figure out a grander approach, punching out Nazis will have to suffice.
ReplyDelete"Street" theatre:
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/nHMq6QBNuNU
If they have a strategy it isn't working....
Bob they will lose in a physical confrontation...
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDeleteGet 4 of these and just sweep them up into jail:
https://youtu.be/WaATRpkm-ws
Govt hasn't even engaged yet... still pussified by 8 years of Obama... still many skulls to split wide open .... wait for it...
You ain't seen nothin' yet...
It's working perfectly.
ReplyDeleteThat lady played her part well. Now the world sees a white dude slugging a white lady protesting fascism in the face.
Street theater ain't for sissies.
As I said at that the time of Occupy, this is just getting warmed up. We are still in the 1964-1966 range of social dysfunction that lasted until Nixon left office and the Vietnam war ended in 1975.
ReplyDeleteThings are moving slower than then. This round started in 2011 with Occupy Wall Street and we haven't had any really significant mass demonstrations until this weekend's climate change protest. I expect this to last at least for another decade with the dysfunction escalating into street violence and state repression. Gonna get ugly.
Tom to the alt right that is a feature not a bug,... they are promoting this...
ReplyDeleteWait till these sjws get a little history lesson:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima
"assaulted, brutalized, and forcibly sodomized with a broken-off broom handle by officers of the New York City Police Department after he was arrested"
Trump is the dog not barking... the authorities will become emboldened.... if left doesn't back off physically they are going to take a serious beating ...
Tom,
ReplyDeleteOccupy could have gotten all of their asses kicked royally if not for Obama... you could have sent cops in there with clubs breaking open the heads right away...
The peace sign of the yippies is being changed out into a club...
Occupy is ancient history...
Tom when ever has the new generation taken over the cause of their grandparents?
ReplyDeleteBack in the 60's the media exercised a bit more independence. Now that a handful of megacorps control most of it we're fed a diet of propaganda, disinformation and bullshit. Divide and conquer works, as does fear. The harder they resist change the more destructive that change will be when it comes.
ReplyDelete"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
This is the point of street theater.
ReplyDeleteTrump is far more authoritarian than Nixon ever thought of being and liberalism was still in its heyday in the Nixon era. That is reversed now.
The point of the performance is to show the US and the world how America is a fascist state.
Of course, some people will get hurt, imprisoned and many killed. That happened during the Vietnam era and civil rights movement too. We all realized that at the time that this was not beanbag. It's potentially much less so now.
But this is how the historical dialectic works.
According to political liberalism, such issues are supposed to be handled democratically by compromise. But in out now divided world compromise is ruled out and the only recourse is resistance.
We are watching the rise of The Resistance, and it is not only in the US.
Street theater is part of the reality show, and so is blood.
Tom so you are saying the yippies were taking the position of the WW1 people? C'mon...
ReplyDelete"Title 7" is the "segregation" of the millenials...
So you are saying that millenials had to experience leaving their black friends out in the car when they went in to eat at the diner? C'mon...
TBTB were more frightened of Occupy than they are of some right-wing hillbillies.
ReplyDeleteWhat's amazing is that there still are Trump supporters.
ReplyDeleteTom when ever has the new generation taken over the cause of their grandparents?
ReplyDeleteThis is their cause. History doesn't repeat but it rhymes.
The millennials (1980-2000) are the largest generation now and they are pushing 40 and soon to accede to power. They have never known anything but neoliberalism and haven't been treated well by it. They are also the first digital natives.
Gallup finds up to 70 percent of young Americans favor wealth redistribution.
Millennials are ripe for socialism: A generation is rising up against neoliberal oppression
Anis Shivani, Alternet
Those younger than 30 are more radical.
This is not going to be their fathers' or grandfathers' resistance.
The harder they resist change the more destructive that change will be when it comes.
ReplyDeleteDialectical logic. The further the pendulum swings one way the further it swings in the other.
This is what compromise in political liberalism is supposed to avoid.
Political liberalism is clearly a fantasy.
ReplyDeleteTom so you are saying the yippies were taking the position of the WW1 people?|
ReplyDeleteDon't understand this comparison.
The yippies, typified by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, were the leaders of street theater during the countercultural revolution (sex, drugs, and rock and roll) and the Vietnam protests rolled together.
That's over. Sex, drugs and rock and roll won hands down, and the draft is history. That battle doesn't need to be fought again. The kids won.
The situation is totally different now. Economics didn't matter back then, but it sure does now. Now younger people don't see a future for themselves as the American Dream fades into memory.
TBTB were more frightened of Occupy than they are of some right-wing hillbillies.
ReplyDeleteThey were terrified of Occupy. Look at the big guns they mounted, coordinated nationally by DHS.
The left has been pinning for ethno-nationalism ad nauseum in the states for decades--you know, especially of the Hispanic and black variety, but not limited to said two. It is they, the left, and their idiot SJW morons who are the Brownshirt Nazis of contemporary America and beyond. The alt-light (National Review types) are dead in the water. And to all those too thick in the head to understand, the alt-right is a RESPONSE to the balkanizing, AUTHORITARIAN, and violent tactics the left has been fomenting for years. People need to get it in their heads. There is no muticultural utopia in the future. Zero, nada, none. Like it or not ethno borders, which promote common culture, are the future--even in America. The left and right will only coexist peacefully in ethnically homogeneous cultures. Period. That's how history will shake out in the end. Watch.
ReplyDelete@Malmo: Diversity and culture in the US are more defined by economics than race. That is the fault line, and the imbalance is profound.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, alt-right reactionary knuckleheads and ANTIFA losers banging each other's skulls for nothing will be a future occurrence and things will get ugly before they get better. I have no high opinion of either group from what I've seen.
ReplyDeleteBoth will give more legitimacy to Donny "Jimmy Carter 2.0" Tinyhands and any hope of greater social democratic economic values will be out of the question. We are screwed.
It is divide and conquer laid out before our very own eyes is what I'm trying to say. There is a risk that if the left starts to incorporate the Bill Clinton stance on borders and all this stuff back into their platform, they can become much more conservative and turn against the conception of a social democratic welfare state even more. I don't think any of these groups are going to embrace Post-Keynesian and MMT-inspired policy anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteWhat's ANTIFA?
ReplyDeleteThe left and right will only coexist peacefully in ethnically homogeneous cultures. Period.
ReplyDeleteThe (leftist) city where I live is a Big Ten university own. It is multicultural and has been for some time. Up until about five years ago, however, the younger people used to associate with their own kind. That began to end five years ago and now it is almost never seen. The groups and couples are now mixed and there are a whole lot of mixed race kids. It's interesting since there are different shades in the same family of offspring.
There are also lot of newly arrived immigrants from all over the world. There are also a lot of domestic "immigrants" from Chicago, where people are fleeing to protect their kids from violence. Everyone is welcomed with open arms here. No issues to speak of.
Anti-fascist? Hunh? Is this a popular acronym, or a MN blog insider thing.
ReplyDeletepopular acronym
ReplyDeleteThen I'm out to lunch and I read A LOT.
ReplyDelete"Neoliberalism" is a garbage term meant to blame capitalism for a fiat funny money MMT-based kleptocracy. It is quite effective at obfuscating the nature of the problem but it is basically one big fraudulent lie.
ReplyDeletefiat funny money MMT-based kleptocracy???
ReplyDeleteOK einstein, YOU explain how federal government monetary operations work in our modern economy. And don’t leave out why the United States decided to go off the gold standard domestically in 1933, and why, under your understanding, the US has lived with this failed or improper financial system for 84 years if it is so wrong.
Kleptocracy? What are you talking about?
OK einstein, YOU explain how federal government monetary operations work in our modern economy.
ReplyDeleteOK, Mustapha Mond. I agree that MMT fairly accurately describes actual and operational “federal government monetary operations in our modern economy”.
Advocates of MMT claim that its most important feature is to provide to the government the ability to spend money into existence without the necessity of taxation or any worry about a “balanced budget”, right? The government is no longer “revenue constrained”, right?
Simultaneously, the present regime is called “neoliberal” by MMTers (as if Hayek had something to do with it) who constantly complain about income inequality, booms and busts, endless wars, the military industrial complex and total government spying which is ongoing with the present regime.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that:
1. The present regime is both an MMT regime and a "Neoliberal" regime (whatever the heck "neoliberal" means). Calling an MMT regime "Neoliberal" does not change its nature as an MMT regime.
2. As an MMT regime, the government is truly not revenue constrained. NATURALLY, the government is going to do nasty things with those extra resources it would not otherwise control and will use them pay off and buy off its supporters and those with power while looting society at the expense of the powerless (the 99%).
3. MMTers are so naïve that they think THEY will be in control of this Brave New MMT government that is not revenue constrained and will thus be able to use those additional resources to rescue puppies. Or something.
The position of most MMT economists to the degree I understand it is is that a floating rate system provides more policy space than a fixed rate one. This provides room for more choice of policy.
ReplyDeleteHistory shows that fixed rate systems have regularly been abandoned in war time to increase policy space for military spending.
MMT economists ask whether domestic welfare is less important than military spending when it is possible to expand fiscal space to permanently optimize efficient and effective use of a country's available real resources for public purpose by using policy intelligently to optimize growth, maintain full employment (less transitional) and keep the price level relatively stable.
The point is that there are policy choices that affect real outcomes. The public should be made aware of the options so they can choose representatives based on informed deliberation and debate.
It's part of the democratic process.
Advocates of MMT claim that its most important feature is to provide to the government the ability to spend money into existence without the necessity of taxation
ReplyDeleteWha—?? It’s the opposite. Taxation establishes the legitimacy of the currency.
Simultaneously, the present regime is called “neoliberal” by MMTers (as if Hayek had something to do with it)
Hunh? Hayek had left economics by 1936. By his own emission.
As an MMT regime, the government is truly not revenue constrained. NATURALLY, the government is going to do nasty things with those extra resources it would not otherwise control and will use them [to] pay off and buy off its supporters and those with power while looting society at the expense of the powerless (the 99%).
What the fuck are you talking about? Just for shits and grins, what “extra resources?”
MMTers are so naïve that they think THEY will be in control of this Brave New MMT government that is not revenue constrained and will thus be able to use those additional resources to rescue puppies. Or something.
You’re soaring around on one skate. What the hell are you talking about? [BTW, re: “revenue constrained” can you read a Daily Treasury Statement?…obviously not.]
By his own emission. Autocorrect. Should read ADMISSION.
ReplyDelete"Advocates of MMT claim that its most important feature is to provide to the government the ability to spend money into existence without the necessity of taxation or any worry about a “balanced budget”, right? The government is no longer “revenue constrained”, right?"
ReplyDeleteComplete Schiffbot nonsense, Bob. I've never heard anyone here go around advocating for absolutely 0 taxation. It's been said over and over again taxation is one of the drivers of the currency and is one of the factors that gives it its value in the first place.
Advocates of MMT claim that its most important feature is to provide to the government the ability to spend money into existence without the necessity of taxation or any worry about a “balanced budget”, right?
ReplyDeleteThis is essentially correct in a floating rate system where the issuer is sovereign in its currency and doesn't create obligations in a currency it doesn't issue, with the proviso that taxation is needed to drive the currency by creating demand to obtain it.
Taxes are not needed to obtain revenue for government spending to "balance the budget." The fiscal balance is determined endogenously by cyclical variables independently of the budget anyway.
In functional finance, taxes serve the purpose of curtailing demand in excess of the capacity of the economy to supply, which would lead to inflation as a continuous rise in the general price level.
The government is no longer “revenue constrained”, right?
This is essentially correct. There is no operational need for a currency sovereign to obtain the currency it issues. This is self-evident.
Users of the currency need to obtain the currency, and users must obtain currency ultimately from the issuer as the sole source.
This implies that affordability is never an issue for a currency sovereign.
The only constraint on government spending is the availability of real resources, and financially the resultant inflation or deflation depending on demand in markets being above or below the capacity of supply to meet it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete