I am personally for radical direct democracy, nothing less, nothing more, because I view the political as trumping the economic, feel free to purge me once the revolution is there but I am interested if there are other “alternative” takes

  • CyborgMarx [any, any]
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 年前

    Its reproduction is sustained by a global investor class that realize its goals thru the institutions of those countries, this is what I mean when I claim modernists have no conception of history or in this case class, instead of recognizing the material incentives of a CLASS of people who wish to preserve their social position against the historical pressures of socialist movements, you instead mystify the education of government technocrats, mistaking selection pressures in political organization for determining the causation of neoliberalism

    Ideology is not sustained in a vacuum of ideas, and the only "necessity" capital is motivated by is unrestrained accumulation of more capital, an internal logic that contradicts the idealistic narrative of class collaboration you've been alluding to

    • sagarmatha [none/use name]
      hexagon
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 年前

      believe what you want, not everything is around class, and certainly goal realization, since the ideology goes against the local bourgeois, and if you give some if the what about the larger class, that’s the point, it might have been, on neoliberalism, at some point, driven by class antagonism but it is now just pure ideology who seeped internationally, regardless of material conditions, we are not going into a service and idea economy for nothing, the immaterial (not in the internet sense) infrastructure affects us as much, and I would argue more, than the material conditions

      • CyborgMarx [any, any]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 年前

        The material resources of the local bourgeois can not match that of the national and global investor class which is why the dominant ideology reflects the interests of the largest capitalist blocs, which again follows from the internal logic of capitalism, the largest accumulators determine the shape and expression of the dominant political philosophy and to claim neoliberal ideology is no longer concerned with class antagonism is genuinely one the most bizarre statements I've read in a while, neoliberal ideology is class antagonism made manifest, it's an utter rejection of social democratic class collaboration and an expression of the will of the capitalists to dominate the global working class, I'm starting to suspect you don't really have a coherent grasp on the terms you're using: Just what do words like class, ideology, and capitalism actually mean to you?

        we are not going into a service and idea economy for nothing, the immaterial (not in the internet sense) infrastructure affects us as much, and I would argue more, than the material conditions

        We're not going into an "idea" economy we're heading into a DATA economy where capitalist blocs compete for collective organizational data to undermine both competitors and national labor rights, it's the evolution of neoliberalism into its digitalist stage, its highest form

        • sagarmatha [none/use name]
          hexagon
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 年前

          you’re missing the point and reiterating the same point which again, in practice, doesn’t pan out, neoliberalism is not effective for capitalism ie continued accumulation of surplus, but the leaders’ ideology, ie their belief there is no other reasonable way, means that they continue policies who do not benefit anyone, even more for the ecb monetarism, as proven with covid and earlier qe, capitalists prefer stimulus, it just isn’t in the central bankers’ realm of possibility

          • CyborgMarx [any, any]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 年前

            neoliberalism is not effective for capitalism ie continued accumulation of surplus

            Legit, what world are you living in?

            capitalists prefer stimulus

            Capitalists do not "prefer" stimulus, they see it as a market disruption that obfuscates private sector price signals, in many ways they're right, you need to read some Michał Kalecki

            • sagarmatha [none/use name]
              hexagon
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 年前

              i do not and no they don’t, they don’t fing care about price signals, not even about selling anything in the first place, like stock buybacks, there are plenty of examples that they are caring about narrower and narrower metrics further away from reality, for which stimulus do wonder or government contracts for that matter, I AM NOT talking from an american perspective, but for the eurozone for example my points are valid, i already said that neoliberalism was initiated (in the us) by materialist conditions, every metric is shit, there is stagnation and that’s neoliberalism they are injecting everywhere