I agree. I'll attempt to translate this sentiment into terms Snakechapman's neolib SO (or ex?) might actually understand:
It's necessary to understand and articulate what the trade-offs actually typically are under the conditions of imperialist capitalism: when capitalists control society, they limit politically-feasible options to those which impose negative externalities to the poor whenever possible, up to and including literally killing people, getting them killed, or allowing them to die when the opportunity cost of not doing any of that is less income for themselves.
The fallacy of neoliberalism as its /r/neolib proponents present it is that Pareto improvements and "growing the pie" are the only options to improve collective welfare (according to a utilitarian definition, where capitalists act like utility monsters), no matter how asymmetric the terms of exchange are between capitalist and worker, and between colonizer and colonized. These purely political constraints are just the way things are, and considered completely exogenous. Kaldor-Hicks improvements which come at great cost to the wealthy but which help the masses are off-limits even though some such redistributive measures - even basic social-democratic ones dismissed by the neoliberals as "too radical" - are common fucking sense when phrased correctly to most working-class people without PMC or West Wing brainworms.
I agree. I'll attempt to translate this sentiment into terms Snakechapman's neolib SO (or ex?) might actually understand:
It's necessary to understand and articulate what the trade-offs actually typically are under the conditions of imperialist capitalism: when capitalists control society, they limit politically-feasible options to those which impose negative externalities to the poor whenever possible, up to and including literally killing people, getting them killed, or allowing them to die when the opportunity cost of not doing any of that is less income for themselves.
The fallacy of neoliberalism as its /r/neolib proponents present it is that Pareto improvements and "growing the pie" are the only options to improve collective welfare (according to a utilitarian definition, where capitalists act like utility monsters), no matter how asymmetric the terms of exchange are between capitalist and worker, and between colonizer and colonized. These purely political constraints are just the way things are, and considered completely exogenous. Kaldor-Hicks improvements which come at great cost to the wealthy but which help the masses are off-limits even though some such redistributive measures - even basic social-democratic ones dismissed by the neoliberals as "too radical" - are common fucking sense when phrased correctly to most working-class people without PMC or West Wing brainworms.
Brilliant, thanks comrade