I got to listen to this weeks episode of the Michael Brooks Show and he was so on point calling the coronavirus fallout neoliberal Chernobyl
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
lol maybe good political analysis doesn't come from assuming that because one side is the "good guys" that their intentions are always good and it's reality that fails them
literal cult behavior
The World After This
We're not going back to "normal" after the coronavirus. Here is exactly how things need to change for good, and for the better.
www.vice.com
The World After This
We're not going back to "normal" after the coronavirus. Here is exactly how things need to change for good, and for the better.
But have very significant doubts.... 😥😥😣😫😖🤬
The World After This
We're not going back to "normal" after the coronavirus. Here is exactly how things need to change for good, and for the better.
I read that article earlier, and as much as I would like to see a fairer society come to fruition, it sadly won't be without a fight. Rest assured, people will want to go back to "how things were before" despite the 'wisdom' of the economic system and our leaders being a major part of this entire crisis in the first place.
I can't fault people not understanding or knowing the full risks of Covid-19, given that it's a new disease, and that the Chinese government tried to hide how bad it was. But when they were destroying roads to their cities that very moment should have been all hands on deck, everywhere on the planet. Keeping the economy running was our leaders' priority, and we've paid a ghastly price for it.
And the sad thing is, people can and will go through all of this all over again if it meant keeping to tradition.
That Vice article is way too optimistic for me. I think COVID19 can catalyse a lot of changes in global society but I'm not expecting the end of capitalism this year. The most definitive prediction I can make is that we're living in a historical turning point and Fukuyama is a buffoon.
www.rt.com
Slavoj Zizek: Global communism or the jungle law, coronavirus forces us to decide
As panic over coronavirus spreads, we have to make the ultimate choice – either we enact the most brutal logic of the survival of the fittest or some kind of reinvented communism with global coordination and collaboration.
This, plus the fact that Healthcare professionals were practically begging for Medicare for all must cost him, right?
I feel this back-and-forth on Twitter covers most of my views on "will covid kill capital":
I think Konings is right in that neoliberalism, let alone capitalism itself, has proven very resilient and adaptable. People thought it was done for after 2008 but it seems at times the most we have achieved is an amplification of critique (plus a bunch of people steeped in neoliberalism saying it either has to go or doesn't exist). But I think he's underselling the point that Seijo is making here, because he's not simply talking about neoliberalism as an ideology, or bailouts being "hypocritical", but actual lived experience of its institutional mechanics by the population as a whole. Of course, this is contingent on enough governments actually committing to putting financial logic in a holding pattern as a crisis response. After 08 we had QE, which made some people say "if we can print money to save banks, why can't we print it for X?" (not strictly accurate but nevertheless totally valid as a point about institutional capabilities/responses), but otherwise was largely opaque/removed. If people actually live through a world where the role of money is substantially altered from their point of view, with "pay-for" taking a back seat to "pay-to", I think that would be a lot more direct and impactful.
Also Rashida Tlaib has a bill to mint the coin (two actually!) for a fully universal financial support system. The money nerd in me was really excited and then I saw the first twitter reply from a self-described teampete progressive dem asking if Hamas had input on the bill and remembered what she's up against.
I think Konings is right in that neoliberalism, let alone capitalism itself, has proven very resilient and adaptable. People thought it was done for after 2008 but it seems at times the most we have achieved is an amplification of critique (plus a bunch of people steeped in neoliberalism saying it either has to go or doesn't exist). But I think he's underselling the point that Seijo is making here, because he's not simply talking about neoliberalism as an ideology, or bailouts being "hypocritical", but actual lived experience of its institutional mechanics by the population as a whole. Of course, this is contingent on enough governments actually committing to putting financial logic in a holding pattern as a crisis response. After 08 we had QE, which made some people say "if we can print money to save banks, why can't we print it for X?" (not strictly accurate but nevertheless totally valid as a point about institutional capabilities/responses), but otherwise was largely opaque/removed. If people actually live through a world where the role of money is substantially altered from their point of view, with "pay-for" taking a back seat to "pay-to", I think that would be a lot more direct and impactful.
Also Rashida Tlaib has a bill to mint the coin (two actually!) for a fully universal financial support system. The money nerd in me was really excited and then I saw the first twitter reply from a self-described teampete progressive dem asking if Hamas had input on the bill and remembered what she's up against.
I'm not that familiar with Seijo but Konings from what I've read is primarily focused on critical institutionalisy approaches to the development of fiance so i'm not really surprised that's his take.
I think the semantic difficulties around "neo-liberalism" makes the conversation difficult. Will neoliberalism survive this, maybe? But i think the question of whether the current popular notions of value creation and economic participation will survive this are on to something
Last edited:
At least we'll all be dead soon, kinda seems like a relief honestly j/k.
History is a slow March, and the self destruction of capitalism will be no different. Add it to the enormous pile of things Karl Marx was right about.That Vice article is way too optimistic for me. I think COVID19 can catalyse a lot of changes in global society but I'm not expecting the end of capitalism this year. The most definitive prediction I can make is that we're living in a historical turning point and Fukuyama is a buffoon.
Slavoj Zizek: Global communism or the jungle law, coronavirus forces us to decide
As panic over coronavirus spreads, we have to make the ultimate choice – either we enact the most brutal logic of the survival of the fittest or some kind of reinvented communism with global coordination and collaboration.
M4A at this point is no longer up for debate. The ACA even on its best days can't even begin to address this. I don't think some liberals are fully appreciating the after-effects of this pandemic. Even after the pandemic washes over, people are going to be crippled FOR YEARS from healthcare costs alone, not to even bring in the loss of jobs and/or homes. And we all will suffer as a result, even if you never got COVID-19.
Means testing ain't going to get it done. ACA improvements ain't going to get it done.
Had to take a break from the news and sit down with a movie last night.
I watched Matewan.
Had no idea about the labor mining wars in this country. Sent me down a wikipedia rabbit hole.
Fantastic movie.
I watched Matewan.
Had no idea about the labor mining wars in this country. Sent me down a wikipedia rabbit hole.
Fantastic movie.
I'm getting pessimistic about any real improvements to the social safety net since, after the 08 crisis, we basically transferred wealth upwards to the oligarchs after that. That could have been a time for massive infrastructure investment, but it was wasted and the Neoliberalism sham machine continued.
I'm somewhat optimistic about growing discontent with the populace. That could lead to real change. Trump was a reactionary candidate after all. Yet, close to four years later we're back at square one.
I'm somewhat optimistic about growing discontent with the populace. That could lead to real change. Trump was a reactionary candidate after all. Yet, close to four years later we're back at square one.
I think this whole virus thing will just further entrench the people who "want obama back" and want "everything to go back to the way it was"
Yeah, he could have come forward making big promises to help those in need but instead he just vanished.
Apparently he doesn't know how to internet, while Bernie has a Twitch account lol.
OP
OP
Every day I wake up thinking "We're in the prime scenario to push for M4A, worker control, mass redistribution/UBI, breaking capital's stranglehold, providing jobs for everyone through the GND and other programs for the inevitable oncoming depression, but the Democrats picked Joe Biden lol"
This isn't quite what you're looking for, but I had linked to some pieces about socialism and technology a while back: https://www.resetera.com/threads/socialism-ot-the-dawn-of-a-red-era.585/page-178#post-28332052
This isn't quite what you're looking for, but I had linked to some pieces about socialism and technology a while back: https://www.resetera.com/threads/socialism-ot-the-dawn-of-a-red-era.585/page-178#post-28332052
Democrats love losing, I guess. Easy to have the high moral ground as a moderate if you're always ceding ground to the right.
As long as no ground is ceded to the left. God forbid if universal non-means tested policy becomes normalized
Last edited:
I've been thinking back to this post a lot for the last few weeks and wonder how it might fit within these new, advancing circumstances. Obviously nobody is sure what the future looks like right now, but it seems like the impacts of the virus increase the possibilities of either full-on biofascism, a deepened welfare state that still protects capitalism, or socialism. Apart from electoralism, I have heard so much talk about ensuring care and help among communities and supporting those who need it--not only from the government, but from ourselves. To me, that's also the ethical basis of socialism, but I'm not sure how to impart "socialism" within acts of "community support." And, further, how can that fit together with these revised approaches to electoralism?
Edit: What I'm getting at is how to combine sphagnum's good thoughts with articles like these:
https://www.groene.nl/artikel/dit-is-de-normale-orde
https://climateandcapitalism.com/20...griculture-and-covid-19-a-deadly-combination/
Last edited:
eh, this article makes it seem not so inflammatory
www.denverpost.com
still not great, but
Colorado governor against corporate bailouts “because I’m not a socialist like Donald Trump”
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis took a dig at the president in an MSNBC interview this week, saying he didn’t support corporate bailouts because “he’s not a socialist like Donald Trump.…
www.denverpost.com
still not great, but
"I think the government should not … own the means to production," Polis said. "I'm not a socialist like Donald Trump, so I think that's a very dangerous way to go, and I think that rather than these corporate bailouts, we should talk about helping people."
When socialism means bailing out corporations and not helping the people...
When socialism means bailing out corporations and not helping the people...
Yea it's like all the stars have aligned in our favour but there is no one to act on it. It's infuriating really.
Well, most of the Dems party is full of neoliberals thanks to Bill Clinton shifting to the party right and making them bow down to corporate money. Obama was just the second coming of this after the 08 crash.
I'd take Obama over Romey or McCain obviously, but this incrementalism is gonna destroy us.
Only the Progressive wing of the Dem party is leading the way in terms of real progressive policy--Bernie, and the freshmen Congresswomen.
For sure; while I can't speak for anyone in that thread, I think a focus on instrumentality is the right one here. Both in terms of neoliberalism operating through instrumental measures and being ideologically instrumental, making means into ends. It's one thing for those means to fail at producing their stated ends, like full employment or minimum standards of living, because they just say there is no alternative. Same goes for needing to bail-out finance or carefully regulate+construct a market in order for it to function, because the goal is to have a market/financial sector, so if that's what it takes that's just pragmatic and responsible governance. But if we start to see this instrumental reasoning laid bare to a much larger proportion of the population, as well as fundamental reshaping of those means themselves (e.g. paying people to stay at home instead of making them look for work to "earn" their benefits) it could push things in the right direction.
Seijo is an MMTer but I think he's part of the newer wave developing it as critical/cultural theory. He's one of the hosts of Money on the Left; I don't listen to podcasts a lot but they provide full transcripts which is handy.
you pretty much summed it up
thanks for the rec as well, I am am always on the hunt for quality content
For some context, our governor here in CO posts on r/neoliberal
lmao hell yeah
Honestly what most people in America consider progressive or left would be considered centrist or even right-wing in some other countries. The democratic party isn't really progressive, its just more so than the republicans.
I think many Dems talk a good progressive talk when it comes to electoralism and narrative setting, but in reality it's hardly a progressive party. Like you say, it's only in comparison to the appallingly racist GOP that they come out looking good. If the american system realistically supported more than two parties, leftists and progressives would create their own political space and the Dem party would be almost completely irrelevant. There's only so much that 'not GOP' can do for you when there are another half a dozen parties claiming the same.