The New Class War

[Levelfive]

I think the point of the conclusion of the article is the most important issue for that to overcome. History demonstrates that ruling classes of any kind are reluctant to share power with the ruled unless they are afraid of the ruled or afraid of rival ruling classes. The former—fear of the ruled—is a weak motive. Popular revolts seldom turn into revolutions, without the support of dissident members of a ruling class or of a foreign elite, like the French monarchy that bankrolled and supported U.S. independence for its own purposes.

The issue is thus there becomes no force to keep the power of elite ruling classes in check, nor any implicit motivation to do right by the ruled population other than a hope that they would be inherently moral or good. The problem is ultimately the logics of power and class do not produce those results without some kind of force to ensure it does so.

In a world without the specter of war, or a need for a working class at all really, there is no incentive to do right by the ruled on the part of the rulers and without competition (I.E. a Multi-polar World) from other competing ruling classes you have the unfolding of the 1984 scenario except the entire planet is Oceania.

Did you mean to lift a paragraph word for word without attributing it? Sometimes I can't tell if you're relying more on people not to read or not to know what neoliberalism means and hope they'll just associate it with liberals (Reagan and Thatcher were "neoliberals").

[Theodarzna]

It makes a few fairly silly assertions, right out of the gate;

So, in their argument, the "dominant political ideologies of the West" are;

1> Neoliberalism,
2> Mainstream conservativism, and
3> Marxism

It doesn't even grant socialist thought a proper consideration, since it just points out that classical Marxism had some flaws, but that was settled in the early 20th Century, and socialist forms have developed quite a bit since then.

And "neoliberalism" is basically a libertarian style of laissez-faire capitalism. Which is generally fairly right-wing, in viewpoint. So by the author's contention, the "dominant political ideologies of the West" are two right-wing views, and Marxism.

That's an aggressively cherry-picked and misleading perspective, to begin with. Where's the social democrats? Progressive liberals? Both those groups have way more influence in Western democracies, in many case leading those nations, than freaking Marxists. And both are significantly concerned with issues of social class.

I agree that the growing economic divide needs addressing. But pretending nobody's talking about it is silly as hell.

Socialism gets no mention because it effectively failed where it was tried, or collapsed; and the other point of Social Democrats/Progressive-Liberals or what have you can easily be swept aside as a non-Ideology as the best examples of those countries are ones completely subordinated to Neo-Liberal institutions and policies. Sweden, Denmark, ect, none of them are not Neo-Liberal in much of their outlook and social democracy is always curtailed by Neo-liberalism. So for example, Italy, Greece and Spain as a great example of decisions made to crush the Social Democrats at the behest of Neo-Liberal outlooks. Neither group has any real power that isnt subordinated by institutions of a different ideological framework, or is just branding.

Also, labeling something Left-Wing or Right-Wing is useless and seems to come off as saying "Not my side!" The dominate ideology of the West is Neo-liberalism more or less, which doesn't preclude having Lefty Social Values and participating in the virtue signal of the month.

Also talk is talk, one can talk but nothing can or will be done.

- - - Updated - - -

It's shocking how much people want to acknowledge Marx's criticism of capitalism without acknowledging his criticism of capitalism.

There will ALWAYS be class struggle in a capitalist system because capitalism is the system that produces the most wealth and the most inequality. Smart capitalists know that wealth redistribution keeps the masses at bay while dumb capitalists impose austerity and think that universal healthcare is bad. The biggest irony in all of this is the impoverished voting for dog-eats-dog capitalism (Brexit) and a corrupt businessman because the left in the UK and USA have been consistently awful for the last 10 years.

I'm not really arguing a pro-Capitalist message, so I am not sure what you are getting at. The ultimate point at the end of the article was the Elites that have no threats, competition, nor any serious incentive to bind their fate to those they rule over, will likely turn tyrannical, abusive or at least negligent.

As for Brexit, I do believe it is the EU that did what it did to Greece, Spain and Italy, so..... I am not sure what to say. There is no good answer or path IMHO.

[Mittens]

This is Economics 101 and it's frustrating that people still don't get it. The primary drivers of any economy are the upper-lower class, lower-middle class and middle-middle class as they are the most numerous. When you load your youth with crippling debt, when you starve your vital services of funds and when you start axing workers' rights you are just begging for trouble.

Economics 101 is mostly horseshit, heck there barely is any proof that the supply and demand model is real. Aside from that, this is not true. The drivers of growth are capital deepening and tfp growth once returns of capital deepening are too low. AFAIK there is very little relation between TFP growth (innovation) and workers rights and what not.

[Levelfive]

Also, labeling something Left-Wing or Right-Wing is useless and seems to come off as saying "Not my side!" The dominate ideology of the West is Neo-liberalism more or less, which doesn't preclude having Lefty Social Values and participating in the virtue signal of the month.

Your nonsense word salad aside, don't mistake me: I'm not saying "not my side," I'm saying your routine intellectual dishonesty is transparent.

[Theodarzna]

Your nonsense word salad aside, don't mistake me: I'm not saying "not my side," I'm saying your routine intellectual dishonesty is transparent.

Do I know you?

[Sky High]

Communism and Marxism are greater threats to humanity than Nazis or Jihadis. We failed because we thought the soviets controlled economy was a threat to us, when the real threat was the take over of schools, mass 3rd world immigration and negative propaganda against any sort of national unity.

Don’t worry about those guys out there that want to create an islamic califaite as much as those damned teachers who don’t scorn Lenin enough! Also I’m confused how the “3rd world immigrant” dog whistle and Islam dog whistle are not connected here. Oh wait this is yet another Staimy throwing all the shit against the wall post, muh bad.

[Levelfive]

Do I know you?

What does that even mean? How many posts of yours do think it takes for someone figure out your rhetorical bullshit? (Hint: not many.) Also, you really should put quotation marks around things you're quoting.

[Theodarzna]

What does that even mean? How many posts of yours do think it takes for someone figure out your rhetorical bullshit? (Hint: not many.) Also, you really should put quotation marks around things you're quoting.

Eh, so the topic isn't of interest to you. Welp, that saves me some time.

[Levelfive]

Eh, so the topic isn't of interest to you. Welp, that saves me some time.

Plagiarists don't super interest me, no.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I honestly Consider myself Liberal and a Democrat. I would probably say more Democrat than Liberal.

As for NeoLiberalism I think Hillary probably qualifies in this vein, I think NeoLiberalism is something I have always known about but it has never been something over all thrown around as much like more recently. And I think it's for all the wrong reasons and the more immature juvenile issues.

I am a NeoLiberal now, I guess if anything my attitude is just ok fine LOL! I never been one to ever apologize for who I am or what I believe because that bothers anyone else. I am sure as hell beyond that now.

I care about economic equality, I care about education and the environment which is in my opinion tied to the economy. I believe in capitalism but it needs to have a leash in terms I don't think industry ought to be allowed to swallow everything up even if it can.

My top priorities
Clean water.
Renewable Energy.
Advancing Battery Technology.
Medical and Biological medicine.

Socially
I believe in sharing technology and working together
Bridging divides that don't need to separate human beings.
Overcoming indifference
People coming together with laws, not just being a nation of laws.


I believe in balance where we can culturally, but everything else needs to be challenged and fall on it's merits. Not Skin Color, Gender or Orientation.

[Theodarzna]

It's shocking how much people want to acknowledge Marx's criticism of capitalism without acknowledging his criticism of capitalism.

There will ALWAYS be class struggle in a capitalist system because capitalism is the system that produces the most wealth and the most inequality. Smart capitalists know that wealth redistribution keeps the masses at bay while dumb capitalists impose austerity and think that universal healthcare is bad. The biggest irony in all of this is the impoverished voting for dog-eats-dog capitalism (Brexit) and a corrupt businessman because the left in the UK and USA have been consistently awful for the last 10 years.

Also it should be said I am more into Émile Durkheim than Karl Marx, but Marx is indefensible in many respects, even if I don't think his Communist Utopia or his love of Hegalian End of History narratives is all that valuable.

[Levelfive]

I honestly Consider myself Liberal and a Democrat. I would probably say more Democrat than Liberal.

As for NeoLiberalism I think Hillary probably qualifies in this vein, I think NeoLiberalism is something I have always known about but it has never been something over all thrown around as much like more recently. And I think it's for all the wrong reasons and the more immature juvenile issues.

I am a NeoLiberal now, I guess if anything my attitude is just ok fine LOL! I never been one to ever apologize for who I am or what I believe because that bothers anyone else. I am sure as hell beyond that now.

I care about economic equality, I care about education and the environment which is in my opinion tied to the economy. I believe in capitalism but it needs to have a leash in terms I don't think industry ought to be allowed to swallow everything up even if it can.

My top priorities
Clean water.
Renewable Energy.
Advancing Battery Technology.
Medical and Biological medicine.

Socially
I believe in sharing technology and working together
Bridging divides that don't need to separate human beings.
Overcoming indifference
People coming together with laws, not just being a nation of laws.


I believe in balance where we can culturally, but everything else needs to be challenged and fall on it's merits. Not Skin Color, Gender or Orientation.

Yeah none of that is neoliberalism. It's an economic / political philosophy that values free markets, tax cuts, deregulation, the "rational self interest" that led to the global economic meltdown, privatization, etc. You know, your basic wrong-headed right wing gospel at the heart of so much unnecessary worldwide suffering and grief.

[Theodarzna]

I honestly Consider myself Liberal and a Democrat. I would probably say more Democrat than Liberal.

As for NeoLiberalism I think Hillary probably qualifies in this vein, I think NeoLiberalism is something I have always known about but it has never been something over all thrown around as much like more recently. And I think it's for all the wrong reasons and the more immature juvenile issues.

I am a NeoLiberal now, I guess if anything my attitude is just ok fine LOL! I never been one to ever apologize for who I am or what I believe because that bothers anyone else. I am sure as hell beyond that now.

I care about economic equality, I care about education and the environment which is in my opinion tied to the economy. I believe in capitalism but it needs to have a leash in terms I don't think industry ought to be allowed to swallow everything up even if it can.

My top priorities
Clean water.
Renewable Energy.
Advancing Battery Technology.
Medical and Biological medicine.

Socially
I believe in sharing technology and working together
Bridging divides that don't need to separate human beings.
Overcoming indifference
People coming together with laws, not just being a nation of laws.


I believe in balance where we can culturally, but everything else needs to be challenged and fall on it's merits. Not Skin Color, Gender or Orientation.

I would say much of my attitudes on modernity and capitalism come from Émile Durkheim. While maybe not 90% in lockstep with his views, I think he mostly matches up with what I see and have come to understand. Durkheim was focused on why people were so seemingly unhappy in modern society. He noticed that as countries industrialized and modernized the suicide rate went up and he investigated that and from that derived a list of problems with modernity itself.

1) Individualism:
In traditional societies, ones identity was bound up in belonging to a tribe, clan, family, village or some other tightly held social group. A person could be a farmer, blacksmith, baker, warrior, priest, married to the blonde from a village over or to their cousin; and most of these decisions were never consciously made by the individual themselves. To quote Teyve from Fiddler on the Roof "Everyone knows who he is and what God expects him to do."

Things are different now. The individual alone chooses everything. If things go right for them, the individual takes all the credit, if things go badly, well, whose fault is it? Realistically so much of life is beyond our control. The anxiety of that cannot be healthy. This might also fit with the idea of the Tyranny of Choices.

2) Excessive Hope:
Modernity raises hopes, perhaps much further than can be attained. Everyone is told they can become a boss, a CEO, a rockstar, the best and will get rich quick. You will have a great car, the best sex partner ect. Advertising shows us limitless amounts of luxury that we are told could be ours, but can it? The point being that the limitless possibilities also include limitless possibility for disappointment which is inevitable. Most will be disappointed as expectations and reality will never sink up. Society is rife with envy and avarice and it can never be satisfied. This will itself lead to a widespread unhappiness.

3) Too much 'freedom':
While a weird one, his point is that societies have become more complex, more anonymous and lack social connections because society no longer can be turned to for guidance on what to do. Collective answers for say how children should be raised, or what is the purpose of life have become weaker and less specific. So we depend on things like 'Whatever works for you' which while at the surface level sounds like a friendly statement, it is an admission by society that it doesn't care what you do nor feels confident it can even give any guidance at all.

While we may believe ourselves ready and capable of reinventing ourselves and the reality around us, we are typically too busy/burdened/exhausted/delirious and uncertain to even craft answers that really answer these questions. Nor does many of us have the time to seriously contemplate them. So when one looks for an answer, there is no longer a social reality that can even give one.

4) Weakening of the nation-state and the family unit:
Families are not what they once were. Children do not work alongside their parents, or rarely live near them, nor do the social circles ever overlap for the most part. The Nation, as in the State, has tried to create this sense of belonging but outside of Fascism (Which didn't pan out in this direction and seems a bit to warlike in the age of mechanized warfare), the State hasn't been able to fill in the gap of family, clan, tribe, village ect. Moreover the experience of Fascism has made some States in particular hesitant to try that role for themselves. So States cannot create a larger sense of belonging and nor do families anymore for various reasons.

There is a fifth point but I am not sure we are allowed to discuss that. Google the guy if you want to get a full rundown. The point being, I'm definitely not a Neo-Liberal in the slightest. I have no faith in Capitalism as a long term solution to anything. That might be where our divisions come from. The point of Durkheim also might be less to do 100% of what he says, or that one needs to think about his core questions if you want to resolve those problems. A serious discussion of everything's role is necessary and I'd say healthy to boot.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I would say much of my attitudes on modernity and capitalism come from Émile Durkheim. While maybe not 90% in lockstep with his views, I think he mostly matches up with what I see and have come to understand. Durkheim was focused on why people were so seemingly unhappy in modern society. He noticed that as countries industrialized and modernized the suicide rate went up and he investigated that and from that derived a list of problems with modernity itself.

Yeah, I saw you put that I was curious so I googled Emile Durkheim sounded like a woman's name, never even remembered him referenced, I did find some tidbits.

I have never been a Marxist, but I didn't do much in depth reading on a philosophies over all I disagreed with fundamentally.

1) Individualism:
In traditional societies, ones identity was bound up in belonging to a tribe, clan, family, village or some other tightly held social group. A person could be a farmer, blacksmith, baker, warrior, priest, married to the blonde from a village over or to their cousin; and most of these decisions were never consciously made by the individual themselves. To quote Teyve from Fiddler on the Roof "Everyone knows who he is and what God expects him to do."

Things are different now. The individual alone chooses everything. If things go right for them, the individual takes all the credit, if things go badly, well, whose fault is it? Realistically so much of life is beyond our control. The anxiety of that cannot be healthy. This might also fit with the idea of the Tyranny of Choices.

Interesting never been one of the every man is an island as it were when it is applied to overall philosophy. That probably goes to individuality, I think no matter where you pick you will find some who are much further ahead than others.

As to a cast or even a class system, I think too much is presumed. Human beings I think we simply always test our prematures, if everybody does this, I could place money you will likely do that other thing, whether it is better or not.

2) Excessive Hope:
Modernity raises hopes, perhaps much further than can be attained. Everyone is told they can become a boss, a CEO, a rockstar, the best and will get rich quick. You will have a great car, the best sex partner ect. Advertising shows us limitless amounts of luxury that we are told could be ours, but can it? The point being that the limitless possibilities also include limitless possibility for disappointment which is inevitable. Most will be disappointed as expectations and reality will never sink up. Society is rife with envy and avarice and it can never be satisfied. This will itself lead to a widespread unhappiness.

I think there is something to be said for being objective, when I was younger like most I assume I was told I could do anything I set my mind to doing, not that I wanted, but I set myself up to do.

I imagine that is true for everybody, however as things develop that wind or door becomes very small, I don't see hope in and of itself as being a problem, I think it's hope not tethered to anything practical. Possibility doesn't mean probability.

3) Too much 'freedom':
While a weird one, his point is that societies have become more complex, more anonymous and lack social connections because society no longer can be turned to for guidance on what to do. Collective answers for say how children should be raised, or what is the purpose of life have become weaker and less specific. So we depend on things like 'Whatever works for you' which while at the surface level sounds like a friendly statement, it is an admission by society that it doesn't care what you do nor feels confident it can even give any guidance at all.

This I flat out reject, this seems more like less of a problem with freedom and more of a problem of not doing whatever it is others want or think you should. Needs are different than wants, and when others wants are tied to others needs, then that is when control monsters are born.

In a societal structure, too much freedom can be a problem, the thing is to what reach is there someone could go where they are no longer bound by anyone else. I think this kind of thinking creates rebels who long for a freedom even if they don't know what that means. Mostly because of what I stated above.

While we may believe ourselves ready and capable of reinventing ourselves and the reality around us, we are typically too busy/burdened/exhausted/delirious and uncertain to even craft answers that really answer these questions. Nor does many of us have the time to seriously contemplate them. So when one looks for an answer, there is no longer a social reality that can even give one.

This might be a result of not enough freedoms the reins are held too tight, everyone is so busy racing it leaves a lot less to actually stop to think where they are going much less anything or anyone else.

4) Weakening of the nation-state and the family unit:
Families are not what they once were. Children do not work alongside their parents, or rarely live near them, nor do the social circles ever overlap for the most part. The Nation, as in the State, has tried to create this sense of belonging but outside of Fascism (Which didn't pan out in this direction and seems a bit to warlike in the age of mechanized warfare), the State hasn't been able to fill in the gap of family, clan, tribe, village ect. Moreover the experience of Fascism has made some States in particular hesitant to try that role for themselves. So States cannot create a larger sense of belonging and nor do families anymore for various reasons.

There is a fifth point but I am not sure we are allowed to discuss that. Google the guy if you want to get a full rundown. The point being, I'm definitely not a Neo-Liberal in the slightest. I have no faith in Capitalism as a long term solution to anything. That might be where our divisions come from. The point of Durkheim also might be less to do 100% of what he says, or that one needs to think about his core questions if you want to resolve those problems. A serious discussion of everything's role is necessary and I'd say healthy to boot.

It is real simple to me, each person sometimes group are on their own paths, we are all equal in our parts but not the same when put together. Sometimes when you put some groups and people indifferent to one another you get a reaction, sometimes very dangerous ones.

I am am not a Communist, but I believe Capitalism as well as I feel it has worked, has become unchecked. For the first time we have pretty much stood still for about a 100 years and everywhere else is moving in the same direction.

The problem is though when money equates to values such as land, water rights and so forth, that is when money can no longer solve what it didn't create, which is the resources we all depend on need to be managed. Yes, for the good of all.

To do that requires some control, whether that extends to everywhere is unclear, but I think it's also clear that the borders and laws in different places aren't going to be enough to bring peace and balance to the entire world or have much of an impact.


Where me and you disagree amongst many things as that I do believe some are further along than others, and I truly do believe those with power have to take the responsibility to defend the weakest, and push for justice and equality.

I am authoritarian as it pertains to law and order meaning I am not an Anarchist, that however does not mean I believe in slavery, where everyone has every choice taken away from them.

Because that I don't believe in.

[Endus]

Socialism gets no mention because it effectively failed where it was tried, or collapsed; and the other point of Social Democrats/Progressive-Liberals or what have you can easily be swept aside as a non-Ideology as the best examples of those countries are ones completely subordinated to Neo-Liberal institutions and policies.

This is insane pseudo-intellectual wharrgarble.

All you're really saying here is that you don't want to include better than 50% of the modern geopolitical landscape because you, personally, don't agree with it. That's hyperpartisan bullshittery, not a valid position nor argument.

You're flat-out, objectively wrong about the irrelevance of these ideological viewpoints, and to make matters worse, they're the ones making the arguments you're decrying the lack of. Which just makes your position asinine as well as dishonest.

Also, labeling something Left-Wing or Right-Wing is useless and seems to come off as saying "Not my side!" The dominate ideology of the West is Neo-liberalism more or less, which doesn't preclude having Lefty Social Values and participating in the virtue signal of the month.

This is just flat-out wrong. See above; you're claiming that social democrats are really neoliberal libertarians at heart, which is just obviously incorrect.

When you misrepresent the facts this badly, you can make whatever argument you want seem like it's relevant, but all it really means is that you're twisting the facts to fit your views, rather than informing yourself of the facts to develop your views, which is the only defensible way to go.

[Theodarzna]

This is insane pseudo-intellectual wharrgarble.

This is surprisingly meta. Are you always apt to open with an insult? Isn't throwing a fiery insult like, inappropriate for these forums?

All you're really saying here is that you don't want to include better than 50% of the modern geopolitical landscape because you, personally, don't agree with it. That's hyperpartisan bullshittery, not a valid position nor argument.

You're flat-out, objectively wrong about the irrelevance of these ideological viewpoints, and to make matters worse, they're the ones making the arguments you're decrying the lack of. Which just makes your position asinine as well as dishonest.

Because no Social-Democracy exists outside of a subordinated position within some Neo-Liberal institution. Every European Social Democracy except maybe Britain is subordinate to the EU which has shown itself to be largely Neo-Liberal in its actions and policies. For examples see Spain, Italy and Greece.

But this gets back to the meta of your post here. The only hyper partisan it seems is you. I explained WHY Socialism and Social Democracy don't really matter, and your response is to spew insults for a few sentences. If anything you don't seem to have any valid position but to lob insults, and I find that unbecoming of a man or woman of your station here.

You should you know, explain why that position I stated is not valid other than engage in some very blatant projection.

This is just flat-out wrong. See above; you're claiming that social democrats are really neoliberal libertarians at heart, which is just obviously incorrect.

When you misrepresent the facts this badly, you can make whatever argument you want seem like it's relevant, but all it really means is that you're twisting the facts to fit your views, rather than informing yourself of the facts to develop your views, which is the only defensible way to go.

Again, amazing. You accuse me of dishonesty whilst misrepresenting my position. Stunning really.

So I'm wrong why? Ultimately it seems I am wrong on the grounds of "Not agreeing with Endus" which isn't a point no matter what your position and standing is.

[Endus]

This is surprisingly meta. Are you always apt to open with an insult? Isn't throwing a fiery insult like, inappropriate for these forums?

How is that an insult?

Your argument was nonsense, and I stated as much. That's an attack of your argument. Not your character.

Because no Social-Democracy exists outside of a subordinated position within some Neo-Liberal institution. Every European Social Democracy except maybe Britain is subordinate to the EU which has shown itself to be largely Neo-Liberal in its actions and policies. For examples see Spain, Italy and Greece.

Absolutely and concretely false. You're confusing "neoliberalism" with "literally any form of capitalism in any way whatsoever". That's the nonsense I was talking about. Neoliberalism is a fairly niche and extreme point of view, delving deeply towards anarcho-capitalist theory.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp

But this gets back to the meta of your post here. The only hyper partisan it seems is you. I explained WHY Socialism and Social Democracy don't really matter, and your response is to spew insults for a few sentences.

No, what I did was point out that that statement is ridiculous hogwash, and is in no way true. You didn't explain shit. You declared it, because you don't like those ideological views. You presented no evidence, and your claims don't stand up to the barest levels of scrutiny.

You should you know, explain why that position I stated is not valid other than engage in some very blatant projection.

1> Neoliberalism is a niche, relatively extreme, and not particularly popular branch of capitalist economic theory.
2> Social democracy is a fundamental and defining character of most Western nations, despite your dismissing of it wholesale based on nothing.

Just for starters.

[Theodarzna]

Absolutely and concretely false. You're confusing "neoliberalism" with "literally any form of capitalism in any way whatsoever". That's the nonsense I was talking about. Neoliberalism is a fairly niche and extreme point of view, delving deeply towards anarcho-capitalist theory.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp

Right, so, the assessment of the EU as largely Neo-liberal is not exactly just something I've said but is something others have said, and no none of them are scary places I assure you. Its immediate pivot to austerity and gutting the public sector as a solution to the continents economic woes is proof of this. Once more its an institution whose purpose is trade, economic integration and globalization. All part of the broader Neo-Liberal project. I mean the essence of Neoliberalism is free movement of labor and capital, usually lefty social values, free market solutions. Neoliberals are flexible in their policy prescriptions but are unified in their support for lowering barriers on trade and immigration while also supporting a tax on carbon emissions. Sounds like Justin Trudeau to me honestly.

Now you might try and claim Canada, but Canada's Justin Trudeau is hardly a Democratic Socialist, a point stressed by more than a few people in different ideological camps. What with his policies of just making a more palatable face and friendly look to what was in many respects Harper's policies.

So to be clear here, you don't have a rebuttal, or if you did you are skiddish about actually giving one. Neo-liberalisms status as one of the dominate ideologies isn't even a right-wing idea but is something Socialists and the Left have been arguing for while now (Example). Also, what gives, first you grant Neo-Liberalism is a thing, even a dominate ideology in this era and now you pivot to it being some niche thing that almost doesn't exist? Really? You weren't stressing this point before, and if you did why did you wait on this? If your contention was "Neo-Liberalism is basically some marginal thing that nobody does anywhere" that would have been your point. It sounds like you are shifting the goalpost. Socialists proclaim Neo-liberalisms presence in the halls of power, so I am not sure if you are up to date on your own party line.

No, what I did was point out that that statement is ridiculous hogwash, and is in no way true. You didn't explain shit. You declared it, because you don't like those ideological views. You presented no evidence, and your claims don't stand up to the barest levels of scrutiny.

Again petty insults. You've not come with a rebuttal at all, and honestly this reeks of projection on your part. You now resort to shifting the goalpost and petty insults and crude language in place of having a decent point.

1> Neoliberalism is a niche, relatively extreme, and not particularly popular branch of capitalist economic theory.
2> Social democracy is a fundamental and defining character of most Western nations, despite your dismissing of it wholesale based on nothing.

Just for starters.

So going back to your initial post, nowhere did you claim Neoliberalism was niche. I feel I feel like if this was truly your contention you would have opened with that when you made such a claim but about Marxism.

That's an aggressively cherry-picked and misleading perspective, to begin with. Where's the social democrats? Progressive liberals? Both those groups have way more influence in Western democracies, in many case leading those nations, than freaking Marxists. And both are significantly concerned with issues of social class.

(screenshot of original post)

Look at the context of this specific clause in that sentence. At no point do you imply in your first post that Neoliberalism is some niche small thing. Even whilst claiming Marxism was. If this was your contention you sure did not believe it when you typed your OP. You leave it out of your point entirely and focus entirely on your vision that Social Democracy as more prevalent than Marxism. Had you stuck to that point I might have conceded the point but here you are arguing that NeoLiberalism is hardly a thing and Socialism (in one variant) is ascendant and victorious; a point I doubt many Socialists of any variety would agree with. But again, you explicitly only arrive at this point NOW, only NOW. Why wasn't NeoLiberalism listed as less influential when you explicitly talked about it?

My point is that Social Democracy is at best a subsidiary now. No country can leave the sandbox of Neoliberal economic policies and all these social democrat policies are thrown to the wind when financial demands desire it, such as has happened in Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and nearly all of the EU with austerity. Austerity and Free Trade policies are rather unusually Neo-Liberal considering your new found claim that these are niche ideas. In Canada's case, the importation of foreign workers into the oil industry was also Harpers idea, Trudeau's innovation was to require employers to advertise among disadvantaged groups before turning to foreigners, in the End the new rule allows employers to use cheap foreign labor indefinitely. (mentioned in this link, and before you rage, the Toronto Star endorsed Trudeau's government)

I also might have to tag the resident self-professed Neo-Liberal @Mittens to perhaps help explain how prevalent his ideology is. Is it some niche non-existent thing, or does it inform governing policy?

[unfilteredJW]

I can't eye roll hard enough at the above.

[Endus]

Right, so, the assessment of the EU as largely Neo-liberal is not exactly just something I've said but is something others have said, and no none of them are scary places I assure you. Its immediate pivot to austerity and gutting the public sector as a solution to the continents economic woes is proof of this.

Y'know, I never claimed there weren't any neoliberal influences. I said they weren't neoliberal governments and economies, which was your claim. The existence of significant government involvement proves this to be true; they are not bastions of neoliberal thinking. The articles you're talking about are criticising some specific neoliberalism-influenced policies, but those aren't the entire governmental/economic system.

Now you might try and claim Canada, but Canada's Justin Trudeau is hardly a Democratic Socialist, a point stressed by more than a few people in different ideological camps. What with his policies of just making a more palatable face and friendly look to what was in many respects Harper's policies.

Democratic socialism /= social democracy, for one.

For two, the Liberal Part of Canada is centrist, not left-wing. I didn't even vote Liberal in the last election. Literally all you've cited at this point are blog posts that refer to specific policies, not the structure of the government and economy itself, which is what you were talking about.

Just look at the definition of neoliberalism. Canada cannot by any rational argument be described as such. There are entire sections of the economy, health care for instance, that are nationalized, and are not managed by private business. That's not "neoliberalism".

So to be clear here, you don't have a rebuttal, or if you did you are skiddish about actually giving one.

The "rebuttal" is simple.

Here's what "neoliberalism" means; https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp
Most (all?) Western nations do not fit that.

This isn't complicated.

Also, what gives, first you grant Neo-Liberalism is a thing, even a dominate ideology in this era and now you pivot to it being some niche thing that almost doesn't exist? Really? You weren't stressing this point before, and if you did why did you wait on this? If your contention was "Neo-Liberalism is basically some marginal thing that nobody does anywhere" that would have been your point. It sounds like you are shifting the goalpost. Socialists proclaim Neo-liberalisms presence in the halls of power, so I am not sure if you are up to date on your own party line.

There's no "shifting of goal posts". You claimed that Western politics was driven by only three ideologies;

1> Neoliberalism
2> Mainstream conservativism
3> Marxism.

In so doing, you denied that better than half of the political landscape doesn't exist, in your mind. That's what is lunacy. I never said neoliberalism didn't have influence, or that some groups didn't push for a more neoliberal framework, I denied that neoliberalism was a fundamental mainstream ideological viewpoint in and of itself. Look at the USA. The Libertarian Party are arguably neoliberals. They're also next to irrelevant, politically speaking.

Again petty insults. You've not come with a rebuttal at all, and honestly this reeks of projection on your part. You now resort to shifting the goalpost and petty insults and crude language in place of having a decent point.

Again, the rebuttal is, to put it in one short sentence, "you're using definitions incorrectly and refusing to even acknowledge half or more of the political landscape".

That's a rebuttal. You not wanting to acknowledge it, like you don't want to admit that social democracy is a "thing", doesn't change that.

So going back to your initial post, nowhere did you claim Neoliberalism was niche. I feel I feel like if this was truly your contention you would have opened with that when you made such a claim but about Marxism.

(screenshot of original post)

Because Marxism has basically zero effective presence in basically any Western nation.

Also, this is a ridiculous jab to make, because you're acting as if me expanding upon and clarifying my point is somehow moving goalposts. That's nonsense, and you know better.

My point is that Social Democracy is at best a subsidiary now.

Which is dismissive, baseless, and wrong. This is where you straight-up deny that major political groups exist and have influence, while insisting that marginal groups like Marxists are somehow major factors.

No country can leave the sandbox of Neoliberal economic policies and all these social democrat policies are thrown to the wind when financial demands desire it, such as has happened in Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and nearly all of the EU with austerity. Austerity and Free Trade policies are rather unusually Neo-Liberal considering your new found claim that these are niche ideas. In Canada's case, the importation of foreign workers into the oil industry was also Harpers idea, Trudeau's innovation was to require employers to advertise among disadvantaged groups before turning to foreigners, in the End the new rule allows employers to use cheap foreign labor indefinitely. (mentioned in this link, and before you rage, the Toronto Star endorsed Trudeau's government)

I also might have to tag the resident self-professed Neo-Liberal @Mittens to perhaps help explain how prevalent his ideology is. Is it some niche non-existent thing, or does it inform governing policy?

I get the impression that you don't understand what "niche" means, or that politics is almost never about pure ideological implementations. I never said that neoliberal thinking was irrelevant (though Marxist thinking largely is), I pointed out that modern Western nations are not examples of neoliberal economies nor politics. There are neoliberal INFLUENCES, but that is not the same thing at all.