/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2850006
I forgot to add aswell but how receptive is the global south to these ideas? I have a broad picture for the west but it's hard to say for the third world

They are very receptive since they see, not unreasonably, state institutions as corrupt and ineficient, third worlders even more so because they tend to have more disfunctional and corrupt states than the north without experimenting the benefits of welfare. They also see neoliberalism as the way to middle class and treat access.

I feel like most people can't even imagine old style social democratic solutions to problems, like nationalizing utilities or key industries. Every policy announced is instantly scrutinized as to how it will affect the incentives for the corporations, which are really just hostage takers who punish the entire population the moment a vote in parliament doesn't go their way or some strait gets blocked halfway across the planet. Not a soul dares to think about even slightly altering the way society is structured. No, we must make the carrot at the end of the stick bigger so a capitalist will at last solve, say, the housing crisis or invest in green energy or extend affordable healthcare or make public transport affordable.

I don't know if that counts as neo-liberal, but even if people in general aren't really gung-ho about the market, most of them seem to be genuinely stuck in a market oriented way of thinking about society and its problems.

the petty bourgeoisie are especially susceptible
also let's be real, most normies are scared of revolution, even working class normies. they believe the propaganda that revolution means budenovka-clad chads entering your peasant hut, raping your wife, stealing your chickens, and trafficking your daughter, redistributing your toothbrush. so even the people who are against privatization, deregulation, austerity, and union busting are still more often than not merely reformists. nobody is immune to propaganda. false consciousness is the norm and class consciousness is the exception. in the USA millions believed the lies about Saddam, WMDs, etc. It's hard not to develop contempt and maintain empathy when people believe lies so easily. Look at the prevalence of idealism and religion.

>>2850024
>>2850025
Yeah I pictured it like this too. I just don't see what we can do about it frankly.

The overwhelming majority of people, like legitimately 99% of the population, just want a strongman who does stuff. That's true for Fascists, Communists and pretty much everyone else. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being idealistic and has no idea what the average person is actually like.

you're being drawn into an echo chamber trying to monetise your emotions against you, the majority of people worldwide, if they understand what these things are, virulently dislike them. there's a reason these things need to be imposed, do not become a pessimist to feel special

If they are petitie bourgesisie they love it

>>2850006
Incredibly low, particularly to the actually good ideas (cost benefit analysis, trade offs, positive-sum exchange). People don't like paying taxes because they're greedy and perceive others as undeserving of "their" money, but the average person thinks in terms of absolutes, thinks of trades as zero sum, and thinks that the cure is always better than the disease. If you look at polling in Britain for example banning things is overwhelmingly popular, even though in basically all cases the costs of enforcing a ban are higher than the (often non existent) benefits of it. In the US both liberals and conservatives want the state to enforce their preferred social mores. Nobody seriously thinks "the state shouldn't interfere, I'll just not patronise establishments I disagree with" (a position I now sympathise with because of the UKs dumbass unconstitutional supreme court ruling mandating transgender people out of public life.)

Even self proclaimed neoliberals are usually fakers. They worship people like Thatcher who (a) sold assets below their real cost to buy votes and (b) created reams of state controlled fake markets because they were too chicken and too bought out by existing interests to let the market rip. (e.g. British electricity, gas, telecoms, oil, water, aerospace, and - though post thatcher - rail and mail are all subsidy junkies with bad incentive structures and prices controlled by the state, more like post-soviet looting than like privatisation in a normal sense. The NHS also got a fake internal market which is pure LARP, remaining in state hands) Because they're really attracted to sociopathy and selfishness, not the efficiency of market forces or the remarkable things people can do when you remove barriers to them doing it.

T. Welfarist neoliberal sympathiser who believes this would develop productive forces

>>2850024
On the contrary nationalisation and protectionism often polls as popular because people think their in-group should run things. Elite discourse focuses on profit incentives and right-leaning non-elites might see it as negative because their heroes like Thatcher raged against it, but nobody discusses it in basic terms like "do we actually have the state capacity to run this better in the public sector"
I mean right now, Trump is trying to effectively nationalise Spirit Airlines, a bankrupt low cost carrier of no real benefit just because it's cheap…

>>2850054
Embrace it. Forge a new analysis of state power with clear eyes and see all the ways that unnecessary state intervention fucks things up. The only legitimate purpose of the contemporary state is redistribution from rich to poor. For everything else, if you don't like it take your cheque and move.

>>2850462
Are you the british trans in that other thread that kept bitching about how you're not the world's number 1 preoccupation ?

>>2850487
No. I have the tedious kind of autism where I'm genuinely annoyed by guidance that tramples all over freedom of association, by legal sophistry of the highest order, by blatant unconstitutionality, and by governments lying about what the law is or abusing administrative process to effectively create new laws without legislation by opening organisations up to being sued for not complying with guidance which is not, itself, primary legislation.
It is basically incidental that the issue in question happened to be about transgender rights.
Even then, that's just because it's the easiest one to illustrate. The "Equality and Human Rights Commission" in Britain has been stacked with reactionaries who believe in neither Equality nor Human Rights in all areas, abusing the framework of "protected philosophical beliefs" to defend prejudice while discarding progressive political views as "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" or not counting because they're based on evidence rather than blind faith.
It's one big worked example on why this kind of well intentioned liberal enforcement of minority rights is a liability once reactionaries seize it as a tool for enforcing the rights of the majority to not suffer the minority…

>>2850497
You're not actually supposed to care about any of that bullshit if you're a liberal. Liberalism is for rich people with connections and without the weird factor that thiel and others have. Liberal laws and institutions were disproportionately created by slavers and the aristocracy to begin with and they have always only worked to enforce ruling class interests.

>>2850522
True as far as it goes, but one advantage of a system like that is that it means there are clear rules to the game so elite competition doesn't spill over and disrupt daily life too much. When the parties are bought before the election and then change the laws, that's one thing. It's quite another to play Calvinball and suddenly put that decision in the hands of the courts (who in Britain, unlike the US, do not actually have the constitutional authority to strike down or amend parliament's laws) and of another party's political appointees. (Who draw up actively unworkable guidance multiple times)
Once you throw the rules out the window you're heading for the chaos of totally arbitrary rule.

in my experience is positively correlated two things:
>sheltered and comfortable upbringing
>inflated ego

>>2850008
>how receptive is the global south to these ideas?
very

may people see it as the only correct way to cheap mcdonalds and bringing the americANO dream home and, even more critically, as the direct opposition to the corrupt governments that are doing nothing good at best or actively destroying their lives with gusto at worst

t. chilean

>>2850580
If they were actually proletarian it wouldn’t be possible for them to misunderstand

>>2850006
>>2850462
I mean let's be real neoliberalism basically means nothing at this point.

>>2852711
It’s the abundance movement now apparently

>>2852713
What are the actual economic policy positions of abundance?

>>2852716
They’re literally just rebranded neoliberal policies with an emphasis on YIMBYISM

>>2852719
😕 Neoliberals do jack shit to nationalize land, debt and other rents.