Chavista Club World • Page 14

Lol I'm not even sure what this means but it still made me laugh.

of course, the adoption of the far left of "liberal" as some sort of derogatory term makes me laugh too...It's funny to watch one group of people lump all left wing people as commies/socialists, and the actual commies/socialists label anyone who isn't commie/socialist as "liberal=neoliberal". But that's a different discussion.

I read this thread a lot, I just got a laugh at that post from armistice and had to respond to annoy. Especially considering how much bullshit that post is full of.

I was never as much into the political philosophy/theory side of things, so this thread is an enjoyable read for that stuff.

 

I was being serious and not snarky w that post. I meant u will post ridiculous tweets from people u usually agree with that we can all laugh at.

As for "liberal," idk man, leftists have been using that derogatorily literally since there have been leftists. Marx did it. I don't think that point is nearly as salient as you think it is. And neoliberalism, contrary to popular belief, is a real thing (I just spent 3 weeks learning about it in a grad level course!) and it's logic underlines the policy of everyone from the centrist wing of the democratic party on rightward. This is slightly more disputable but still basically true. So, idk

 

I don't use liberal in a derogatory manner. I use it to describe a specific political belief system that is a dead-end and utterly useless.

 

I don't think neoliberalism is a fake thing, I just think a lot of people here tend to live in the 1990s when it comes to the Democratic Party. The base is shifting, the much further left millennial generation is becoming a bigger bloc, and instead of helping that bloc shift things, there seems to be a lot of "well they sucked in the 90's and are only just now starting to reverse the trend so fuck em I want nothing to do with them!"....which is great to feel good about yourself and stick to your 'principles', not so great to get some of the ideas you want implemented. There's a reason why the DSA is telling people to run for office in the Democratic Party. But again this thread is way more about the political theory and philosophy side of things than it is about governing and policy implementation. Or at least has been up until now, for the most part.

The problem is people in this thread to lump EVERYONE who isn't as far left as them, including politicians, pundits, wonks, and posters here, as neoliberals who are in the centrist wing of the Democratic Party. Which is not true, and is why the post I quoted made me laugh with all the self righteousness and bullshit it included. Those damn liberals in that GenPol thread!! Which reminds me---not responding to a post or thread is not the same thing as ignoring. I may have posted one or two responses at most in here before but I haven't been ignoring the thread. Though it's def easier to check the GenPol and some of the other threads (racism, sexism, etc) that get responded to more often cause they're always at the top. I don't post in those threads much but still read them when I notice there's new posts. I just don't respond to every post when I don't feel like I have much to add, and there's been a bunch of lurkers who have said the same on the few occasions they do post. I'm actually impressed with the amount of lurkers this section gets.

 

@David87 it's not so much that everyone who isn't to the far-left is all the same, it's that none of them are anti-capitalists/believe in the eradication of capitalism/see the complete, inextricable role it plays in white supremacy, or patriarchy, or imperialism. So if you tell the leftists here (who, whether socialist or anarchist or communist, are all connected by virtue of being variations of anticapitalist) that they must work with the Dems to achieve material gains towards their goals, you're ignoring the reality that those gains will always be undermined by a insidiously predatory system that the Dems have never, ever expressed an interest in moving away from. There are places where we can work together at a grassroots level, when common ground exists -- BLM, reproductive rights, antifa efforts, etc. -- but the goals of the Democrat Party will not ever exist symbiotically with anticapitalist goals. Even when the Democrats seek to mitigate the disastrous impact of capitalism, it's never been a complete commitment.

 

Don't necessarily disagree with the premise of this post, but there's still a lot of ground to cover from socialist--------------->neoliberal.

Neoliberals are a dying breed and are losing their grip on the Democratic Party as time goes on. They do not speak for everyone in the Democratic Party anymore, yet are treated as such here every time they open their mouths. And comparing the Cory Bookers of the world to the Clintonian Dems of the 90's simply because he as a city mayor embraced charter schools and is "friendly" with bankers is a false equivalency that I and I'm sure others will continue to point out whenever someone makes it. And that's just Cory Booker, who is definitely on the moderate side of the "New Dems". People to the left of him still get lumped in with 90's era Dems which is...stupid.

 

We don't need to look to the '90's for the neoliberal democratic ideology. We spent the past eight years with it and now we have Trump. You can blame republicans, I guess, but from the outset of the Obama administration, it was clear that he firmly believed in the ideology that pervaded the party in the '90's, albeit with some minor changes. Example? Just look at how he talked to black people, as though there was some sort of pathology within the community that kept them from succeeding.

 

Yeah, like. When I said "this is what users mean when we say liberal derogatorily," I mean, "the fact that people are defending Obama's speech decision is a fundamentally informative one regarding ideological differences." and also that that perspective is one to be critiqued heavily.

 

Yeah I disagree with your conclusions pretty much entirely here.

 

If you read Fukuyama in 2017 and are like "yes, still this, indeed," u might be a neolib

 

If you think Obama may have been a good president, rather than a continuation of '90's, West Wing-style triangulation, in which the needs of the elites are put before the majority, you may be a neoliberal.

 

Except he wasn't just a continuation, in a lot of meaningful ways, which is kind of the point I was making and the one you are proving in this post.

The changes don't happen overnight, it happens gradually. It took the Democratic party over 10 years to get completely away from the last vestiges of the New Deal days and into the moderation of the 90's

 

I disagree. He was a corporate democrat. Nothing more or less.

 

I mean, Clinton pretty fundamentally changed the Democratic party over the same period of time by embracing Reaganomics.

 

Yeah but that was a process that had already started in the 12 years before his presidency. Carters admin fell apart, the Dems lost to an actor and proceeded to get their ass kicked for the next 10 years so the natural reaction seems to be "let's put our own spin on those policies that seem to keep winning."

 

i use it in both ways huehuhue

 

well, at least you understand now, Ian. :D

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/world/europe/armenian-genocide-turkey.html?_r=0
Ignore Ann Coulter. She’s a boring performance artist, and she’s gaming us all.
The ‘hotbed of anti-Semitism’ isn’t a foreign country. It’s U.S. college campuses, a new report says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/...-side-by-side-two-decades-after-genocide.html

 

It was in the making, yes. Should have been more clear about that. But I'd argue it accelerated hardcore in the Clinton years, and not just because it won races.

 

Sanders and 21 Democrats introduce bill to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour

 

You could even make an argument that neoliberalism in America started with Carter tbh

 

It didnt seem intentional though, at least not totally....just the bumblefuckery of that presidency created such chaos.

 

yeah the pieces were there, i mean that it cohered in Reagan's (and Thatcher's) economic policy and became democratic fare in Clinton's.

 

Welp. Time for a commie group dm. Who wants in? lol