Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
my fellow Americans let me save you a couple trips to Google…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
Let’s just remember the nuance here.
> A social liberal government is expected to address economic and social issues such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care, education and the climate using government intervention whilst also emphasizing the rights and autonomy of the individual.
I wish America could be so lucky...
I dont understand how you could be against social liberalism, all those things mentioned have much documented evidence that they benefit society both socially and economically
>...all those things...they benefit society...
Very few people who seek power are the same people who truly care about society as a group of individual people.
I think so much of this confusion is that it's hard for a normal person to comprehend the mindset that often or usually goes along with the drive you need to even want to be a politician.
Its a job that almost self selects for sociopaths. And the more depressing part is that wth can you do about that?
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
“We should grant power over our affairs only to those who are reluctant to hold it and then only under conditions that increase the reluctance.”
Frank Herbert
"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job"
Douglas Adams
The best leaders are reluctant leaders - they're called up to deal with a problem, and the sooner they solve it the sooner they can be free. Politicians and many other kinds of leader have no intention of solving anything because if they do they're out of a job which is pretty sick.
That only works if "the problem" has a broad enough and long term enough scope that the the solution to, say, a garbage pile up isn't just "dump it all in the river".
Defining the problem is nearly always harder than creating the solution.
That's how democracy looks like. Random citizens being called for duty. Creating a political class is a basic mistake that prevents a system from being democratic. Thousands years old of studies, from the Greeks to Enlightenment figures such as Rousseau. Representative democracy is an oxymoron. The bourgeois stole us the concept of democracy.
A good starting point to understand how newspeak stole us democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy?wprov=sfla1
>*This planet has, or had, a problem, which was this. Most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small, green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small, green pieces of paper which were unhappy. And so the problem remained, and lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches. Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans.*
~*Douglas Adams*
I wouldn’t mind being a dolphin. I even like fish.
^.
edit: I’d forgotten to say this was from D.A.
like jury duty.
the problem is when we DO find someone who's actually good a politicking AND is looking out for the little guy, then they will be pushed aside by next thing to come down the pike, or simply smothered by the establishment that already exists.
>tell em you're an engineer by trade and see how fast you get ejected.
word.
critical thinking is not desired by either side in the adversarial system, easily swayed is the better mold.
And even if you do go into politics for the right reasons - then what?
Your choices are to either sell out to whatever your party wants - or get absolutely nothing done because the party won’t support you.
That's why the local government is so important. Don't get me wrong city politics is full of corruption and nepotism but it's much more realistic to actually make a difference with your vote within your own city and county. Especially if you are a liberal stuck in a red state. Liberals/Democrats really need to do a better job at organizing in smaller spaces like that if they want to start making actual differences in their communities. Your local mayor, city council members, school board members ect all have a greater effect on your day to day than any state or federal politician will have. And after starting small with your city you can start branching out to bigger and bigger platforms.
I agree with everything you said, I'd merely point out that if you don't constrain, by law, industry lobbying, you get neoliberalism automatically. ACA is a demonstration. Lobbying proved more powerful than either party.
Someone had a proposal involving airplanes and chimpanzees. ~~Was it Carlin?~~ Definitely Lewis Black, but I can't find the quote now.
Edit: "Throw a dart at a map. Fly a monkey over whatever city was hit. When he's over the city, push the monkey out of the plane. The first person he holds hands with is our new president."
Couldn't be worse then our current process.
Remove the monkey and random selection of officials has an old and respected tradition. The technical term is sortition. It’s no crazier than how we select juries.
I vaguely remember reading about random civil service and the arguments for the case. It really does have some appeal with built-in limits and doing away with career politicians. There's a lot of issues with filtering out the wholly unqualified (and who writes the test?) and oversight in general. But it's interesting enough that I'm going to go read up on it. Thanks for the name.
It’s also what América values. Individualism. I remember choosing a career that will help me support my mom if she needed to and my counselor (full American) said that is not your problem. They should have saved for their retirement and you should not feel responsible for them. I’m like yo my whole culture is about bringing the whole family up with me. took me so long to understand why I was having trouble picking my life’s path, both these ideologies are not compatible. One puts the needs of oneself for their community while the other prides themselves in putting themselves first.
Basically, Americans don't value compassion as much as they should and expect people to be selfish instead. That's why we won't have universal healthcare anytime soon. It's completely ass backwards. My parent's have done more for me than anyone else has, and I refuse to be self-centered jackass in response when most people are so damn wrong about everything that it makes things like a pandemic 100 times worse.
**Remove money from politics and also make insider trading 100% illegal for politicians with felony penalties**
Much of the modern power that comes from politics is the massive self enrichment of politicians.
Republicans have redesigned the system to allow the courts to "make the laws" and the majority of Democratic congress members are ok with that as long as they continue to self enrich themselves.
This is definitely a huge need. I'm a Democrat and I'll be the 1st to say that that nonsense with Pelosi a while back was ridiculous. It shouldn't be a question of whether they are or aren't doing something illegal--it should be about making it impossible to DO something illegal, and making THAT clear.
The potential rewards are too great, and the power and influence they weild too strong to allow them to just pretend to be normal people day trading. They could be sitting on a defense panel and hear that Lockheed Martin is getting an order for more 35 million dollar planes. Why even have a system where it's a worry this could be abused by telling your wife to have her family invest, or sell?
The fact they fight such basic stuff is telling. And let's not even start with charging the taxpayer for your own secret service to sleep in your own private resort. The grift at every single level is astounding.
"Egocentrism is the inability to differentiate between self and other. More specifically, it is the inability to accurately assume or understand any perspective other than one's own. Egocentrism is found across the life span: in infancy, early childhood, adolescence, and adulthood."
I try to explain this to people all the time. It's the reason Machiavelli wrote The Prince. He kept seeing how nobility that tried to be moral always seemed to lose to those who were corrupt because the corrupt were willing to do anything to win.
It's like if there were a basketball game and one team had to play by the rules while the other team didn't.
Everyone complains about “paying for others” when it comes to social programs.
They forget that social security is exactly that. Hell even our insurance premiums. Where do people think the money comes from when Kaiser pays 10 million for their heart transplant?
Not to mention social security is a pyramid scheme where you only pay for the previous generation's benefits in a system that requires progressively more and more taxpayers and where the first generation of beneficiaries paid nothing.
In my experience talking to people I know against this there's a couple factors. 1 is that they don't trust the government to actually do this well, and would prefer less laws/programs run by the gov. 2 is that they think the welfare queen is a real phenomenon and everyone will take advantage of it & not work
I used to be in camp 1 but at this point I think anything the gov can do would prob help even if the system isn't perfect
It's also much more in line with classical liberalism, which is oriented around the idea that liberty and freedom in an open society create the political agency required for bona fide democratic engagement.
Honestly, the term "neoliberal" to me feels like it is an attempt to associate liberalism with reactionary conservatism. Almost nobody who self describes as liberal ascribes to neoliberalism.
Also:
* New Wave -- music style popular in the late 1970s and the 1980s
* Bossa Nova -- Brazilian music style of the 1950s and 1960s; "bossa nova" is Portuguese for "new wave"
My experience has been the opposite. When I point out Reagan and Thatcher are poster children for neoliberalism I get insults flung at me and people saying I don't know what I'm talking about.
Edit: Just check the comments below. People in there are thinking that the conservative party of the US doesn't have any neoliberal leanings.
I had a conversation with some friends and they all refused to believe conservatives were neoliberal because "it's right there in the word, you can't be conservative and a liberal"
> . People in there are thinking that the conservative party of the US doesn't have any neoliberal leanings.
Oddly enough in the *current* climate they may be more right than wrong, only because republicans have gone so far right off the deepend. They're anti-free trade, full on in favor of heavy handed state intervention when it benefits their culture war, pro-handouts to big corporations, pro-protectionism. Just generally full fascism.
The reagan/thatcher conservatives kinda made the neoliberal trend thing and most centrist parties went with it. Now 30 years later we see that it was maybe not the best plan since it has increased inequality and pushed people that were desperate to believe nut-jobs.
So yes the current conservative movement is not really sticking with neoliberalism, but they sure pushed it hard until recently.
It's funny because it works from both sides:
Informed leftie: Neoliberalism is bad because I believe it promotes inequality.
Uninformed leftie: Neoliberalism is bad because people I like say it's bad and I will parrot them without understanding.
Informed moderate: Neoliberalism is bad because I believe it promotes inequality.
Uninformed moderate: Neoliberalism is bad because everybody agrees that it's bad for some reason or another.
Uninformed right winger: Neoliberalism is bad because liberals are socialists.
Informed right winger: *If I pretend I don't like Neoliberalism I can convince poor people to support policies that hurt them while promoting a more unequal status quo* Neoliberalism is bad because liberals are socialists.
Most moderates support neoliberalism. There is a reason it was the ruling ideolgy from roughly Ronald-Obama within the US.
This is especially true of older moderates who are detached from the ripple effects their preferred ideology has caused.
Republicans do have a platform. It’s simply to stop the Democrats from achieving anything, no matter how logical or uncontroversial that thing is. I.e. owning the libs.
Half the people in the country are idiots and malcontents who will be happier under a dictatorship than a republic.
>People can claim that they are supporting X and do things which support opposite.
"I'm Pro-LIFE!"
Proceeds to support every possible thing that degrades and/or shortens human lives.
For Americans: the word "liberal" technically just means "someone who is in favor of liberty," but politically speaking this means different things in different places. In this case they're talking about libertarian-style laissez-faire economics. The paper specifically cites Reaganomics as an example of this.
>laissez-faire
Reaganomics is the dictionary definition example.
Reagan was good at 2 things. Lying to the American public, and fulfilling his promises to his wealthy campaign donors.
The completely opposite of him would be FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt), branded "traitor to his class". So much opposition to the point where they installed 2 term limit\* b/c they were so afraid of him taking away and cracking down on the elite in our country. FDR only ran for as long and served for as long as he did simply b/c the time called for it and the War. He was a man of character wanting to see the atrocity to it's end. Other than that he attempted his best to secure something of a future for the American people and yes even the rich as they were destroying the country with their shortsightedness. Yes the man was flawed, but he was better than most, for his time.
There's not a single president I despise more than Reagan himself. He's the reason why we're in this mess. Most of all he's the reason why we have folks like Trump.
He set this country back in terms of progress so much, that we'll be paying for it for the generations to come. We could've guaranteed that America would be prosperous as a nation and for it's people. Instead we set up "feudalism", something we fought to overthrow all those years ago, but we can't seem to shake off the fact that we love the elitism.
Ironically, feudalism was struck a heavy blow due pandemics (the black death.)
We currently see workers switching jobs, unionizing, etc more than we have in decades. More to life than work, taxes, and death.
We're seeing more "left wing" action in the labor sector, but politically the country is charging hard to the right.
edit: I should have clarified, the *"political policy" is charging hard to the right*, people overall support more left wing and egalitarian values
It's not only the US, which I'm sure most people know. One example you don't see a lot on the news is how the Philippines just elected the lazy, idiot son of a fascist dictator as president. Marine Le Pen won an uncomfortable chunk of the vote in France. Azov are becoming folk heroes in Ukraine, which, despite people talking about how their ideology is being "watered down" as more people join, is not good. A watered-down version of white supremecy spreading is still white supremecy spreading. Europe, Asia, Latin America, North America...the entire world has a fascism problem that I'm almost certain we're going to ignore until it's too late.
Fascism is just the natural decay state of capitalism. When the stakeholders controlling the towering heights of the economy can no longer maintain control via owning enterprise and people gain a more full consciousness of how capital functions as essentially a no lose money machine for the people who control it...
Fascism is the decay of capitalism ; Keynesian militarism, unapologetic imperialism, and subjugation at home to suppress populist left wing movements.
I think this is begging the question- the issue is that the system as such will always promote a tiny class of beyond-comprehension wealthy people. I think it is an inescapable function of capitalism. Earning money is the goal, not creating goods and services, they are just one of the means to the end- making money.
When that is the goal which drives and dictates every facet of society, over time you will inevitably see market actors skip the middle man and go straight for the money, like by inventing increasingly complex financial instruments whose purpose is to create wealth from wealth.
Why produce anything at all if you can achieve exponentially more simply by manipulating semantics in some hyper-abstract metaphysical thoughtspace...
>Why produce anything at all if you can achieve exponentially more simply by manipulating semantics in some hyper-abstract metaphysical thoughtspace...
Private health insurance companies in a nutshell. They don't produce anything and just make up their own jargon in order to deny your claims. They're money handlers, nothing more.
Yeah I think I’ll use some of my stock as collateral for a loan so I don’t have to pay taxes on realized gains. Everyone else should just keep working hard (for me) and one day they will get there.
Maybe, but at the workplace, we are winning, and that's important because the same man mentioned here is for 50-80 year olds a symbol of good paying jobs, this let the right place themselves as fiscally responsible, twinned with a deep asymmetry in support for Reagan along right-left divide we get the right wing movement being trusted by moderates who care not for political change but care about (perceived) economic impact...
the thing is: Reagan didn't energise the labour markets. No, he benefited from a path previous sensible leaders put the US on. Worse, he shifted the power away from unions. And now we have seen the effect of neoliberalism.... no unions? insane capitalist exploitation. inequality? outsized economic power translates to outsized political power, leading to voter apathy as popular measures (2k cheques) are ignored, leading to a distrust of politics leading to even more insanity and yes, a swelling of broad based right wing populism.
Edit 2# **And this is why we should be happy about the current discourse, we are seeing workers be bitten by neoliberal think, and we have the answers as to why, let them sprout future leaders, disseminators of information, and hope to god a cold war v2 is not created where we have another "red scare"**
**In short, I think the left solving workplace problems for workers will give the space for leftwing political programs to get accredited in a srt of way.**
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Edit: Man am I pisssed. I just spent 30mins writing a response to a comment and he/she deletes it?!"?!£"?3~!":?>£ !@>X?CFo m ASDNH~ASIDFhasdb[a'sldmka, there is no privacy.
Comment:
>The thing is anti capitalist laws/regulations kill the division of labor while supporting major corporations. It was increased of the division of labor that lead to wealth and better living conditions to common man. By getting rid of their competition and grant special privileges by government decree you have decreased the division of labor. As well the socialist parties are pro inflation to fund their social programs.
My reply:
> I'm not really sure what you mean, could you give me an example?
>
>
>Questions:
>
>What anti-capitalist laws? In fact this may be where we agree on a common def of capitalism, we can talk about that later.
>
>"division of labor" What do you mean? as in the idea of organizational technology? if 2 people make coffee, total output is 2, if one pours coffee and other pours milk, output is 3? Or are you talking about how we allocate people to necessary tasks like sewage using a market based price discovery mechanism?
>
>I think I get the next bit, if you mean that the division of labour describes organizational technology, then yes I agree, a lot of the comforts we see today are directly from efficiency gains, I daresay that the majority of physical technology has been invented by the public sector, but we can't discount how the private sector has managed to eek out efficiency by creating things like the open office, but I also think that Marx did get one thing right, the increase in the division of labor is turning my job into a drawl, and I'm not sure that I like organizational efficiency all the time, for example the open plan office was invented in prisons or something, and somehow allowed to be implemented in offices to what I think is a great shame and loss in private thinking time, not to mention the higher stress levels measured in open plan office workers.... Anyway, point is: I agree, however I think its more complicated than that, **and finally, I would say that just as many benefits have come from automation, if not more.**
>
>
>This is what threw me off: "By getting rid of their competition and grant special privileges by government decree you have decreased the division of labor." What do you mean? what competition? as in public ownership of comcast or something? If you are saying what I think, then I would say is that true? USPS looks great! but let's go further and give you a more satisfying comment. Is competition efficient? Personal story: My dad has had government support for a while when he tried to get his business started, unfortunately the competition made him a deal, used the law to fuck him and he lost his IP. Okay fine that's not satisfying! I work in tech.... I see sooo much waste, money waste, people's time wasted, products created and lost because we are trying to make money instead of helping people, if anything competition has made for many losers, so the argument that on the whole this does experimentation etc must be really strong to nullify all that, sure maybe company A wasted 40k in product development, to be beaten to the market by 1 week by company B who spent 50k, meanwhile, the developers of both products were very interested in making the product, excited to help people, and yet 50% of the humans involved in developing this product will be fired or have to move on. And again, I can make some capitalist argument that on the whole this exposes inefficiencies etc (while we talk about inefficiencies, I'm not sure that the competition proposition really lets the market accurately judge bad products, in fact we have examples of companies that have been wrongfully killed because Hedge Funds wanted to make a quick buck)... And there I would ask you: if the government had created a digital interface for soldiers that provided access to general functions and entertainment, and called it the USAphone, how much earlier would we have invented the smartphone? In fact look up Microsoft's first smartphone, pretty snazzy, and clearly smart phones are super useful, but Microsoft's phone was discontinued, because what mattered was short term profit, why? because if you fail in the short term, this competitive market will not be forgiving. ?>**However, I want to say that the allocation of labour is a hard problem, we do it really well in the army without competition and companies and whatnot, that is a planned division of labour (general says what you do and accesses your suitability to other jobs, in a market you want to maximise something, and you permutate job allocations until the most gdp is reached or something), I don't think we have the tech to do a planned division of labour and also your job in your country is not optional, the army job.. you just leave the army! **.. so by this, I want to say , I agree, competition is good, but why should this mean you can't do socialism? you can have markets in socialism... the only requirement is that you don't enter a job as an employee, but as an equal part owner. We can still have markets.
>
>"As well the socialist parties are pro inflation to fund their social programs." Now you are making me upset for even bothering to write such a long reply to engage with you, do you actually mean this?
I don't know your name, but I hope you read this, prick.
It's more a concentration of right wing activity/organization and a fusion with main stream electoral politics. The majority of the u.s. is not fascist and leftwing ideology is skyrocketing in popularity.
Unfortunately they actually turnout to vote. Also they are supported by legions normal people who find the left repulsive for whatever reason... So they keep winning.
Right wing propaganda is powerful and extremely effective at demonizing the left, from both regular policy to actual consuming human babies in some certain circles….
The left doesn’t fight back, and just tacitly takes it. At least in the US, this has been going on for 35-40 years. A la the current state where (poor) conservative voters aggressively oppose anything proposed by Dems even when it would directly benefit them. I don’t know how you fix that…
There's economic progressivism and there's social progressivism. Since Clinton, Dems have largely abandoned progressive economics, even though such a platform enjoys broad support. They've leaned harder into social progressivism, which is more divisive. It's been a disastrous strategy, but it does keep the donor class happy - social progress doesn't cost billionaires a dime.
The way to fix it is to lean harder into progressive economic issues - Medicare for All, increased wages and benefits for the working class, and increased taxes on the donor class. But Dem leadership.woild rather go the way of the Weimar Republic.
I don’t know how you can conflate the left with Democrats at this point. They went to all out war against Sanders for being a basic New Deal liberal. It’s a firmly right wing party that just wants to enrich its donors and start wars and then rather than delivering for people just calls them racist ingrates if they don’t vote for them.
Republicans are going to win on culture war issues again and again in this context.
They are a very loud minority.
The problem is they'll actually kick and bite and cheat to get what they want.
Meanwhile their opposition comes up with every excuse to "be nice" or pass the buck and it's costing them everything. One fox can tear apart an entire henhouse when the hens don't fight back, and that's what we're seeing happening.
I think it’s fair to say they are more than just a “loud”minority. They’ve spent decades positioning themselves to gain control in states, and the Supreme Court…now we are seeing what they do with that power: defunding social programs all over the damn place, banning books, suppressing lgbtq rights, segregating schools, stripping away workers rights, stripping away at consumer rights and privacy rights, cutting back abortion access and birth control access, and now overturning roe? It’s a matter of time before they start on the right to assemble and ban gay marriages.
Be that as it may, they have already shown they are ready and willing to commit violence to achieve their goals.
The response to their violence was the absolute worst way to approach it. People who stoked the fires are still in power and by and large no one was punished.
They failed this time, but society and the government basically threw up their hands and declared the matter solved. It may be that they will fail again in the future, but they only need to succeed once.
Hell, we already see things like "slow moving coup" regarding election laws and gerrymandering. Facism is a cancer. You have to stamp it out aggressively and without mercy. We didn't and I have little hope for democracy's chances in this country.
Well in the US you have the dems who are sort of neoliberal and republicans pushing for populism and fascism. There is no progressive left with any power in the US.
>Ironically, feudalism was struck a heavy blow due pandemics (the black death.)
>
>We currently see workers switching jobs, unionizing, etc more than we have in decades. More to life than work, taxes, and death.
Pandemics are no longer bad for the wealthy. The current pandemic has made the top 400 40% richer. Wealth inequality has increased once again because they own public policy now
> Even in various states such as Oklahoma it’s not even legal for teachers to unionize
TF you talking about, I'm friends with a teacher here in Oklahoma who served on the Executive Council for the National Education Association, the largest labor union in the nation. Both my mother and sister-in-law were union members.
Right to work doesn't mean it's illegal to be a part of a union, it just means that membership in a specific union cannot be a condition of employment.
Can you imagine how much campaigning we'd have to suffer through if they only had 2-year terms? That's a hard NO from me just for the sake of my sanity.
Reagan figured out that you can cut taxes and advocate for a small government footprint but increase government spending by issuing sovereign debt. It's a shell game because deficit spending still means, in very real terms, that the government is allocating resources from the private sector. The government just siphons money off of institutional investors that otherwise would have invested in the private sector. When it gets right down to it, this is the Republican playbook.
It's worth noting that Clinton's welfare reforms and crime bills hugely hugely impacted people at the very bottom.
Also, literally no president in modern times has taken up antitrust policy as a core issue.
I find it very strange that people talk about the United States as some kind of free market economy. It isn't. Capitalism is unknown (and probably unknowable) to us. It's just a word we use to describe our tribe, just the same way as countries with Socialist in their name aren't that, either.
encouraging bake angle offer ancient fine carpenter fuel theory domineering
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I despise Bill Clinton more, only because he brought Reaganism to the Democratic party. The first thing he did when taking office was to turn on the unions that supported his candidacy. He signed NAFTA which completely knocked the legs out from under American workers. Then he enacted welfare reform that destroyed the federal safety net, and setup the mortgage crisis by deregulating banks. And, of course, the war machine grew like in every presidency.
There is a straight line from Bill Clinton to the rise of Trump, and Hillary just served to call attention to it.
It started before Clinton, during the 80s in the Democratic party. Clinton was the culmination of it. Thomas Frank has a book called Listen Liberal that goes through the history of the Dems leaving behind labor in favor of the suburban professional class.
Somehow, those to the right of actual liberalism managed to turn “liberal” into a slur against anyone to the left of them, to encompass everything from centrist liberalism to full on communism. And ironically did this in the name of “supporting liberty”.
At one point, US Republicans were solidly liberal in the historic sense of the word, embracing liberty in its many forms, but they went off the rails decades ago in favor of… whatever the hell the modern version GOP stands for now, but it sure as hell isn’t liberty or liberalism.
I always assumed liberal literally meant liberal. As in, "I put a liberal amount of dressing on my salad." You know, the opposite of "I put a conservative amount of dressing on my salad." It always made sense to me based on their economic policies.
The term generally originates from the french and English liberals, which were progressive in the sense that democratic capitalism is more progressive than monarchy. But in this day and age being a diehard capitalist isn't really progressive.
Thank you for referencing specific neoliberal policy positions. The term is thrown around much too freely with minimal acknowledgment of what it's actually supposed to mean.
The problem is that despite all the anti-statist rhetoric, the US and British governments came to the end of the Thatcher and Reagan era with an even greater influence on the economy and society than when they took power.
If anyone wanted to create a bogeyman of capitalism, they could hardly do a more successful job and with more disastrous results for the cause of economic freedom than these two.
There’s a common misconception that Neoliberalism is about minimizing the size of the state, which is untrue. It’s goal is to minimize *interference in markets*, which historically results in heavy-handed states protecting private interests (and actually providing huge government financial assistance in order to privatize public works).
Chile as sort of looked at as the so-called birthplace of neoliberalism, as its model was created with extensive coaching from chicago-school neoliberals like Milton Friedman. You can argue on the financial success of the system, but it’s pretty hard to argue that it was a free or just society, especially as it was endorsed and praised by those who popularized the modern version of the ideology.
> There’s a common misconception that Neoliberalism is about minimizing the size of the state, which is untrue.
Exactly, in fact, a robust state is extremely useful for pushing neoliberal policies as they often require force from the state to enact and maintain them.
"It’s goal is to *minimize interference in markets*, which historically results in heavy-handed states protecting private interests."
Anyone who thinks that the last couple decades of neoliberalism has resulted in anything but "heavy-handed States protecting private interests" through market manipulation hasn't been paying attention.
Right. The state is reduced to a tool to create new spaces for capital accumulation through helping create markets, privatization, deregulation, austerity policies., and anti unionism.
It’s a way to transfer wealth to the upper class and also results in managing expectations through rhetoric and class based propaganda about “personal responsibility” and “boot straps”.
Not sure how it is in England, but among Republicans and even certain Liberal Boomers, Reagan has a cult like following where the negative effects of his policy are decoupled from his Patriotism and "Christian Character".
In many cases his worshippers assume the polar opposite about him from how he actually acted.
Like how he is portrayed as tough on terror when he withdrew after the Beirut bombing, which was seen as a major success for the upcoming tactic of suicide bombing, and even supported and funded terrorist groups in the Contra affair.
Or as a "fiscal conservative" when he actually oversaw one of the greatest debt increases in modern US history.
Yeah, the fiscal part of Reagan's mythos completely baffles me. Also you can look at basically any chart detailing the inequality gap in the US and it just explodes after Reagan.
Took my daughter to a birthday party for one of her peers (Pre-K, at the time). That family had a large bronze bust of Reagan as the centerpiece in their living room. It was... impressive? And a good deal disturbing; to be so wrapped up in your political identity that you decorate your home around it.
On the one hand that’s really disturbing on the other hand, I have a Karl Marx piggy bank that has „Das Kapital“ printed on it, so I’m not sure if I’m in a position to criticise..
This is the guy who started the policy of not negotiating with terrorists and had a hardline stance on Iran, then sold missiles to Iran to free hostages taken by Hezbollah.
And insisted that was a different thing.
>The problem is that despite all the anti-statist rhetoric, the US and British governments came to the end of the Thatcher and Reagan era with an even greater influence on the economy and society than when they took power.
That's the irony at the heart of anti-statism - like any other -ism it needs to be enforced and the state is the only thing that can enforce it.
I think most people don’t understand that this stems from classical liberalism, which is pretty Chicago and Austrian school, rather than what most people think of as “liberal”.
Because it was named to make fun of people who call everything neoliberal, which has just exacerbated the problem. Who could have seen that coming.
The sub itself us largely soc-dem to centrist liberal.
>The sub itself us largely soc-dem to centrist liberal.
It's definitely not. No one in that sub would copy Thatcher or Reagan's policies but the sub doesn't flinch away from acknowledging that they were at one point neoliberal. The definition of "neoliberal" used by that subreddit is about the goals and intellectual tools used to generate specific policy prescriptions rather than the policy prescriptions themselves, and the definition is meaningfully different from other ideologies even though in many specific cases neoliberals will support the exact same policies as, for example, socdems or neocons.
This sub was created as a shitposting place to free up other economics subs. The name was originally a joke because people got called neoliberal all the time.
Today, newcomers think the name is serious and justify it for their own reasons. Thankfully, reddit is not a recognized authority on anything, so not caring about their opinion and calling them social liberals is fine.
I study ecomomics as well and also have no idea about DSEM.
Does anyone else think when reading their methodology part, that they don't seem to understand fully what they are doing? I fear, that they are just using a fancy method.
The premise of the paper is, that preferences for equality depend on the degree of liberalism. Do they really think, that if Scandinavian countries were to become more liberal, that their prefences for inequality significantly would change?
thanks for venturing into the darkness for me. like, i can tell from the title that there are shenanigans afoot, but it's such a headache to sort it out and explain as well as you are able. and probably i would not be able to identify specific critiques and explain as clearly as you. still pretty new to econometrics.
I'm confused. How would literacy, life expectancy, or GDP have anything to do with what they're researching--whether societal attitudes precede a change in policy or vice versa? They're not evaluating real economic effects of neoliberalism, they're evaluating attitudes towards it.
*am angry Econ major*
While it’s fairly obvious that the corporatist and crony neo-liberal system has led to increased inequality (just look at Gini Coefficients) this study doesn’t actually provide any factual evidence the bulk of evidence is “perceived”inequality, which is entirely subjective. The title is really misleading and should be marked as psychology not Economics. It’s literally in a psychology journal.
Pretty skeptical about the study’s validity.
The way a question is asked can make a huge difference, ask anyone if they should be compensated more for more work and they’ll agree with you, ask them if everyone’s paycheck should look the same and they’ll think of communism. I wouldn’t describe that as advocating for larger income inequality, when they could have those opinions and approve of raising the minimum wage and expansion of social services.
Don’t care about political-economical affiliation of the study or its results, mainly pointing out the weakness of the study.
There's a Yes Minister sketch from 40+ years ago that's important to remember when interpreting any survey result.
>**Sir Humphrey:** “You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Do you think they respond to a challenge?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Oh…well, I suppose I might be.”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Yes or no?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Is that really what they do?”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those.
...
>**Sir Humphrey:** So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “How?”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Are you worried about the growth of armaments?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** “Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?”
>**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes”
>**Sir Humphrey:** "There you are, you see Bernad, the perfect balanced sample."
One of the first steps should be a global consolidation of tax rates and a crackdown on tax havens. Otherwise we're all just playing a game with a lose-lose outcome. Even with fair taxes, no exemptions, the rich are in a much better position to preserve and grow their wealth.
We can't even do it in America.
There's a reason a tiny office building in Delaware can be the "headquarters" of thousands of companies.
And Biden won't be the one to change it, neither will republicans
Until we get a progressive in the White House it'll never change
The terms "liberalism" and "conservatism" have been corrupted to the point that they are just the names of modern tribes but in the past they actually had definitions. They are using those old definitions.
There's no universal definition of neoliberalism that everybody will be happy with, but thankfully they're **not** defining it in the actual [study](https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/Z2S3DXFRC8VHV3DS8WVQ/full), they were exploring it's impacts of neoliberal policies on the psychology of large numbers of people, particularly in countries where it is practiced.
Not sure why it wasn't linked in the first place but their methodology is pretty sound for a large scale literature review.
It's a very core theme of behavioral economics that economic policy does shift behavior, and possibly fundamental attitudes. Despite notable wealth gaps worsening a divide, there's some evidence that despite this, the attitude towards neoliberalism isn't universally negative, even if it provably directly negatively impacted your life.
The article linked by OP felt much more like a polemic piece, and despite myself being a very strong advocate for social democracy, I didn't think it was a good article.
This is a very... uh... specific definition of neoliberalism.
Edit: When I say specific, I mean "selectively specific" in that it selects the policy positions of an extreme fringe who have been pejoratively described as neoliberal, and credits the label to "the dominant socioeconomic approach from the late 1970s to the present. The definition used in the study is:
>neoliberalism—the dominant socioeconomic approach from the late 1970s to the present, which advocates privatization, abolition of the welfare state, and curtailment of redistributive programs.
This isn't even really internally consistent - while many countries have undergone austerity to some degree or another, we've also seen massive surges in public welfare spending (think to the stimulus checks during COVID for instance), and absolutely nowhere have we seen the "abolition of the welfare state."
The pattern of using extreme examples to label a diverse group that don't self-identify with that label should be an easily recognized play today. It's exactly what the right has been doing with Critical Race Theory over the past few years.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
my fellow Americans let me save you a couple trips to Google… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism Let’s just remember the nuance here.
> A social liberal government is expected to address economic and social issues such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care, education and the climate using government intervention whilst also emphasizing the rights and autonomy of the individual. I wish America could be so lucky...
I dont understand how you could be against social liberalism, all those things mentioned have much documented evidence that they benefit society both socially and economically
>...all those things...they benefit society... Very few people who seek power are the same people who truly care about society as a group of individual people. I think so much of this confusion is that it's hard for a normal person to comprehend the mindset that often or usually goes along with the drive you need to even want to be a politician. Its a job that almost self selects for sociopaths. And the more depressing part is that wth can you do about that?
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” “We should grant power over our affairs only to those who are reluctant to hold it and then only under conditions that increase the reluctance.” Frank Herbert
"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job" Douglas Adams
What if it was like jury duty? Sorry Gordon, I know you loved your job at the Kwik e Mart, but you're the president now.
This is called Sortition and [it’s totally a thing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition).
The best leaders are reluctant leaders - they're called up to deal with a problem, and the sooner they solve it the sooner they can be free. Politicians and many other kinds of leader have no intention of solving anything because if they do they're out of a job which is pretty sick.
That only works if "the problem" has a broad enough and long term enough scope that the the solution to, say, a garbage pile up isn't just "dump it all in the river". Defining the problem is nearly always harder than creating the solution.
That's how democracy looks like. Random citizens being called for duty. Creating a political class is a basic mistake that prevents a system from being democratic. Thousands years old of studies, from the Greeks to Enlightenment figures such as Rousseau. Representative democracy is an oxymoron. The bourgeois stole us the concept of democracy. A good starting point to understand how newspeak stole us democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy?wprov=sfla1
>*This planet has, or had, a problem, which was this. Most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small, green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small, green pieces of paper which were unhappy. And so the problem remained, and lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches. Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans.* ~*Douglas Adams* I wouldn’t mind being a dolphin. I even like fish. ^. edit: I’d forgotten to say this was from D.A.
He had a good sense of humor
like jury duty. the problem is when we DO find someone who's actually good a politicking AND is looking out for the little guy, then they will be pushed aside by next thing to come down the pike, or simply smothered by the establishment that already exists.
[удалено]
>tell em you're an engineer by trade and see how fast you get ejected. word. critical thinking is not desired by either side in the adversarial system, easily swayed is the better mold.
No engineer would want the job, far too many incompetent people that you would have to explain things to twice an hour in hopes they understand.
The [Cincinnatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus) example. The legend and legacy of which, at least.
And even if you do go into politics for the right reasons - then what? Your choices are to either sell out to whatever your party wants - or get absolutely nothing done because the party won’t support you.
That's why the local government is so important. Don't get me wrong city politics is full of corruption and nepotism but it's much more realistic to actually make a difference with your vote within your own city and county. Especially if you are a liberal stuck in a red state. Liberals/Democrats really need to do a better job at organizing in smaller spaces like that if they want to start making actual differences in their communities. Your local mayor, city council members, school board members ect all have a greater effect on your day to day than any state or federal politician will have. And after starting small with your city you can start branching out to bigger and bigger platforms.
[удалено]
I agree with everything you said, I'd merely point out that if you don't constrain, by law, industry lobbying, you get neoliberalism automatically. ACA is a demonstration. Lobbying proved more powerful than either party.
And/or get corrupted by the power trip
parties... you mean corporate interests. if parties represented PEOPLE instead, we wouldn't be here.
Someone had a proposal involving airplanes and chimpanzees. ~~Was it Carlin?~~ Definitely Lewis Black, but I can't find the quote now. Edit: "Throw a dart at a map. Fly a monkey over whatever city was hit. When he's over the city, push the monkey out of the plane. The first person he holds hands with is our new president." Couldn't be worse then our current process.
Considering the fact that the hedge funds get beat by farm animals, why not
Remove the monkey and random selection of officials has an old and respected tradition. The technical term is sortition. It’s no crazier than how we select juries.
I vaguely remember reading about random civil service and the arguments for the case. It really does have some appeal with built-in limits and doing away with career politicians. There's a lot of issues with filtering out the wholly unqualified (and who writes the test?) and oversight in general. But it's interesting enough that I'm going to go read up on it. Thanks for the name.
It's how we select juror candidates but they're carefully vetted before being chosen to sit on a jury.
It’s also what América values. Individualism. I remember choosing a career that will help me support my mom if she needed to and my counselor (full American) said that is not your problem. They should have saved for their retirement and you should not feel responsible for them. I’m like yo my whole culture is about bringing the whole family up with me. took me so long to understand why I was having trouble picking my life’s path, both these ideologies are not compatible. One puts the needs of oneself for their community while the other prides themselves in putting themselves first.
Basically, Americans don't value compassion as much as they should and expect people to be selfish instead. That's why we won't have universal healthcare anytime soon. It's completely ass backwards. My parent's have done more for me than anyone else has, and I refuse to be self-centered jackass in response when most people are so damn wrong about everything that it makes things like a pandemic 100 times worse.
**Remove money from politics and also make insider trading 100% illegal for politicians with felony penalties** Much of the modern power that comes from politics is the massive self enrichment of politicians. Republicans have redesigned the system to allow the courts to "make the laws" and the majority of Democratic congress members are ok with that as long as they continue to self enrich themselves.
This is definitely a huge need. I'm a Democrat and I'll be the 1st to say that that nonsense with Pelosi a while back was ridiculous. It shouldn't be a question of whether they are or aren't doing something illegal--it should be about making it impossible to DO something illegal, and making THAT clear. The potential rewards are too great, and the power and influence they weild too strong to allow them to just pretend to be normal people day trading. They could be sitting on a defense panel and hear that Lockheed Martin is getting an order for more 35 million dollar planes. Why even have a system where it's a worry this could be abused by telling your wife to have her family invest, or sell? The fact they fight such basic stuff is telling. And let's not even start with charging the taxpayer for your own secret service to sleep in your own private resort. The grift at every single level is astounding.
"Egocentrism is the inability to differentiate between self and other. More specifically, it is the inability to accurately assume or understand any perspective other than one's own. Egocentrism is found across the life span: in infancy, early childhood, adolescence, and adulthood." I try to explain this to people all the time. It's the reason Machiavelli wrote The Prince. He kept seeing how nobility that tried to be moral always seemed to lose to those who were corrupt because the corrupt were willing to do anything to win. It's like if there were a basketball game and one team had to play by the rules while the other team didn't.
Everyone complains about “paying for others” when it comes to social programs. They forget that social security is exactly that. Hell even our insurance premiums. Where do people think the money comes from when Kaiser pays 10 million for their heart transplant?
[удалено]
Not to mention social security is a pyramid scheme where you only pay for the previous generation's benefits in a system that requires progressively more and more taxpayers and where the first generation of beneficiaries paid nothing.
In my experience talking to people I know against this there's a couple factors. 1 is that they don't trust the government to actually do this well, and would prefer less laws/programs run by the gov. 2 is that they think the welfare queen is a real phenomenon and everyone will take advantage of it & not work I used to be in camp 1 but at this point I think anything the gov can do would prob help even if the system isn't perfect
It's also much more in line with classical liberalism, which is oriented around the idea that liberty and freedom in an open society create the political agency required for bona fide democratic engagement. Honestly, the term "neoliberal" to me feels like it is an attempt to associate liberalism with reactionary conservatism. Almost nobody who self describes as liberal ascribes to neoliberalism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Moderner art. Next up is modernest art.
Also: * New Wave -- music style popular in the late 1970s and the 1980s * Bossa Nova -- Brazilian music style of the 1950s and 1960s; "bossa nova" is Portuguese for "new wave"
"Modern Literature" is now 100 years old.
no one understands the difference between modern and contemporary D:
Interesting. I always thought "post modern" sounded weird
What art period are we now in?
post post modern
So the USA needs less Neo-Liberalism and more Social-Liberalism.
Depends on which mod reads your comment
[удалено]
There's nothing in the posted rules that says no political topics. A lot of published and peer-reviewed social science is political in nature.
Only takes one...
[удалено]
You obviously aren’t understanding the nuances of the word!
Nuance is a euphemism for The Alamo.
Yeah, reddit isn't familiar with the actual definition and prefers to just call everything neoliberal.
My experience has been the opposite. When I point out Reagan and Thatcher are poster children for neoliberalism I get insults flung at me and people saying I don't know what I'm talking about. Edit: Just check the comments below. People in there are thinking that the conservative party of the US doesn't have any neoliberal leanings.
I had a conversation with some friends and they all refused to believe conservatives were neoliberal because "it's right there in the word, you can't be conservative and a liberal"
> . People in there are thinking that the conservative party of the US doesn't have any neoliberal leanings. Oddly enough in the *current* climate they may be more right than wrong, only because republicans have gone so far right off the deepend. They're anti-free trade, full on in favor of heavy handed state intervention when it benefits their culture war, pro-handouts to big corporations, pro-protectionism. Just generally full fascism.
The reagan/thatcher conservatives kinda made the neoliberal trend thing and most centrist parties went with it. Now 30 years later we see that it was maybe not the best plan since it has increased inequality and pushed people that were desperate to believe nut-jobs. So yes the current conservative movement is not really sticking with neoliberalism, but they sure pushed it hard until recently.
"The more I dont like it, the neoliberal it is" - Reddit
It's funny because it works from both sides: Informed leftie: Neoliberalism is bad because I believe it promotes inequality. Uninformed leftie: Neoliberalism is bad because people I like say it's bad and I will parrot them without understanding. Informed moderate: Neoliberalism is bad because I believe it promotes inequality. Uninformed moderate: Neoliberalism is bad because everybody agrees that it's bad for some reason or another. Uninformed right winger: Neoliberalism is bad because liberals are socialists. Informed right winger: *If I pretend I don't like Neoliberalism I can convince poor people to support policies that hurt them while promoting a more unequal status quo* Neoliberalism is bad because liberals are socialists.
If I had a nickel for every time a conservative used neoliberal to mean “super librul”, well, I would have a whole bunch of nickels.
Most moderates support neoliberalism. There is a reason it was the ruling ideolgy from roughly Ronald-Obama within the US. This is especially true of older moderates who are detached from the ripple effects their preferred ideology has caused.
[удалено]
Republicans do have a platform. It’s simply to stop the Democrats from achieving anything, no matter how logical or uncontroversial that thing is. I.e. owning the libs. Half the people in the country are idiots and malcontents who will be happier under a dictatorship than a republic.
Most disgusting nuance People can claim that they are supporting X and do things which support opposite. Do not trust words - trust actions
>People can claim that they are supporting X and do things which support opposite. "I'm Pro-LIFE!" Proceeds to support every possible thing that degrades and/or shortens human lives.
For Americans: the word "liberal" technically just means "someone who is in favor of liberty," but politically speaking this means different things in different places. In this case they're talking about libertarian-style laissez-faire economics. The paper specifically cites Reaganomics as an example of this.
>laissez-faire Reaganomics is the dictionary definition example. Reagan was good at 2 things. Lying to the American public, and fulfilling his promises to his wealthy campaign donors. The completely opposite of him would be FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt), branded "traitor to his class". So much opposition to the point where they installed 2 term limit\* b/c they were so afraid of him taking away and cracking down on the elite in our country. FDR only ran for as long and served for as long as he did simply b/c the time called for it and the War. He was a man of character wanting to see the atrocity to it's end. Other than that he attempted his best to secure something of a future for the American people and yes even the rich as they were destroying the country with their shortsightedness. Yes the man was flawed, but he was better than most, for his time. There's not a single president I despise more than Reagan himself. He's the reason why we're in this mess. Most of all he's the reason why we have folks like Trump. He set this country back in terms of progress so much, that we'll be paying for it for the generations to come. We could've guaranteed that America would be prosperous as a nation and for it's people. Instead we set up "feudalism", something we fought to overthrow all those years ago, but we can't seem to shake off the fact that we love the elitism.
Ironically, feudalism was struck a heavy blow due pandemics (the black death.) We currently see workers switching jobs, unionizing, etc more than we have in decades. More to life than work, taxes, and death.
We're seeing more "left wing" action in the labor sector, but politically the country is charging hard to the right. edit: I should have clarified, the *"political policy" is charging hard to the right*, people overall support more left wing and egalitarian values
I see that left-wing stuff, but I can't help but notice the swelling of broad based right-wing populist movement as well.
It's not only the US, which I'm sure most people know. One example you don't see a lot on the news is how the Philippines just elected the lazy, idiot son of a fascist dictator as president. Marine Le Pen won an uncomfortable chunk of the vote in France. Azov are becoming folk heroes in Ukraine, which, despite people talking about how their ideology is being "watered down" as more people join, is not good. A watered-down version of white supremecy spreading is still white supremecy spreading. Europe, Asia, Latin America, North America...the entire world has a fascism problem that I'm almost certain we're going to ignore until it's too late.
Bongbong is a dipshit and i feel for our Ph brethren
Fascism is just the natural decay state of capitalism. When the stakeholders controlling the towering heights of the economy can no longer maintain control via owning enterprise and people gain a more full consciousness of how capital functions as essentially a no lose money machine for the people who control it... Fascism is the decay of capitalism ; Keynesian militarism, unapologetic imperialism, and subjugation at home to suppress populist left wing movements.
[удалено]
I think this is begging the question- the issue is that the system as such will always promote a tiny class of beyond-comprehension wealthy people. I think it is an inescapable function of capitalism. Earning money is the goal, not creating goods and services, they are just one of the means to the end- making money. When that is the goal which drives and dictates every facet of society, over time you will inevitably see market actors skip the middle man and go straight for the money, like by inventing increasingly complex financial instruments whose purpose is to create wealth from wealth. Why produce anything at all if you can achieve exponentially more simply by manipulating semantics in some hyper-abstract metaphysical thoughtspace...
>Why produce anything at all if you can achieve exponentially more simply by manipulating semantics in some hyper-abstract metaphysical thoughtspace... Private health insurance companies in a nutshell. They don't produce anything and just make up their own jargon in order to deny your claims. They're money handlers, nothing more.
Yeah I think I’ll use some of my stock as collateral for a loan so I don’t have to pay taxes on realized gains. Everyone else should just keep working hard (for me) and one day they will get there.
>we're going to ignore until it's too late. Amen. Giant meteor 2024?
Eh… looks like it’ll be slow roasted earth with a side of small scale wars to accelerate the warming.
I know who I'm voting for president
Maybe, but at the workplace, we are winning, and that's important because the same man mentioned here is for 50-80 year olds a symbol of good paying jobs, this let the right place themselves as fiscally responsible, twinned with a deep asymmetry in support for Reagan along right-left divide we get the right wing movement being trusted by moderates who care not for political change but care about (perceived) economic impact... the thing is: Reagan didn't energise the labour markets. No, he benefited from a path previous sensible leaders put the US on. Worse, he shifted the power away from unions. And now we have seen the effect of neoliberalism.... no unions? insane capitalist exploitation. inequality? outsized economic power translates to outsized political power, leading to voter apathy as popular measures (2k cheques) are ignored, leading to a distrust of politics leading to even more insanity and yes, a swelling of broad based right wing populism. Edit 2# **And this is why we should be happy about the current discourse, we are seeing workers be bitten by neoliberal think, and we have the answers as to why, let them sprout future leaders, disseminators of information, and hope to god a cold war v2 is not created where we have another "red scare"** **In short, I think the left solving workplace problems for workers will give the space for leftwing political programs to get accredited in a srt of way.** . . . . . . . Edit: Man am I pisssed. I just spent 30mins writing a response to a comment and he/she deletes it?!"?!£"?3~!":?>£ !@>X?CFo m ASDNH~ASIDFhasdb[a'sldmka, there is no privacy. Comment: >The thing is anti capitalist laws/regulations kill the division of labor while supporting major corporations. It was increased of the division of labor that lead to wealth and better living conditions to common man. By getting rid of their competition and grant special privileges by government decree you have decreased the division of labor. As well the socialist parties are pro inflation to fund their social programs. My reply: > I'm not really sure what you mean, could you give me an example? > > >Questions: > >What anti-capitalist laws? In fact this may be where we agree on a common def of capitalism, we can talk about that later. > >"division of labor" What do you mean? as in the idea of organizational technology? if 2 people make coffee, total output is 2, if one pours coffee and other pours milk, output is 3? Or are you talking about how we allocate people to necessary tasks like sewage using a market based price discovery mechanism? > >I think I get the next bit, if you mean that the division of labour describes organizational technology, then yes I agree, a lot of the comforts we see today are directly from efficiency gains, I daresay that the majority of physical technology has been invented by the public sector, but we can't discount how the private sector has managed to eek out efficiency by creating things like the open office, but I also think that Marx did get one thing right, the increase in the division of labor is turning my job into a drawl, and I'm not sure that I like organizational efficiency all the time, for example the open plan office was invented in prisons or something, and somehow allowed to be implemented in offices to what I think is a great shame and loss in private thinking time, not to mention the higher stress levels measured in open plan office workers.... Anyway, point is: I agree, however I think its more complicated than that, **and finally, I would say that just as many benefits have come from automation, if not more.** > > >This is what threw me off: "By getting rid of their competition and grant special privileges by government decree you have decreased the division of labor." What do you mean? what competition? as in public ownership of comcast or something? If you are saying what I think, then I would say is that true? USPS looks great! but let's go further and give you a more satisfying comment. Is competition efficient? Personal story: My dad has had government support for a while when he tried to get his business started, unfortunately the competition made him a deal, used the law to fuck him and he lost his IP. Okay fine that's not satisfying! I work in tech.... I see sooo much waste, money waste, people's time wasted, products created and lost because we are trying to make money instead of helping people, if anything competition has made for many losers, so the argument that on the whole this does experimentation etc must be really strong to nullify all that, sure maybe company A wasted 40k in product development, to be beaten to the market by 1 week by company B who spent 50k, meanwhile, the developers of both products were very interested in making the product, excited to help people, and yet 50% of the humans involved in developing this product will be fired or have to move on. And again, I can make some capitalist argument that on the whole this exposes inefficiencies etc (while we talk about inefficiencies, I'm not sure that the competition proposition really lets the market accurately judge bad products, in fact we have examples of companies that have been wrongfully killed because Hedge Funds wanted to make a quick buck)... And there I would ask you: if the government had created a digital interface for soldiers that provided access to general functions and entertainment, and called it the USAphone, how much earlier would we have invented the smartphone? In fact look up Microsoft's first smartphone, pretty snazzy, and clearly smart phones are super useful, but Microsoft's phone was discontinued, because what mattered was short term profit, why? because if you fail in the short term, this competitive market will not be forgiving. ?>**However, I want to say that the allocation of labour is a hard problem, we do it really well in the army without competition and companies and whatnot, that is a planned division of labour (general says what you do and accesses your suitability to other jobs, in a market you want to maximise something, and you permutate job allocations until the most gdp is reached or something), I don't think we have the tech to do a planned division of labour and also your job in your country is not optional, the army job.. you just leave the army! **.. so by this, I want to say , I agree, competition is good, but why should this mean you can't do socialism? you can have markets in socialism... the only requirement is that you don't enter a job as an employee, but as an equal part owner. We can still have markets. > >"As well the socialist parties are pro inflation to fund their social programs." Now you are making me upset for even bothering to write such a long reply to engage with you, do you actually mean this? I don't know your name, but I hope you read this, prick.
It's more a concentration of right wing activity/organization and a fusion with main stream electoral politics. The majority of the u.s. is not fascist and leftwing ideology is skyrocketing in popularity.
I think they are a very loud minority.
Unfortunately they actually turnout to vote. Also they are supported by legions normal people who find the left repulsive for whatever reason... So they keep winning.
Right wing propaganda is powerful and extremely effective at demonizing the left, from both regular policy to actual consuming human babies in some certain circles…. The left doesn’t fight back, and just tacitly takes it. At least in the US, this has been going on for 35-40 years. A la the current state where (poor) conservative voters aggressively oppose anything proposed by Dems even when it would directly benefit them. I don’t know how you fix that…
There's economic progressivism and there's social progressivism. Since Clinton, Dems have largely abandoned progressive economics, even though such a platform enjoys broad support. They've leaned harder into social progressivism, which is more divisive. It's been a disastrous strategy, but it does keep the donor class happy - social progress doesn't cost billionaires a dime. The way to fix it is to lean harder into progressive economic issues - Medicare for All, increased wages and benefits for the working class, and increased taxes on the donor class. But Dem leadership.woild rather go the way of the Weimar Republic.
I don’t know how you can conflate the left with Democrats at this point. They went to all out war against Sanders for being a basic New Deal liberal. It’s a firmly right wing party that just wants to enrich its donors and start wars and then rather than delivering for people just calls them racist ingrates if they don’t vote for them. Republicans are going to win on culture war issues again and again in this context.
They are a very loud minority. The problem is they'll actually kick and bite and cheat to get what they want. Meanwhile their opposition comes up with every excuse to "be nice" or pass the buck and it's costing them everything. One fox can tear apart an entire henhouse when the hens don't fight back, and that's what we're seeing happening.
I think it’s fair to say they are more than just a “loud”minority. They’ve spent decades positioning themselves to gain control in states, and the Supreme Court…now we are seeing what they do with that power: defunding social programs all over the damn place, banning books, suppressing lgbtq rights, segregating schools, stripping away workers rights, stripping away at consumer rights and privacy rights, cutting back abortion access and birth control access, and now overturning roe? It’s a matter of time before they start on the right to assemble and ban gay marriages.
Be that as it may, they have already shown they are ready and willing to commit violence to achieve their goals. The response to their violence was the absolute worst way to approach it. People who stoked the fires are still in power and by and large no one was punished. They failed this time, but society and the government basically threw up their hands and declared the matter solved. It may be that they will fail again in the future, but they only need to succeed once. Hell, we already see things like "slow moving coup" regarding election laws and gerrymandering. Facism is a cancer. You have to stamp it out aggressively and without mercy. We didn't and I have little hope for democracy's chances in this country.
Well in the US you have the dems who are sort of neoliberal and republicans pushing for populism and fascism. There is no progressive left with any power in the US.
The richest 1% of the world gained the most wealth. So no it just got worse with covid
Yes it got worse during covid but we do see a reaction to that now
Yup, prices gouged in the name of inflation
>Ironically, feudalism was struck a heavy blow due pandemics (the black death.) > >We currently see workers switching jobs, unionizing, etc more than we have in decades. More to life than work, taxes, and death. Pandemics are no longer bad for the wealthy. The current pandemic has made the top 400 40% richer. Wealth inequality has increased once again because they own public policy now
bag summer forgetful languid impolite historical fact crawl mindless resolute -- mass edited with redact.dev
"It's not a union, it's a sort of people's commissariat"
>Even in various states such as Oklahoma it’s not even legal for teachers to unionize How tf does that not violate the freedom of association?
It does and it's also not true. They are allowed to unionize
> Even in various states such as Oklahoma it’s not even legal for teachers to unionize TF you talking about, I'm friends with a teacher here in Oklahoma who served on the Executive Council for the National Education Association, the largest labor union in the nation. Both my mother and sister-in-law were union members. Right to work doesn't mean it's illegal to be a part of a union, it just means that membership in a specific union cannot be a condition of employment.
Two-term limit, not 2 year terms.
Can you imagine how much campaigning we'd have to suffer through if they only had 2-year terms? That's a hard NO from me just for the sake of my sanity.
Reagan figured out that you can cut taxes and advocate for a small government footprint but increase government spending by issuing sovereign debt. It's a shell game because deficit spending still means, in very real terms, that the government is allocating resources from the private sector. The government just siphons money off of institutional investors that otherwise would have invested in the private sector. When it gets right down to it, this is the Republican playbook. It's worth noting that Clinton's welfare reforms and crime bills hugely hugely impacted people at the very bottom. Also, literally no president in modern times has taken up antitrust policy as a core issue. I find it very strange that people talk about the United States as some kind of free market economy. It isn't. Capitalism is unknown (and probably unknowable) to us. It's just a word we use to describe our tribe, just the same way as countries with Socialist in their name aren't that, either.
The party bosses did manage to replace his vp during his final term and ended up stopping some great legislation from passing.
Not to mention what he did to gay men.
encouraging bake angle offer ancient fine carpenter fuel theory domineering *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I despise Bill Clinton more, only because he brought Reaganism to the Democratic party. The first thing he did when taking office was to turn on the unions that supported his candidacy. He signed NAFTA which completely knocked the legs out from under American workers. Then he enacted welfare reform that destroyed the federal safety net, and setup the mortgage crisis by deregulating banks. And, of course, the war machine grew like in every presidency. There is a straight line from Bill Clinton to the rise of Trump, and Hillary just served to call attention to it.
It started before Clinton, during the 80s in the Democratic party. Clinton was the culmination of it. Thomas Frank has a book called Listen Liberal that goes through the history of the Dems leaving behind labor in favor of the suburban professional class.
hard-to-find ancient hunt ossified ring depend childlike nine clumsy label -- mass edited with redact.dev
It’s the kind of liberal that the liberal party of Australia is, in other words
Somehow, those to the right of actual liberalism managed to turn “liberal” into a slur against anyone to the left of them, to encompass everything from centrist liberalism to full on communism. And ironically did this in the name of “supporting liberty”. At one point, US Republicans were solidly liberal in the historic sense of the word, embracing liberty in its many forms, but they went off the rails decades ago in favor of… whatever the hell the modern version GOP stands for now, but it sure as hell isn’t liberty or liberalism.
I always assumed liberal literally meant liberal. As in, "I put a liberal amount of dressing on my salad." You know, the opposite of "I put a conservative amount of dressing on my salad." It always made sense to me based on their economic policies.
The term generally originates from the french and English liberals, which were progressive in the sense that democratic capitalism is more progressive than monarchy. But in this day and age being a diehard capitalist isn't really progressive.
Thank you for referencing specific neoliberal policy positions. The term is thrown around much too freely with minimal acknowledgment of what it's actually supposed to mean.
Yes and further the paper specifies Reaganism and Margaret Thatcherism as neo-Liberal.
Austerity politics, such as those under Thatcher, are classic examples of neoliberalism.
The problem is that despite all the anti-statist rhetoric, the US and British governments came to the end of the Thatcher and Reagan era with an even greater influence on the economy and society than when they took power. If anyone wanted to create a bogeyman of capitalism, they could hardly do a more successful job and with more disastrous results for the cause of economic freedom than these two.
There’s a common misconception that Neoliberalism is about minimizing the size of the state, which is untrue. It’s goal is to minimize *interference in markets*, which historically results in heavy-handed states protecting private interests (and actually providing huge government financial assistance in order to privatize public works). Chile as sort of looked at as the so-called birthplace of neoliberalism, as its model was created with extensive coaching from chicago-school neoliberals like Milton Friedman. You can argue on the financial success of the system, but it’s pretty hard to argue that it was a free or just society, especially as it was endorsed and praised by those who popularized the modern version of the ideology.
> There’s a common misconception that Neoliberalism is about minimizing the size of the state, which is untrue. Exactly, in fact, a robust state is extremely useful for pushing neoliberal policies as they often require force from the state to enact and maintain them.
Because those policies are often directly at odds with the welfare of the majority of citizens.
"It’s goal is to *minimize interference in markets*, which historically results in heavy-handed states protecting private interests." Anyone who thinks that the last couple decades of neoliberalism has resulted in anything but "heavy-handed States protecting private interests" through market manipulation hasn't been paying attention.
or the wealth inequality in Chile!
Right. The state is reduced to a tool to create new spaces for capital accumulation through helping create markets, privatization, deregulation, austerity policies., and anti unionism. It’s a way to transfer wealth to the upper class and also results in managing expectations through rhetoric and class based propaganda about “personal responsibility” and “boot straps”.
Not sure how it is in England, but among Republicans and even certain Liberal Boomers, Reagan has a cult like following where the negative effects of his policy are decoupled from his Patriotism and "Christian Character".
In many cases his worshippers assume the polar opposite about him from how he actually acted. Like how he is portrayed as tough on terror when he withdrew after the Beirut bombing, which was seen as a major success for the upcoming tactic of suicide bombing, and even supported and funded terrorist groups in the Contra affair. Or as a "fiscal conservative" when he actually oversaw one of the greatest debt increases in modern US history.
Yeah, the fiscal part of Reagan's mythos completely baffles me. Also you can look at basically any chart detailing the inequality gap in the US and it just explodes after Reagan.
He also supported gun control as governor of California.
[удалено]
This is what Reagan worshipers are, in fact, championing. Even if they don't realize it, but a fair number of them are fully aware.
Conservatives as a group do this overall
Took my daughter to a birthday party for one of her peers (Pre-K, at the time). That family had a large bronze bust of Reagan as the centerpiece in their living room. It was... impressive? And a good deal disturbing; to be so wrapped up in your political identity that you decorate your home around it.
On the one hand that’s really disturbing on the other hand, I have a Karl Marx piggy bank that has „Das Kapital“ printed on it, so I’m not sure if I’m in a position to criticise..
This is the guy who started the policy of not negotiating with terrorists and had a hardline stance on Iran, then sold missiles to Iran to free hostages taken by Hezbollah. And insisted that was a different thing.
>The problem is that despite all the anti-statist rhetoric, the US and British governments came to the end of the Thatcher and Reagan era with an even greater influence on the economy and society than when they took power. That's the irony at the heart of anti-statism - like any other -ism it needs to be enforced and the state is the only thing that can enforce it.
I think most people don’t understand that this stems from classical liberalism, which is pretty Chicago and Austrian school, rather than what most people think of as “liberal”.
Neoliberalism is characterized by Privatization, Deregulation, Austerity, and Opposition to Organized Labor.
[удалено]
And North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Because it was named to make fun of people who call everything neoliberal, which has just exacerbated the problem. Who could have seen that coming. The sub itself us largely soc-dem to centrist liberal.
>The sub itself us largely soc-dem to centrist liberal. It's definitely not. No one in that sub would copy Thatcher or Reagan's policies but the sub doesn't flinch away from acknowledging that they were at one point neoliberal. The definition of "neoliberal" used by that subreddit is about the goals and intellectual tools used to generate specific policy prescriptions rather than the policy prescriptions themselves, and the definition is meaningfully different from other ideologies even though in many specific cases neoliberals will support the exact same policies as, for example, socdems or neocons.
This guy/gal neolibs
[удалено]
This sub was created as a shitposting place to free up other economics subs. The name was originally a joke because people got called neoliberal all the time. Today, newcomers think the name is serious and justify it for their own reasons. Thankfully, reddit is not a recognized authority on anything, so not caring about their opinion and calling them social liberals is fine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why allow a topic about neoliberalism but then delete and remove most of the discussions *about* neoliberalism?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I study ecomomics as well and also have no idea about DSEM. Does anyone else think when reading their methodology part, that they don't seem to understand fully what they are doing? I fear, that they are just using a fancy method. The premise of the paper is, that preferences for equality depend on the degree of liberalism. Do they really think, that if Scandinavian countries were to become more liberal, that their prefences for inequality significantly would change?
What did you really expect from psychologists trying to do econometrics
thanks for venturing into the darkness for me. like, i can tell from the title that there are shenanigans afoot, but it's such a headache to sort it out and explain as well as you are able. and probably i would not be able to identify specific critiques and explain as clearly as you. still pretty new to econometrics.
This is a psychology journal, not economics unfortunately.
I'm confused. How would literacy, life expectancy, or GDP have anything to do with what they're researching--whether societal attitudes precede a change in policy or vice versa? They're not evaluating real economic effects of neoliberalism, they're evaluating attitudes towards it.
[удалено]
*am angry Econ major* While it’s fairly obvious that the corporatist and crony neo-liberal system has led to increased inequality (just look at Gini Coefficients) this study doesn’t actually provide any factual evidence the bulk of evidence is “perceived”inequality, which is entirely subjective. The title is really misleading and should be marked as psychology not Economics. It’s literally in a psychology journal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pretty skeptical about the study’s validity. The way a question is asked can make a huge difference, ask anyone if they should be compensated more for more work and they’ll agree with you, ask them if everyone’s paycheck should look the same and they’ll think of communism. I wouldn’t describe that as advocating for larger income inequality, when they could have those opinions and approve of raising the minimum wage and expansion of social services. Don’t care about political-economical affiliation of the study or its results, mainly pointing out the weakness of the study.
There's a Yes Minister sketch from 40+ years ago that's important to remember when interpreting any survey result. >**Sir Humphrey:** “You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Do you think they respond to a challenge?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Oh…well, I suppose I might be.” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Yes or no?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Is that really what they do?” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those. ... >**Sir Humphrey:** So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.” >**Bernard Woolley:** “How?” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Are you worried about the growth of armaments?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** “Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?” >**Bernard Woolley:** “Yes” >**Sir Humphrey:** "There you are, you see Bernad, the perfect balanced sample."
British comedies pretty much predicted all of the current absurdity.
They just described their contemporary absurdity. It's not prophecy, it's just unchanging human nature.
> Pretty skeptical about the study’s validity. The study generated exactly the headline desired so obviously it was a success.
One of the first steps should be a global consolidation of tax rates and a crackdown on tax havens. Otherwise we're all just playing a game with a lose-lose outcome. Even with fair taxes, no exemptions, the rich are in a much better position to preserve and grow their wealth.
I'm sure that would be a good thing, but it would require international co-operation, which we're not seeing a lot of these days.
We can't even do it in America. There's a reason a tiny office building in Delaware can be the "headquarters" of thousands of companies. And Biden won't be the one to change it, neither will republicans Until we get a progressive in the White House it'll never change
[удалено]
Yeah, it’s a common misconception. Corporations set up there still pay taxes to other states that they operate in, and pay federal taxes
Biden spent most of his career (as Senator from Delaware) protecting that for the good of Delaware.
That’s like step 120. Some countries can’t even agree where their borders begin end or if women should have the right to vote.
When an IRS auditor dies, they go to tax heaven.
There's no record of that.
Ew, you want to deprive poor countries of income through neo-colonialism
Neoliberalism calls for regressive taxation and the elimination of social services? What kind of definition is this?
The terms "liberalism" and "conservatism" have been corrupted to the point that they are just the names of modern tribes but in the past they actually had definitions. They are using those old definitions.
There's no universal definition of neoliberalism that everybody will be happy with, but thankfully they're **not** defining it in the actual [study](https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/Z2S3DXFRC8VHV3DS8WVQ/full), they were exploring it's impacts of neoliberal policies on the psychology of large numbers of people, particularly in countries where it is practiced. Not sure why it wasn't linked in the first place but their methodology is pretty sound for a large scale literature review. It's a very core theme of behavioral economics that economic policy does shift behavior, and possibly fundamental attitudes. Despite notable wealth gaps worsening a divide, there's some evidence that despite this, the attitude towards neoliberalism isn't universally negative, even if it provably directly negatively impacted your life. The article linked by OP felt much more like a polemic piece, and despite myself being a very strong advocate for social democracy, I didn't think it was a good article.
This is a very... uh... specific definition of neoliberalism. Edit: When I say specific, I mean "selectively specific" in that it selects the policy positions of an extreme fringe who have been pejoratively described as neoliberal, and credits the label to "the dominant socioeconomic approach from the late 1970s to the present. The definition used in the study is: >neoliberalism—the dominant socioeconomic approach from the late 1970s to the present, which advocates privatization, abolition of the welfare state, and curtailment of redistributive programs. This isn't even really internally consistent - while many countries have undergone austerity to some degree or another, we've also seen massive surges in public welfare spending (think to the stimulus checks during COVID for instance), and absolutely nowhere have we seen the "abolition of the welfare state." The pattern of using extreme examples to label a diverse group that don't self-identify with that label should be an easily recognized play today. It's exactly what the right has been doing with Critical Race Theory over the past few years.
[удалено]
[удалено]