820
Well, we have the fucking camps opening. Luckily, plenty of terminally online leftists are ready to tell us how noble and moral not voting was! (europe.pub)
submitted 1 year ago* by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
935 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (16 children)

The point is that socialism cannot be achieved by electoral means. At best, if the masses in the street really pressure those in power, you get social democracy. That being said the choice for Americans was neoliberalism or fascism. The reasons for fascism winning go deeper than "the left was to whinny", but that's beside the point being made here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Okay, so, which is easier for socialists to organize under? Neoliberalism, or fascism?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Neoliberalism, obviously. Kamala probably wouldn't be in favour of people being abducted off the street and shoved into unmarked vans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    Apparently that very controversial position makes us shitlibs instead of people who would like to not be abducted by unmarked secret police and taken to a black site while we try to organize socialist political movements.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Playing devil's advocate here. It's probably much easier to grow a resistance against fascism than neoliberalism, as neoliberalism is comfortable enough for most people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    There are goals before socialism that ARE achievable electorally which are still worth pursuing in the meantime, like stalling fascists, or prevent genocide of immigrants and queer folks

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    neoliberalism

    People here keep using that word uncomprehendingly like they're a dumb AI matching & associating on the root liberal.

    Neoliberalism is free market capitalism, a conservative ideology embraced by Margaret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan. Democrats are for many things: environmental regulation, social safety nets, market regulation, spending on social programs, labor protections, consumer protections, etc. That's a far cry from free, unregulated markets.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The Democratic platform is a far cry from proper safety nets and regulations.

    Every Democratic president since Clinton was a neoliberal. Now that Trump is going with protectionism, they are in essence more neoliberal than the Republicans.

    In the most recent elections, Kamala talked good shit initially, until her corporate allies talked her down, and like the good little neoliberal she is she started sputtering out market-based "solutions" to everything.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20250126160126/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/25/us/politics/harriss-economic-pitch-capitalism-for-the-middle-class.html

    https://web.archive.org/web/20250213014747/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/business/harris-economic-plan-wall-street.html

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Every Democratic president since Clinton was a neoliberal.

    Nah: they passed the ACA, expanded Medicaid, passed Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, started the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tried to ban non-compete clauses, tried to enact rules for "click to cancel" subscriptions & end junk fees, standardized disclosure of fees for finance services, voted in the FTC to enforce right to repair, sustained social programs. That & much more happened after Clinton (whereas Republicans defunded Medicaid, added restrictions, defunded SNAP, defunded school lunch programs, rolled much of this back).

    You just have a memory deficiency.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    The ACA is not that different from Romneycare or the old Republican HEART bill that was proposed in opposition to Clinton's attempts at passing universal healthcare. It remains a market-based solution.

    The establishment of the CFPB, like the passing of the ACA, was a stripped-down pro-market version of what could have been.

    In terms of foreign policy, the Democrats have enthusiastically supported and continued to support the globalisation of capital through such agreements as NAFTA and continued various imperialist adventures (Obama's use of drones is legendary).

    In terms of workers rights, a lot of the bullshit from the Reagan years is still alive and well, unquestioned by the mainstream of either big party (it is frequently said on Lemmy and elsewhere that nearly everything wrong with modern America can be traced back to Reagan). Antitrust measures remain largely unenforced.

    Stuff like this is well within the preview of other neoliberal parties like Fianna Fail/Fine Gael or the CDU. They too have limited market-based "solutions" to social problems. Just tax carbon emissions and the market will fix climate change. Stimulate more housebuilding and homelessness will be solved. This pattern continues.

    Only during Biden's term was there some deviation from the old formula, in the form of stimulus checks and more investment in infrastructure, along with some support of trade unions. These were good steps in a shift towards the social-liberal wing of the party. Kamala leaned into this early in the campaign but then towards the end she decided it was better to get the endorsement of people like Dick Cheney.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    The matter is simple. Yes or no: are they for market regulation & intervention? Yes. Therefore, they're not neoliberal.

    You can hue & cry all you want, but words mean things. If you want a word that means not anti-market, then find that word. Neoliberal isn't it.

    Your criticisms of those social programs & market regulations only amount to claiming they don't go far enough even though they definitely are market regulations & interventions. If they weren't social programs & market regulations, then the Republicans wouldn't have anything to cut & deregulate as they are doing: the current administration is rescinding consumer & labor protections proposed by the previous administration & they're restricting & defunding major public programs (Medicaid, SNAP, medical research, public health programs, national weather service, public broadcasting). While you seem to take these programs & regulations for granted, treat them like nothing, & act like they weren't a significant undertaking that could only barely scrape through our political obstacle course, they make a significant difference in people's lives.

    What Republicans offer with their senseless trade war & cuts isn't protections to the working class, but the illusion of protections to some domestic businesses while exploiting other domestic businesses (reliant on international trade), labor (losing protections from defunded regulatory agencies & programs), consumers (shafted with consumer protection losses, tariff costs, less affordable goods & services) & while transferring income from the poor to the rich.

    Calling market regulation & social programs neoliberal indicates you don't know the meaning of words. Market intervention & regulation isn't free, unregulated market, ie, neoliberalism. Any policy in support of a mixed economy with regulated markets suffices to not be neoliberal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Comrade, the only people who are for complete nonintervention are right-"libertarians".

    To call the Democratic ideal a mixed market is kinda wild. Nearly everything that could be privatized already is, besides perhaps the post office.

    I will not pretend that the current programs are not significant or that cutting them will not kill people. But the fact of the matter is that it's peanuts compared to the social-democracy that reigned in Western Europe for most of the Cold War or even the social-liberalism of the pre-Reagan US.

    I am not sure what your talk of the Republicans has to do with this. I am certain they're not really neolibs though. They're fascists, or close to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    You can't have your cake & eat it too. This is simple logic.

    You're talking about differences in degree the words do not imply. You're confusing mixed market with rejection of markets & muddling words.

    You don't have to agree with their policies to understand they don't fit the definition. Definitions don't imply your approval/disapproval.

    If they are for unregulated, free markets, then they are absolutely neoliberal. If they are not for that (eg, they're for regulated markets & public services), then they are not neoliberal.

    Unless you can refute a definition, you're just fighting logic (in vain).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •