Neo liberals are going fucking apeshit insane!

Might be referring to some armored vehicles in DC yesterday for some reason.

R/neoliberals boyo

This sub always baffled me, like I understand democrats are neolibs too but if someone bothered to make a subreddit about neoliberalism you'd think they actually discuss what the general public thinks neoliberalism is. Like when I think of neoliberalism I don't think of democrats.

calling yourself a neo-liberal is edgy af. It triggers the fuck out of both leftists and rightists. Like when you say you're in favor of globalization, the UN, the EU, free-trade, integration economic growth a rules based liberal world order, and responsibility to protect everyone gets really mad

I suppose you're right. I don't think a sub called r/neocon would be that popular, because these guys in the OP are essentially neocons. Then again you could argue neocons and neolibs are the same.

Well that's a mistake on your part.

Neoconservatism and neoliberalism are perfectly compatible. The former is a consensus on foreign policy and the latter an economic ideology.

I mean don't you? I think of people like Pinoshit, Thatcher, and Reagan.

Neoconservatives believe that America must use force when it suits US foreign interests even if its outside international law. Neoliberals think America should be the guardian of international law and norms

Sure. I also think of Clinton, Obama, and Blaire. All of these people subscribe to the neoliberal consensus they just have a slightly different interpretation of it. Instead of literally just leaving it all up to the market they believe the role of government is to mandate market solutions to socioeconomic problems. Both groups are almost indistinguishable when it comes to their views on free trade, financialization, austerity, and privatization.

Those aren't incompatible. America can and does impose international norms on other states while violating them itself.

All neocons are neoliberal, but not all neoliberals are neocon.

It's a question of tactics and priorities. Neocons are military first they dont care about "instutions" and rules they want to use hard power to solve Americas problems.

Neoliberals would prefer to use institutions international law trade pacts and corporations to further US interests

Most rightists are neoliberals.

Neoliberalism isn’t just being a fucking liberal like what you described, but promoting privatization, deregulation and “market-based solutions” while being opposed to unions and workers’ rights.

no see a neo-liberal would never be shilling for trade protectionism

You’re just describing liberalism there.

britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism
investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp
Modern conservatives are almost always neoliberal.

Protectionism is really only supported by a section of nationalists and, even then, having that one exception to what is otherwise a complete endorsement of neoliberalism isn’t enough to make you not neoliberal.

I disagree

for example if Brexit voters where neo-liberal they would stay in the EU. Trump would sign TPP and not start trade wars

they are obviously still capitalists they just aren't neoliberal capitalists

Once again, not being completely on board with free trade isn’t enough to make you not neoliberal.

I agree that Trump may or may not be a neo-liberal because I don't even think he knows what the fuck he is or cares, but the nationalist right wingers in the EU who explicitly want the EU to be destroyed and don't care about the common market, or the international liberal order are not neoliberals

Not necessarily. They could feel like they're getting the short end of the stick within the EU while still wanting to be integrated into the global economy. And whether Trump signs or doesn't sign the TPP doesn't change the fact that the US is already in bilateral free trade agreements with basically all of the countries within the TPP on an individual basis.

you can have trade agreements and not be a neo-liberal neoliberalism is a philosophy that the market is above all and that anything that favors more globalization and integration a good thing anything that goes against it is a bad thing. Neo-liberals wouldn't give a fuck about things like " sovereignty" "economic independance" or "getting jobs back"

Well of course you can. Trade agreements are as old as time. But you left off the 'free' in free trade.
A neoliberal can disagree with entering into a specific trade agreement if they feel like it isn't in their favor or that they can negotiate a better deal. This is particularly true when the "they" is at the center of the global economy. Neolibs aren't automatons compelled to sign every trade deal that is slid under their noses.
I guess no one is a neoliberal then because that's what every politican "gives a fuck about".

most politicians wouldn't admit to being neo-liberals because it's extremely unpopular. Neo-liberalism is a philosophy and a set of policies. Obviously policies that are not neo-liberal are not neo-liberal, nationalization, trade protectionism and tarrifs, raising corporate taxes etc are not neo-liberal policies if someone implements several non-neoliberal policies you can safely say they are not a neoliberal.

It's very easy to identify what's neoliberal and what isn't if all 4 of The Economist, the Wall Street Journal Bloomberg and the Financial Times are triggered by a particular economic policy then chances are it's not a neo-liberal economic policy.

To people arguing here.
Neoliberalism is capitalist wing of liberalism who tolerate gays, minorities etc. Less pro war.
Neoconservativism is capitalist wing of conservatism who hate gays and are racist ect. More pro war.

What are you people smoking? Neoliberalism = Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet, Yeltsin, Deng, etc.
The term doesn't refer to modern liberals

Not really. Neoliberalism is an economic consensus. Neoliberals hold a wide range of beliefs on social issues. While neoconservatism is mainly concerned with foreign policy. A neoconservative can have progressive views on social issues.

The "third way" neoliberal politics championed by Clinton and Blaire are still very dominant within parties like the Democrats.

Critical support for the r/neoliberals against GO-imPerialism

If neoliberalism and social liberalism are related (and they are) it's because a "liberal" outlook on social issues makes sense in a modern, commercial, developed economy and within industries that are competing for professional skilled workers on a global scale. I went to Pride this year and there was a Northrop Grumman float with a stealth drone mockup pasted with LGBT pride stickers. (I took this photo.) The other photo is of a trans woman who is currently vice president of research and Airbus Americas, and was a deputy assistance defense secretary – under Obama – for military energy (like how to supply power to forward operating bases). She was a test pilot and if there's a guided air-to-ground missile in the U.S. inventory, she probably test fired it at some point.

I post her picture just to point out that there's a reason why these big, commercial, urban companies that operate globally – and what is more global than aerospace – trend toward social liberalism. If Northrop, Lockheed or Raytheon are competing for a limited number of highly-educated skilled workers with hard-to-get security clearances, they couldn't care less if you're trans or not.

I'd add that these floats were not the most popular, and there were some protesters holding signs against "rainbow capitalism" who were also in the parade.

What I think is happening now is a conflict between elements of the capitalist class. The most advanced elements are neoliberal but there is tension between them and representatives of the old "national" industries. Whether we have globalized, squishy rainbow neoliberalism or nationalized, chauvinistic "apartheid" liberalism; the result is still a system where political power is constructed through compromises between elements of the ruling capital-owning class and elements of the middle-class and privileged workers.

Attached: simpson.jpg (600x762 12.75 KB, 1.04M)

What are you smoking? People you listed are ruling class and don't have any ideology, or beliefs.

That's sometimes the case.

You're right, but most of the liberals I know are in favor of some type of mixed economy (or 50% socialism, since socialism is when the state does things for them)

Most of those people's ideology was pushed by Milton Friedman and co.

Attached: 183033.jpg (307x475, 13.47K)

(me)
One more post. I would say the Pride parade I went to was in Texas. And since this is an election year I should post a pic of a representative of the "apartheid liberal" faction from my beloved but benighted state, a billionaire named Tim Dunn of Midland who made his riches in oil and gas extraction – and a member of the board of directors for Empower Texas, an arch-reactionary advocacy group that meddles in local politics across the state and has attempted to pass an anti-trans "bathroom bill" (which has faced opposition from the commercial, urban-oriented sectors such as the Texas Association of Business).

The oil industry tends to favor protectionism – the U.S. government bans export of crude oil as a subsidy to the domestic industry – because freeing up the market would increase production and drive down gasoline prices, harming the bosses who run these American oil companies. In terms of trade deals, they would prefer bilateral one-on-one deals to global trade arrangements. Privileged workers in the oil fields of Midland and Odessa, Texas, particularly the managers and skilled specialists are also strongly pro-Trump and actually reactionary. But the social conservatism of these places derives from the material basis of the world they live in: their industries are rooted in particular places. If newcomers show up and decide to ban fracking, then that is a direct threat to their material interests. And their solutions are patriarchal and apartheid-like in character: we must exclude people to protect ourselves.

I think the major conflict today is between these elements of the ruling class. In neither case is there any question of redistributing surplus to the masses – since the masses don't have the organization to demand it. Instead the national conservatives bargain with privileged elements of the domestic working class through chauvinism (we must "get some of the goods back" from the third world, such as by restricting immigration and remittances from migrant workers, slashing social benefits to the poor, etc.) and with rewriting trade deals. The main difference between them and the technocratic liberals is the latter feels this will upset the apple cart, which rests on the exploitation of the third world in any case.

Attached: dunn_2.png (400x400 534.16 KB, 27.69K)

I wouldn't go that far. I consider friedman theorist in name only and majority of with the exeption of opportunist deng to be merely puppets.

This is good, potentially galvanizing a movement, but it's the US so I wouldn't hold your breath.

(me)
Okay I lied. This is my last post.

The wild card in this conflict is you have a third pill: left-wing nationalists. They would be represented by Corbyn in the U.K., Bernie in the U.S., Melenchon in France et al. They are not revolutionaries because they don't want to overthrow capitalism; in the U.S. they want to revert to the kind of economic nationalism the country went through during the New Deal.

The "populist" right offers: we will solve our economic problems through social conservatism and nativism (excluding others). The liberal technocrats say they will solve our economic problems through "innovation" and by opening up. The left version is opposed to nativism, but offers to cut the appeal of nativism off at its knees by solving the economic problems through… redistributing the national surplus in the interests of people in their own countries. Interesting, no? This means Bernie, Corbyn, Melenchon and so on are not neoliberals – and the fact that they're not puts them under a lot of pressure by neoliberals to either destroy or co-opt them. They don't seek to abolish capital, but they do threaten to challenge some of capital's major gains in the past half-century.

Attached: corbyn.jpg (3000x2000 40.58 KB, 1.19M)

Not true, some a trots

Your wrong. First off a lot of Socdems support Protectionism. Also Protectionism goes directly against the Neoliberal dream of a “single market” and “free flow of goods, capital and labor.” What Neoliberlals want is the entire world to have a single global market. And for any Porky to be able to sell goods from one country to enough country with the same ability as if he lived there. Privatization is also a big part of neoliberalism. But the concept of a global market is a crucial pillar of there ideology. When Hillary says she wants open boarders, she’s not just referring to immigration but to the free flow of capital across boarders.

Attached: HillaryClintonOpenBoarders.jpg (1225x771 52.91 KB, 315.48K)

Your an idiot. Thee terms have nothing to do with social values. Blue haired SJWs can be just as much neolibs and neocons and Evangelical Christians.
Neoliberals = people who want an integrated global market with free flow of capital and trade.
Neoconservatives = people who believe that American Imperialism is justified because America is a “democracy” and promotes “democratic and enlightenment values” in countries it loots.
You can be one without being the other, however most people who are one are also the other. And again these have nothing to do with social values.

Good posts Comrade, but we should be going further to the hard economic reasons for the main antagonism between left-nationalists/populists/socdems and neoliberals, for that we should be looking to people like Kliman & Roberts who argue that the entirety of the adoption of "Neoliberalism" wasn't an attempt to restore the rate of profit so much as it was to stem the bleeding and make sure that Capitalism even remained functional. Even now 10 years after the last Crisis Profitability has not been restored and as a result Investment into any kind of Productive sectors remains minimal; and the Globalized Economy is running out of places to expand into. This genuinely might be a massive source of conflict because Neoliberalism cannot accede to the demands of a return to Social Democracy; it's literally more untenable than it was when Keynesianism was failing because Pandora's Box has been opened; even the same political strategies for acheiving said concessions within the borders of nation states don't exist anymore, and that leaves Neoliberals terrified of even the Left-Wing of Fascism.

I think the blue-haired SJWs fit in a similar slot to the more privileged workers on the right who vote for right-wing parties. The elements of the ruling class that favor liberalism bargains with them on cultural issues. LGBT and feminist issues are not at odds with the interests of capital, so these issues do not create intraparty conflict in a way that economic issues do.

And when I say "privileged worker," I mean that the blue-haired SJW is a worker, but they're not at the bottom of the urban proletariat. They may have a higher education, or some higher education. They have some skills even if they still exchange their labor in return for a portion of the value back in wages. They serve a similar function to the skilled exurban or rural social conservative who reaches a bargain with other elements of capital. And in both cases, these privileged workers hate and fear the other even though they share the same basic class position.

If the Bernie/Corbyn/Melenchon left-wing nationalists pose a threat, it's that they have a potential mass base pulled from the proles. The blue-haired SJW may have some skills, but is becoming declassed – AOC got an economics degree from Boston University but wound up working as a bartender. She may get absorbed and co-opted, or maybe not. (Actually, the socialist line would say FDR-style "New Deal" liberalism is also a compromise – true.) I believe Corbyn in the U.K. has pulled in voters from UKIP.

Interesting.

Attached: coal_miners_for_trump.jpg (940x540 126.71 KB, 194.44K)

In practice often yes, however neoliberals advocate open borders and sweatshops instead of bombing other countries, a lot of neocons are against open borders and sometimes talk about bringing back jobs. Some non mainstream neocons are racist which supports american imperialism, more mainstream are just imperialist.

Anti Liberal Aktion

Attached: c6e229210d99c207c45906a7c636d5c8b5dd5f244bf1eade395d0af1d2be5418.png (800x1237, 613.17K)

You already know the answer to that question, user.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 101.08K)

LIBERALS RISE UP!

Attached: gang.jpg (311x162, 9.2K)

I still think you're a little confused and tangling up economic terms with foreign policy schools. Neoliberal regimes will most definitely bomb other countries or apply various other measures like sanctions.

Instead of neoliberalism the word you're looking for might be "liberal internationalism." These are people like Samantha Power, Obama's ambassador to the UN. The main difference, if there is any, between them and the neocons is that the liberal interventionists will tend to favor toppling foreign regimes with the help from allies (it's that whole "global" thing). So, NATO. The neocons will go it alone or with bilateral arrangements, like the Americans and the British in 2003.

So I thought about this some more and I think that might explain the turn inwards with the protectionist right. It's a kind of internal colonization and being done to squeeze more surplus out of "others." It's very interesting reading about these agriculture operations in the US Midwest right now as ICE is going around rounding up immigrants – undocs make up a huge percentage of the farm labor in the United States. Annual remittances of money going back to Mexico and other parts of Latin America are in the tens of billions per year, so the right seems like it's trying to keep this money from leaving the country (not mentioned: the vastly greater amounts hoarded offshore by the very wealthy).

The liberal technocrats will look at this and say to the right: are you fucking crazy? The whole economy depends on us exploiting these people! And they're technically right about that, although it's pretty twisted. Then the right steals the left's language and argues that it's really the right that is protecting workers (rather than merely trying to wring out as much money as possible from one of the the most exploited elements of the working class). We're fucked. But the main difference I think is that the liberals want to protect the goose that's laying the golden eggs while the right wants to hoard the eggs and potentially kill the goose in the process.

Attached: power.jpg (1200x800, 935.28K)

reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9l1eyq/i_am_dmitry_sudakov_editor_of_russias_leading/e73ewsb/?context=8&depth=9

reddit.com/user/DmitryPravda

Literally who do they think Bill Clinton was?

Goddamn, all shockingly… I was gonna say ‘takes’, but that doesn’t do it justice, shockingly good analysis for a leftypol thread.
And Sabo cat who’s usually based as fuck comin through with unusually weak takes for him, is it Opposite Day??

I wish it were original but largely cribbed / adapted from a Marxist friend who is way smarter than me. We've all got to do our part to dig this dump out of a ditch!

Attached: sov.jpg (495x352, 44.57K)

They claim not to be libertarians, but when Friedman's ancap son did an AMA there recently they basically just fellated him.

I disagree. Help them to get over their obsession with Russia and have them realize that, no, the evil of the Republican Party is a mostly homegrown one and that many democrats aren't innocent and you've got a potential there that can be harnessed.

If they realize that their country wasn't taken over by a hostile foreign power but sold out by traitors among their own countrymen you might actually have a functional revolutionary movement. "Republicans must hang" is a pretty good stance to take.

Yeah but their stance isn't that of a revolutionary "Republicans must hang" but rather "Republicans must hang so rightful queen Hilldawg can take the throne"

We're talking about americans here. Baby steps, user. If they continue down the path they're on now they'll get there eventually. At least if the real left can manage to educate them. I imagine some of them would be pretty open to it.

The final solution to the neoliberal question: gaswagens in every suburb

Goading dogmatic right wingers to attack other right wingers isn't going to be conducive to any progress in terms of left wing politics

There are at least two Sabocat posters now so I’m not sure which one you’re referring to as based.

There are two new, far inferior, angry cat posters postin' here recently. Don't confuse them with based "pretty much an ML" angry cat poster.

Attached: 5008c8de1f822806acf252f417a8118b6a913206851aa51a2ce01a9f94d55e98.jpg (800x699, 64.01K)

I know it sounds silly but don't underestimate liberals; they will sometimes surprise you.

Attached: waco.jpg (992x558, 75.87K)

That was when they were running the government though.

Oh no, what a shame.

Sure. That's what I mean. The Dems will come back into power in the U.S. eventually and it's going to be interesting to see what they do since they're talking so crazy. In all likelihood they'll just fall on their faces again, though. But I do think there is a chance (maybe not a good chance) that a kind of "authoritarian liberalism" is in our future – especially when you see how much these #resistance warriors love the security and intelligence services.

Haha, I saw that AMA yesterday. What a fucking clusterfuck. People got upvoted who straight up insulted the guy, called him a "KGB stooge" and stuff like that, and when he responded that that's not very nice, he got downvoted by hundreds of votes.

It's kinda funny because his magazine was recently critcizing Putin's pension reform, and even called out the Kremlin for a "feudal attitutde". But he disagrees on NATO bombings so the average redditor gets foam on his mouth. Nothing represents reddit as well as this AMA.

I think this is flawed because the US isnt inherently democratic. I can easily see Trump using a 9/11 style crisis to postpone elections, and the dems might wind up getting swept up like the socialists in 1933 Germany. The situation is open and therefore you can't just assume this is muh pendulum.. It might swing one way and get stuck

Most dems that are actually in power are mostly talking about dumb shit like gun control. They have no agenda and actually seem to prefer it that way (probably because it makes it easier to manage the donors' expectations.) America is hopeless. It needs to be effectively demolished and rebuilt by a socialist state.

Jesus dog dick sucking christ. Too bad that stupid cunt nurse who got ebola got quarantined before she could spread it

Attached: 1dd4d85bd3e710d5125f192943a8b78b7e8421aa7ee59ea443c1c8445bf6091a.jpg (360x452, 30.91K)

Reddit is mostly FBI niggers trying to sway things.

Fuck the Republicans. Fuck the South. Fuck the flyover states. Fuck a third of Maine. 2/3rds Nebraska. Fuck Alaska. Fuck the coal miners. Fuck the scared old people. Fuck 60% of white people. Fuck the non-voters. Fuck the electoral system that produces minority elected presidents. Fuck the NRA. Fuck the Federalist Society. Fuck the Heritage Foundation. Fuck Reagan's rotting corpse. Fuck Newt Gingrich who solidified this bull shit. Fuck Nixon for everything. Fuck Goldwater. Fuck Roger Ailes and Fox News. Fuck the rich assholes who fund all this. Fuck Evangelical Christians. Fuck pro-life Catholics. Fuck 3rd generation immigrants who vote for anti-immigration policies without a hint of irony. Fuck the Mormons. Fuck turtle man. Fuck his corrupt-ass wife. Fuck everyone who will be on the wrong side of history. Fuck the two illegitimate supreme court members now. Fuck the other 3 asshats on their too. Fuck Pence. Fuck the Kochs.

Vote with the intensity and anger one brings into war. Take every opportunity to make these assholes scared.

Getting some really bad liberal vibes from this.
Also
lol

Attached: gup alisa.png (1200x1600, 915.17K)

Attached: 1c2f08d5daef61f0bf850b882f7fe9732db0abb586d96faf6edaffab32df1a51.png (500x340, 256.48K)

Fuck autism

Attached: janoy.Starbucks.mp4 (480x360, 6.44M)

Attached: youre_serious_futurama.gif (320x240, 4.18M)

Attached: e9c554f01af1ea99748869f4cd0c48b7d61233cadb8b11bbc59ceec800d4fce1.jpg (638x960, 57.18K)

At least half the concept of /r/neoliberal is that the second you start talking capitalist economists as a modern liberal you get referred to as a neoliberal. We embraced the conflation. The name invites questions from people who think the name is actually accurate. Nope, it's Obama-Clinton Democrats or the equivalent of that in other countries.

I like him already. Governor material.

Good news for you, the most powerful politician in the state is the lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, who is heavily funded by Empower Texas.