|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 01 2019 10:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 10:55 Aquanim wrote:On December 01 2019 10:54 Nebuchad wrote:On December 01 2019 10:42 Aquanim wrote:On December 01 2019 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:
Perhaps you could have waited for an example where we're in the wrong The side on which the misunderstanding originated is really quite irrelevant to the things I find objectionable about GreenHorizons' behaviour. Maybe not but it matters in the argument about his cachet with us followers of his, that you used in your argumentation. Let's take something where he was clearly wrong, like the interaction with Jealous that you mentioned. He got banned 1 month for it, and there was one post by Drone where Drone tried to defend him where I was like "Eh that's too charitable, I wouldn't have posted that". I didn't defend this, nor did Gahlo, Brian, Godwrath or whoever else. I will acknowledge that not everybody who defends GreenHorizons defends everything he does. Well, can you think of a situation where a bunch of people defended him and they/we shouldn't have?
I can think of plenty where I was attacked and shouldn't have been. This stands out as one of them imo.
Instead of pages about me I'm surprised none of the people it upset argued the point. I think Drone nailed it a while ago. + Show Spoiler +(Edit: There are lots of lgbtq people that are also members of marginalized/oppressed communities for which gay marriage was only a part of their struggle for self-determination. Drones wording of "non-gay" is a bit confusing to me in that context but I think we're good).
On November 30 2019 23:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
...you cannot seriously believe that GH is opposed to gay marriage. He is, quite obviously, not just now, but fairly consistently for a period over several years, arguing that the progress we see is not sufficient. So yes, liberal media outlets favor gay marriage, they try to influence people to be a bit more climate conscious. This obviously makes them preferable over more conservative media outlets that don't (or didn't) want gay marriage and that don't think man made climate change is a real thing.
But those liberal still don't support the structural change required to genuinely tackle climate change (from GH's pov), nor the type of structural change that would make non-gay oppressed minorities able to compete on a level playing field..
You can, of course, disagree, and argue that liberal media does a sufficiently good job addressing the dangers of climate change, or argue that structural societal changes are not necessary to address concerns of minorities. That would, however, take more effort.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm not going to get sucked into the argument about me but I agree with this: On December 01 2019 11:06 Sent. wrote:
I'm aware it's an unrealistic expectation, but I still think obviously wrong misinterpretations should be ignored instead of attacked because posts about someone being "obviously wrong" tend to take (waste) more space than posts of the person defending their "obviously wrong" position.
I also think posters like GreenHorizons or Danglars shouldn't be actioned for being passive aggressive towards posters who keep misinterpreting their posts. It's unfair to hold them to a higher standard just because they tend to get into fights into more often due to their controversial views. As some have probably noticed, I ignore more than I used to instead of engaging with blatant misinterpretations.
|
|
|
I and others have been arguing for a while now that neoliberalism has been instrumental in the rise of Trump. This piece (as well as others) by Henry A. Giroux in Truthout does a good job of consolidating and expanding a form of that argument. This selection from his (much longer) piece headlined as: Neoliberalism Paved the Way for Authoritarian Right-Wing Populism gets at the thrust of what I've been arguing and what I see as one of the most pressing concerns we face.
What has not been learned from the 2008 crisis is that an economic crisis neither unites those most affected in favor of a progressive politics nor does it offer any political guarantees regarding the direction of social change. Instead, the emotions that fueled massive public anger toward elites and globalization gave rise to the celebration of populist demagogues and a right-wing tsunami of misdirected anger, hate and violence toward undocumented immigrants, refugees, Muslims and people of color.
The 2008 financial crisis wreaked havoc in multiple ways. Yet there was another crisis that received little attention: a crisis of agency. This crisis centered around matters of identity, self-determination and collective resistance, which were undermined in profound ways, giving rise to and legitimating the emergence of authoritarian populist movements in many parts of the world, such as United States, Hungary, Poland and Brazil.
At the heart of this shift was the declining belief in the legitimacy of both liberal democracy and its pledges about trickle-down wealth, economic security and broadening equal opportunities preached by the apostles of neoliberalism. In many ways, public faith in the welfare state, quality employment opportunities, institutional possibilities and a secure future for each generation collapsed. In part, this was a consequence of the post-war economic boom giving way to massive degrees of inequality, the off-shoring of wealth and power, the enactment of cruel austerity measures, an expanding regime of precarity, and a cut-throat economic and social environment in which individual interests and needs prevailed over any consideration of the common good. As liberalism aligned itself with corporate and political power, both the Democratic and Republican Parties embraced financial reforms that increased the wealth of the bankers and corporate elite while doing nothing to prevent people from losing their homes, being strapped with chronic debt, seeing their pensions disappear, and facing a future of uncertainty and no long-term prospects or guarantees.
In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values.
This apocalyptic populism was rooted in a profound discontent for the empty promises of a neoliberal ideology that made capitalism and democracy synonymous, and markets the model for all social relations. In addition, the Democratic proponents of neoliberalism, such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, participated in the dismantling of the social contract, widening economic inequality, and burgeoning landscapes of joblessness, misery, anger and despair.
At the same time, they enacted policies that dismantled civic culture and undermined a wide range of democratic institutions that extended from the media to public goods such as public and higher education.
I think the conclusion is particularly strong:
Such policies have produced massive inequities in wealth, power and income, while further accelerating mass misery, human suffering, the rise of state-sanctioned violence and ever-expanding sites of terminal exclusion in the forms of walls, detention centers and an expanding carceral state. An impending recession accentuates the antagonisms, instabilities and crisis produced by the long history and reach of neoliberal ideologies and policies.
A new economic slump would further fuel forces of repression and strengthen the forces of white supremacy, Islamophobia, nativism and misogyny. In the face of such reactionary forces, it is crucial to unite various progressive forces of opposition into a powerful anti-capitalist movement that speaks not only to the range of oppressions exacerbated by neoliberalism, but also to the need for new narratives that speak to overturning a system steeped in the machineries of war, militarization, repression and death.
truthout.org
|
On December 01 2019 13:28 GreenHorizons wrote:I and others have been arguing for a while now that neoliberalism has been instrumental in the rise of Trump. This piece (as well as others) by Henry A. Giroux in Truthout does a good job of consolidating and expanding a form of that argument. This selection from his (much longer) piece headlined as: Neoliberalism Paved the Way for Authoritarian Right-Wing Populism gets at the thrust of what I've been arguing and what I see as one of the most pressing concerns we face. Show nested quote +What has not been learned from the 2008 crisis is that an economic crisis neither unites those most affected in favor of a progressive politics nor does it offer any political guarantees regarding the direction of social change. Instead, the emotions that fueled massive public anger toward elites and globalization gave rise to the celebration of populist demagogues and a right-wing tsunami of misdirected anger, hate and violence toward undocumented immigrants, refugees, Muslims and people of color.
The 2008 financial crisis wreaked havoc in multiple ways. Yet there was another crisis that received little attention: a crisis of agency. This crisis centered around matters of identity, self-determination and collective resistance, which were undermined in profound ways, giving rise to and legitimating the emergence of authoritarian populist movements in many parts of the world, such as United States, Hungary, Poland and Brazil.
At the heart of this shift was the declining belief in the legitimacy of both liberal democracy and its pledges about trickle-down wealth, economic security and broadening equal opportunities preached by the apostles of neoliberalism. In many ways, public faith in the welfare state, quality employment opportunities, institutional possibilities and a secure future for each generation collapsed. In part, this was a consequence of the post-war economic boom giving way to massive degrees of inequality, the off-shoring of wealth and power, the enactment of cruel austerity measures, an expanding regime of precarity, and a cut-throat economic and social environment in which individual interests and needs prevailed over any consideration of the common good. As liberalism aligned itself with corporate and political power, both the Democratic and Republican Parties embraced financial reforms that increased the wealth of the bankers and corporate elite while doing nothing to prevent people from losing their homes, being strapped with chronic debt, seeing their pensions disappear, and facing a future of uncertainty and no long-term prospects or guarantees.
In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values.
This apocalyptic populism was rooted in a profound discontent for the empty promises of a neoliberal ideology that made capitalism and democracy synonymous, and markets the model for all social relations. In addition, the Democratic proponents of neoliberalism, such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, participated in the dismantling of the social contract, widening economic inequality, and burgeoning landscapes of joblessness, misery, anger and despair.
At the same time, they enacted policies that dismantled civic culture and undermined a wide range of democratic institutions that extended from the media to public goods such as public and higher education. I think the conclusion is particularly strong: Show nested quote +Such policies have produced massive inequities in wealth, power and income, while further accelerating mass misery, human suffering, the rise of state-sanctioned violence and ever-expanding sites of terminal exclusion in the forms of walls, detention centers and an expanding carceral state. An impending recession accentuates the antagonisms, instabilities and crisis produced by the long history and reach of neoliberal ideologies and policies.
A new economic slump would further fuel forces of repression and strengthen the forces of white supremacy, Islamophobia, nativism and misogyny. In the face of such reactionary forces, it is crucial to unite various progressive forces of opposition into a powerful anti-capitalist movement that speaks not only to the range of oppressions exacerbated by neoliberalism, but also to the need for new narratives that speak to overturning a system steeped in the machineries of war, militarization, repression and death. truthout.org
Thanks for sharing this, it reflects strongly many of my toughts and views on the current state on the western society and its fundamental problems.
|
Norway28636 Posts
On December 01 2019 10:36 Aquanim wrote:Double down on what? Talking to the mods? I don't think this is directly modactionable. What is required is a culture shift and greater awareness among posters in this thread. Show nested quote +You’re shunting the blame of this ‘dispute’ onto GH for reacting badly to a misunderstanding of his position that was worded rather antagonistically, a position that was understood by basically every poster here and calling him a bully while doing so. In the context of GH's previous interactions with DMCD and several other people over the years, yes I am blaming him and calling him a bully. There's never going to be a good and clear time to do it where it's obvious and unambiguous to all because (a) everything requires several years of context to understand and (b) GH is very good at it. I picked today. Perhaps I worded that poorly. There are several situations in which GH's cheer squad have come out of the woodwork and defended him. Some involve skirting modactionable lines (like when he slandered somebody in Website Feedback by saying they sent him racist PMs, in a way that did not make it at all clear he was stating a hypothetical, and did not respond to a moderator's request for clarification). Some don't so clearly (like this).
GH got banned for 30 days for that and I didn't contest it..
I don't think this is interesting enough to keep debating, but I'll make this one final post: When someone is very frequently involved in arguments, it's hard to argue that they are without fault. GH's posting in the past has had its faults.
But as far as I am concerned, he's completely without blame here. If a long time thread regular accused me of being against gay marriage, asking 'are you okay' or stating that this accusation 'does not make any sense' are polite responses. It's obviously not the case. I also fundamentally disagree with the assertion that GH is a bully, like.. I just don't understand that, tbh. I understand accusations of vagueness - the primary problem he experiences is being misunderstood - but I do think this is just as much a consequence of other posters reading his posts in bad faith as it is a problem with his posting. (Unless you make all your posts painfully elaborate, there's normally some room for the reader to fill out the blanks. Some people fill out GH's blanks in a way that make them think he's a terrible poster or person. I think xDaunt and Danglars also both experienced this, but I think xdaunt is the only one who responded in an unacceptable way to it.)
If people, rather than fill out those blanks themselves, asked 'what do you mean by this' (and this is very important, do not phrase it 'so what you mean is - followed by your interpretation of what you think he must be arguing), we would all be in a much better place.
There are countless examples of this type of posting transgression happening, and even more so in politics. I'm sure I'm guilty of it myself, tbh, and I've seen it from many posters. But imo, that people start arguing against what they perceive someone's position is before clarifying that that is their position, based on either faulty wording or faulty interpretation of what someone wrote, is the single most frequent reason why bad faith arguments happen in the political threads around here. (and elsewhere, tbh. Even in real life political debates. )
|
In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values.
I don't really grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump, who's main tax plan is to make rich people richer, and who's main reform plans are to reduce protective barriers from society to give corporations more freedom to do whatever they want, overturning the Dodd-Frank protections and who's main healthcare plan was to abolish a public healthcare program.
|
On December 01 2019 20:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values. I don't really grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump, who's main tax plan is to make rich people richer, and who's main reform plans are to reduce protective barriers from society to give corporations more freedom to do whatever they want, overturning the Dodd-Frank protections and who's main healthcare plan was to abolish a public healthcare program.
I don't see an argument that anyone was "forced'... to vote for authoritarian Trump" in your quote or the piece at large so I'd wager that's why you aren't grasping it from them.
The only use of the term "forced" is used in this section:
As neoliberal economies increasingly resort to violence and repression, fear replaces any sense of shared responsibilities, as violence is not only elevated to an organizing principle of society, but also expands a network of extreme cruelty. Imagining politics as a war machine, more and more groups are treated as excess and inscribed in an order of power as disposable, enemies, and [forced] into conditions of extreme precarity. This is a particularly vicious form of state violence that undermines and constrains agency, and subjects individuals to zones of abandonment, as evident in the growth of immigrant jails and an expanding carceral complex in the United States and other countries, such as Hungary.
As neoliberalism’s promise of social mobility and expanding economic progress collapsed, it gave way to an authoritarian right-wing populism looking for narratives on which to pin the hatred of governing elites who, as Paul Mason notes, “capped health and welfare spending, [imposed] punitive benefit withdraws [that] forced … many families to rely on food banks [and] withdraw sickness and disability benefits from one million former workers below retirement age.”
Neither usage seeming to fit your reading of the argument + Show Spoiler +(based on your inability to "grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump", an argument that doesn't seem to exist in the text you're quoting)
|
Northern Ireland25004 Posts
On December 01 2019 10:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 10:42 Aquanim wrote:On December 01 2019 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:
Perhaps you could have waited for an example where we're in the wrong The side on which the misunderstanding originated is really quite irrelevant to the things I find objectionable about GreenHorizons' behaviour. Maybe not but it matters in the argument about his cachet with us followers of his, that you used in your argumentation. Let's take something where he was clearly wrong, like the interaction with Jealous that you mentioned. He got banned 1 month for it, and there was one post by Drone where Drone tried to defend him where I was like "Eh that's too charitable, I wouldn't have posted that". I didn't defend this, nor did Gahlo, Brian, Godwrath or whoever else.
If I didn’t actually post to that effect (I think I did in the ban list thread) I definitely did think GH was in the wrong there.
One can still engage in bad behaviour without it being bullying. Perhaps an irrelevant distinction to some but you don’t really have bullying without some power imbalance, be it a boss having something to wield over his subordinates as an individual, or the bullying perpetrated and enabled by groups of people over social standing in high school or the office gossip type.
On a forum and thread such as this, thankfully not here but common in other forums the only way you tend to see such dynamics play out are when veteran posters are hostile to new people coming in, which GH doesn’t do, or those who hold consensus kind of views tend to gang up and ridicule those who are outside said consensus, and GH is in the latter camp there.
Also what Drone said on bad faith arguing, and true of Danglars too. Sometimes both were/are overly vague but often times I would see examples that confused me on the misinterpretation side, assuming the reader is a regular of the thread and has a rough idea of their general leanings.
|
(EDIT: Let's take something where he was clearly wrong, like the interaction with Jealous that you mentioned. He got banned 1 month for it, and there was one post by Drone where Drone tried to defend him where I was like "Eh that's too charitable, I wouldn't have posted that". I didn't defend this, nor did Gahlo, Brian, Godwrath or whoever else.)
FWIW Drone explained it (before I was banned) exactly but I thought it was obvious, I accept that the consensus is that it wasn't.
On September 27 2019 22:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Kadaver it was a joke from gh. He's basically mocking the 'GH is a jerk in PM's' with zero followup in terms of showing where he is a jerk in private messages. (you can see how he both adds a winky smiley face, and uses jealous' words to reply to jealous. it might not have been immediately obvious, but I think it works, tbh. )
[...]
I could argue the merit of the ban/length or the process by which it was reached,but I'm not interested in that (and this isn't the place). Just want to apologize for giving people the impression it wasn't a joke in response to the kinda goading we're decrying lately.
I accept that behavior was deemed unacceptable (joke or not) and apologize sincerely for breaking decorum in that way as well as for my lack of consideration of how it could reasonably be seen as a sincere allegation. My bad.
|
Northern Ireland25004 Posts
On December 01 2019 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 20:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values. I don't really grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump, who's main tax plan is to make rich people richer, and who's main reform plans are to reduce protective barriers from society to give corporations more freedom to do whatever they want, overturning the Dodd-Frank protections and who's main healthcare plan was to abolish a public healthcare program. I don't see an argument that anyone was "forced'... to vote for authoritarian Trump" in your quote or the piece at large so I'd wager that's why you aren't grasping it from them. The only use of the term "forced" is used in this section: Show nested quote +As neoliberal economies increasingly resort to violence and repression, fear replaces any sense of shared responsibilities, as violence is not only elevated to an organizing principle of society, but also expands a network of extreme cruelty. Imagining politics as a war machine, more and more groups are treated as excess and inscribed in an order of power as disposable, enemies, and [forced] into conditions of extreme precarity. This is a particularly vicious form of state violence that undermines and constrains agency, and subjects individuals to zones of abandonment, as evident in the growth of immigrant jails and an expanding carceral complex in the United States and other countries, such as Hungary.
As neoliberalism’s promise of social mobility and expanding economic progress collapsed, it gave way to an authoritarian right-wing populism looking for narratives on which to pin the hatred of governing elites who, as Paul Mason notes, “capped health and welfare spending, [imposed] punitive benefit withdraws [that] forced … many families to rely on food banks [and] withdraw sickness and disability benefits from one million former workers below retirement age.” Neither usage seeming to fit your reading of the argument + Show Spoiler +(based on your inability to "grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump", an argument that doesn't seem to exist in the text you're quoting)
It’s certainly an interesting read, just skimming it but will have a proper read through later.
Was reading something the other day which got me pondering about this kind of topic, although that one was more about mental illness in a complicated world where previous stable structures are eroded, plus we have access to so much more information that is either incomplete or we parse badly.
Rather counter-intuitively I think we’re seeing a return to people voting for easy fix solutions in a time where more people should know that easy fixes don’t exist, possible to outsource all the complexity to politicians who adhere to such rhetoric.
Be it Trump, Orban, Brexit or even a Sanders who has thrived politically in the more recent era, irrespective of the policy particulars voters respond much better to ‘here are the problems I will fix them and everything will be fine’ more than a ‘well it’s complicated’.
These problems are all complicated and IMO require a degree of introspection and a cultural shift from the populace at large to actually address.
|
On December 01 2019 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 20:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values. I don't really grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump, who's main tax plan is to make rich people richer, and who's main reform plans are to reduce protective barriers from society to give corporations more freedom to do whatever they want, overturning the Dodd-Frank protections and who's main healthcare plan was to abolish a public healthcare program. I don't see an argument that anyone was "forced'... to vote for authoritarian Trump" in your quote or the piece at large so I'd wager that's why you aren't grasping it from them. The only use of the term "forced" is used in this section: Show nested quote +As neoliberal economies increasingly resort to violence and repression, fear replaces any sense of shared responsibilities, as violence is not only elevated to an organizing principle of society, but also expands a network of extreme cruelty. Imagining politics as a war machine, more and more groups are treated as excess and inscribed in an order of power as disposable, enemies, and [forced] into conditions of extreme precarity. This is a particularly vicious form of state violence that undermines and constrains agency, and subjects individuals to zones of abandonment, as evident in the growth of immigrant jails and an expanding carceral complex in the United States and other countries, such as Hungary.
As neoliberalism’s promise of social mobility and expanding economic progress collapsed, it gave way to an authoritarian right-wing populism looking for narratives on which to pin the hatred of governing elites who, as Paul Mason notes, “capped health and welfare spending, [imposed] punitive benefit withdraws [that] forced … many families to rely on food banks [and] withdraw sickness and disability benefits from one million former workers below retirement age.” Neither usage seeming to fit your reading of the argument + Show Spoiler +(based on your inability to "grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump", an argument that doesn't seem to exist in the text you're quoting)
? To say neoliberalism is instrumental in the rise of Trump is to say they had no choice but to vote for him due to the circumstances created by neoliberal policies. Forced is my wording to summarize it. Like here:
neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality
The populist they voted for has no solutions to inquality but in fact makes it worse. It's peoples willingness to believe lies about easy solutions and blame others for problems that gives rise to populism, not the problems themselves. If the problem itself was the true issue then they would have voted for Bernie.
|
On December 01 2019 21:36 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2019 20:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values. I don't really grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump, who's main tax plan is to make rich people richer, and who's main reform plans are to reduce protective barriers from society to give corporations more freedom to do whatever they want, overturning the Dodd-Frank protections and who's main healthcare plan was to abolish a public healthcare program. I don't see an argument that anyone was "forced'... to vote for authoritarian Trump" in your quote or the piece at large so I'd wager that's why you aren't grasping it from them. The only use of the term "forced" is used in this section: As neoliberal economies increasingly resort to violence and repression, fear replaces any sense of shared responsibilities, as violence is not only elevated to an organizing principle of society, but also expands a network of extreme cruelty. Imagining politics as a war machine, more and more groups are treated as excess and inscribed in an order of power as disposable, enemies, and [forced] into conditions of extreme precarity. This is a particularly vicious form of state violence that undermines and constrains agency, and subjects individuals to zones of abandonment, as evident in the growth of immigrant jails and an expanding carceral complex in the United States and other countries, such as Hungary.
As neoliberalism’s promise of social mobility and expanding economic progress collapsed, it gave way to an authoritarian right-wing populism looking for narratives on which to pin the hatred of governing elites who, as Paul Mason notes, “capped health and welfare spending, [imposed] punitive benefit withdraws [that] forced … many families to rely on food banks [and] withdraw sickness and disability benefits from one million former workers below retirement age.” Neither usage seeming to fit your reading of the argument + Show Spoiler +(based on your inability to "grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump", an argument that doesn't seem to exist in the text you're quoting) It’s certainly an interesting read, just skimming it but will have a proper read through later. Was reading something the other day which got me pondering about this kind of topic, although that one was more about mental illness in a complicated world where previous stable structures are eroded, plus we have access to so much more information that is either incomplete or we parse badly. Rather counter-intuitively I think we’re seeing a return to people voting for easy fix solutions in a time where more people should know that easy fixes don’t exist, possible to outsource all the complexity to politicians who adhere to such rhetoric. Be it Trump, Orban, Brexit or even a Sanders who has thrived politically in the more recent era, irrespective of the policy particulars voters respond much better to ‘here are the problems I will fix them and everything will be fine’ more than a ‘well it’s complicated’. These problems are all complicated and IMO require a degree of introspection and a cultural shift from the populace at large to actually address.
I agree. I'm not a big 12 steps fan but the whole "first step is recognizing you have a problem" part seems applicable here.
On December 01 2019 22:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2019 20:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values. I don't really grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump, who's main tax plan is to make rich people richer, and who's main reform plans are to reduce protective barriers from society to give corporations more freedom to do whatever they want, overturning the Dodd-Frank protections and who's main healthcare plan was to abolish a public healthcare program. I don't see an argument that anyone was "forced'... to vote for authoritarian Trump" in your quote or the piece at large so I'd wager that's why you aren't grasping it from them. The only use of the term "forced" is used in this section: As neoliberal economies increasingly resort to violence and repression, fear replaces any sense of shared responsibilities, as violence is not only elevated to an organizing principle of society, but also expands a network of extreme cruelty. Imagining politics as a war machine, more and more groups are treated as excess and inscribed in an order of power as disposable, enemies, and [forced] into conditions of extreme precarity. This is a particularly vicious form of state violence that undermines and constrains agency, and subjects individuals to zones of abandonment, as evident in the growth of immigrant jails and an expanding carceral complex in the United States and other countries, such as Hungary.
As neoliberalism’s promise of social mobility and expanding economic progress collapsed, it gave way to an authoritarian right-wing populism looking for narratives on which to pin the hatred of governing elites who, as Paul Mason notes, “capped health and welfare spending, [imposed] punitive benefit withdraws [that] forced … many families to rely on food banks [and] withdraw sickness and disability benefits from one million former workers below retirement age.” Neither usage seeming to fit your reading of the argument + Show Spoiler +(based on your inability to "grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump", an argument that doesn't seem to exist in the text you're quoting) ? To say neoliberalism is instrumental in the rise of Trump is to say they had no choice but to vote for him due to the circumstances created by neoliberal policies. Forced is my wording to summarize it. Like here: neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality The populist they voted for has no solutions to inquality but in fact makes it worse. It's peoples willingness to believe lies about easy solutions and blame others for problems that gives rise to populism, not the problems themselves. If the problem itself was the true issue then they would have voted for Bernie.
Perhaps something is being lost in translation/interpretation, but none of that is meant to mean "they had no choice but to vote for him[Trump]". Any argument with that as a premise is going to be mistaken imo.
EDIT: "incubator" and "instrumental" don't mean and aren't synonymous with "forced" and/or "had no choice". They mean "provided favorable conditions" or something to that effect in this and most usage.
|
On December 01 2019 22:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2019 20:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:In an age of economic anxiety, existential insecurity and a growing culture of fear, liberalism’s overheated emphasis on individual liberties “made human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed,” as noted by Pankaj Mishra. In this instance, neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality. The latter was the outcome of a growing cultural and political polarization that made “it possible for haters to come out from the margins, form larger groups and make political trouble.” This toxic polarization and surge of right-wing populism produced by casino capitalism was accentuated with the growth of fascist groups that shared a skepticism of international organizations, supported a militant right-wing nationalism, and championed a surge of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values. I don't really grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump, who's main tax plan is to make rich people richer, and who's main reform plans are to reduce protective barriers from society to give corporations more freedom to do whatever they want, overturning the Dodd-Frank protections and who's main healthcare plan was to abolish a public healthcare program. I don't see an argument that anyone was "forced'... to vote for authoritarian Trump" in your quote or the piece at large so I'd wager that's why you aren't grasping it from them. The only use of the term "forced" is used in this section: As neoliberal economies increasingly resort to violence and repression, fear replaces any sense of shared responsibilities, as violence is not only elevated to an organizing principle of society, but also expands a network of extreme cruelty. Imagining politics as a war machine, more and more groups are treated as excess and inscribed in an order of power as disposable, enemies, and [forced] into conditions of extreme precarity. This is a particularly vicious form of state violence that undermines and constrains agency, and subjects individuals to zones of abandonment, as evident in the growth of immigrant jails and an expanding carceral complex in the United States and other countries, such as Hungary.
As neoliberalism’s promise of social mobility and expanding economic progress collapsed, it gave way to an authoritarian right-wing populism looking for narratives on which to pin the hatred of governing elites who, as Paul Mason notes, “capped health and welfare spending, [imposed] punitive benefit withdraws [that] forced … many families to rely on food banks [and] withdraw sickness and disability benefits from one million former workers below retirement age.” Neither usage seeming to fit your reading of the argument + Show Spoiler +(based on your inability to "grasp how the failing policies of neoliberalism that increased wealth inequality and reduce social bonds, 'forced' people to vote for authoritarian Trump", an argument that doesn't seem to exist in the text you're quoting) ? To say neoliberalism is instrumental in the rise of Trump is to say they had no choice but to vote for him due to the circumstances created by neoliberal policies. Forced is my wording to summarize it. Like here: neoliberalism became an incubator for a growing authoritarian populism fed largely by economic inequality The populist they voted for has no solutions to inquality but in fact makes it worse. It's peoples willingness to believe lies about easy solutions and blame others for problems that gives rise to populism, not the problems themselves. If the problem itself was the true issue then they would have voted for Bernie.
Saying neoliberalism is instrumental in the rise of trump isn’t the same thing as saying that they had no choice but to vote for him due to circumstances created by neoliberal policies
|
Northern Ireland25004 Posts
Well yeah I mean neoliberalism isn’t a domestic thing it’s international orthodoxy at this point. Adhere to certain rules in the marketplace and divergence occurs around social issues, but the overall superstructure is pretty consistent in terms of economic relations.
The anti-immigrant and specifically the popularity of Trump’s anti-China posturing are extremely pertinent factors.
It’s denizens of the countries that benefitted from actually unfair practices and sat atop the global order, increasingly being upset that the unfair advantages they have taken as the norm are being eroded.
For Britain it’s the Empire having its former colonies sending talent back towards it as they grow more affluent and developed, for the US it’s having a China doing what the US used to do and becoming an economic superpower.
Under the current systems you cannot have it all, but people want it all which is the root of the problem.
You can’t have a country built on exploiting the entire world without latter immigration, you can’t buy your cheap Chinese electronics and bemoan the decline of your own manufacturing industries.
Etc etc.
|
|
|
On December 01 2019 23:46 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well yeah I mean neoliberalism isn’t a domestic thing it’s international orthodoxy at this point. Adhere to certain rules in the marketplace and divergence occurs around social issues, but the overall superstructure is pretty consistent in terms of economic relations.
The anti-immigrant and specifically the popularity of Trump’s anti-China posturing are extremely pertinent factors.
It’s denizens of the countries that benefitted from actually unfair practices and sat atop the global order, increasingly being upset that the unfair advantages they have taken as the norm are being eroded.
For Britain it’s the Empire having its former colonies sending talent back towards it as they grow more affluent and developed, for the US it’s having a China doing what the US used to do and becoming an economic superpower.
Under the current systems you cannot have it all, but people want it all which is the root of the problem.
You can’t have a country built on exploiting the entire world without latter immigration, you can’t buy your cheap Chinese electronics and bemoan the decline of your own manufacturing industries.
Etc etc.
We saw the same type of stuff you describe in bipartisan praising of Trump's bombings in Syria
+ Show Spoiler +A notorious example of the sickening fawning over the military industrial complex from a ostensibly neoliberal outlet
The same goes for regime change efforts around the world and as you point out the anti-China posturing that has found bipartisan support as of late as well.
Virtually every critique countries like the US lob at countries like China have domestic analogues either in living memory or contemporaneously. To me they ring as one striking example after another of the lack of introspection and reflect the cultural tendencies we need to shift away from imo.
EDIT:It’s denizens of the countries that benefitted from actually unfair practices and sat atop the global order, increasingly being upset that the unfair advantages they have taken as the norm are being eroded.
that part is especially important in my view. It describes "white club" it describes imperialism/colonialism, etc... People need to sit with feeling bad about not doing something sooner and then get over it, forgive themselves and start taking real action going forward. If I were writing an unsolicited prescription lol.
|
The major way in which neoliberalism makes it easier for the far right to thrive is that it wants the far right to be its main enemy. Typically the first divide in politics is between people who think the situation is mostly okay and people who think there should be a change. Neoliberalism benefits from having the change be "the far right", cause it allows neoliberals to portray themselves as in a fight against irrationality and generally as the good guys.
The major example for US politics was Hillary Clinton propping up Trump's campaign because she thought he would be easier to beat than other Republicans. Macron also does this a lot, it's him vs Le Pen, and what are you going to do, vote for Le Pen? Have you seen how evil she is, how none of what she says makes rational sense... This is very advantageous in terms of rhetoric, especially if your policies aren't very popular. You get some leverage on the voters who might want some change.
The other main reason is more mechanical and less voluntary, it's just that if your leftwing parties are strong there is a lot less leeway for either neoliberalism or the far right to develop. It's not a coincidence that neoliberalism gained prominence right around the time the Soviet Union crashed. The left is structurally weakened, it can't really make a good case for itself now that the main leftist power has failed, and that allows the right to develop with a lot less political competition. If your opposition tries to aim for the center because it doesn't want to be associated with the failure of its own side, then the new center goes further right, and so on. And if you're a voter that really wants change and you see that the left is trying its best to be centrist and accept the system of the right, this will incentivize you to search for change elsewhere.
|
Northern Ireland25004 Posts
On December 01 2019 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 23:46 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well yeah I mean neoliberalism isn’t a domestic thing it’s international orthodoxy at this point. Adhere to certain rules in the marketplace and divergence occurs around social issues, but the overall superstructure is pretty consistent in terms of economic relations.
The anti-immigrant and specifically the popularity of Trump’s anti-China posturing are extremely pertinent factors.
It’s denizens of the countries that benefitted from actually unfair practices and sat atop the global order, increasingly being upset that the unfair advantages they have taken as the norm are being eroded.
For Britain it’s the Empire having its former colonies sending talent back towards it as they grow more affluent and developed, for the US it’s having a China doing what the US used to do and becoming an economic superpower.
Under the current systems you cannot have it all, but people want it all which is the root of the problem.
You can’t have a country built on exploiting the entire world without latter immigration, you can’t buy your cheap Chinese electronics and bemoan the decline of your own manufacturing industries.
Etc etc. We saw the same type of stuff you describe in bipartisan praising of Trump's bombings in Syria + Show Spoiler +The same goes for regime change efforts around the world and as you point out the anti-China posturing that has found bipartisan support as of late as well. Virtually every critique countries like the US lob at countries like China have domestic analogues either in living memory or contemporaneously. To me they ring as one striking example after another of the lack of introspection and reflect the cultural tendencies we need to shift away from imo. EDIT: Show nested quote +It’s denizens of the countries that benefitted from actually unfair practices and sat atop the global order, increasingly being upset that the unfair advantages they have taken as the norm are being eroded. that part is especially important in my view. It describes "white club" it describes imperialism/colonialism, etc... People need to sit with feeling bad about not doing something sooner and then get over it, forgive themselves and start taking real action going forward. If I were writing an unsolicited prescription lol.
I do tend to hate privilege rhetoric but I think it would rather be apt in these kind of examples.
I don’t really understand why someone has to feel bad either. I don’t feel bad I just acknowledge my place, in a system I have no particular direct control to influence.
Equally I’m a very strange person in mentality and outlook so maybe that’s why I don’t really understand this
|
On December 02 2019 00:51 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 23:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2019 23:46 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well yeah I mean neoliberalism isn’t a domestic thing it’s international orthodoxy at this point. Adhere to certain rules in the marketplace and divergence occurs around social issues, but the overall superstructure is pretty consistent in terms of economic relations.
The anti-immigrant and specifically the popularity of Trump’s anti-China posturing are extremely pertinent factors.
It’s denizens of the countries that benefitted from actually unfair practices and sat atop the global order, increasingly being upset that the unfair advantages they have taken as the norm are being eroded.
For Britain it’s the Empire having its former colonies sending talent back towards it as they grow more affluent and developed, for the US it’s having a China doing what the US used to do and becoming an economic superpower.
Under the current systems you cannot have it all, but people want it all which is the root of the problem.
You can’t have a country built on exploiting the entire world without latter immigration, you can’t buy your cheap Chinese electronics and bemoan the decline of your own manufacturing industries.
Etc etc. We saw the same type of stuff you describe in bipartisan praising of Trump's bombings in Syria + Show Spoiler +The same goes for regime change efforts around the world and as you point out the anti-China posturing that has found bipartisan support as of late as well. Virtually every critique countries like the US lob at countries like China have domestic analogues either in living memory or contemporaneously. To me they ring as one striking example after another of the lack of introspection and reflect the cultural tendencies we need to shift away from imo. EDIT: It’s denizens of the countries that benefitted from actually unfair practices and sat atop the global order, increasingly being upset that the unfair advantages they have taken as the norm are being eroded. that part is especially important in my view. It describes "white club" it describes imperialism/colonialism, etc... People need to sit with feeling bad about not doing something sooner and then get over it, forgive themselves and start taking real action going forward. If I were writing an unsolicited prescription lol. I do tend to hate privilege rhetoric but I think it would rather be apt in these kind of examples. I don’t really understand why someone has to feel bad either. I don’t feel bad I just acknowledge my place, in a system I have no particular direct control to influence. Equally I’m a very strange person in mentality and outlook so maybe that’s why I don’t really understand this
They don't "have" to feel bad, it's just a typical human reaction to grappling with one's complacency amid horrific atrocities carried out in their name/with their money/by their elected official/etc...
Alternatively, avoiding feeling bad is also a common reaction that can result in rather creative rationalizations. In my experience, people that don't go through the "feel bad" part tend not to progress to the "take real action to fix it going forward" part.
Instead finding comfort for themselves in that system and/or deciding they are incapable of playing an important role in changing it. (EDIT: Or worse, as we were discussing, turn to bigoted right wing authoritarians to "straighten things out" or whatever [I don't think this is you btw, you're probably just weird  ])
Really it's that segment of society for which finding solidarity with the most oppressed is most important and dangerous for the oligarchies imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
