Jeremy Corbyn to European left-wing parties: you won't win until you abandon neoliberalism

#31

I really don’t think the rich care; this doesn’t affect them.

We see how well that worked out for him

3 Likes

#32

When told that you can’'t solve [insert problem here] by throwing money at it, Molly Ivins would reply: “How do you know that? It’s never been tried!” [paraphrasing]

3 Likes

#33

I agree with the rest of your comment, but that part needed fixing.

5 Likes

#34

Naomi’s step #5.

5 Likes

#35

You don’t create change by begging for crumbs from the master’s table. Power concedes nothing without a demand.

10 Likes

#36

This bit from another thread seems relevant:

11 Likes

#37

Corbyn/Sanders 2020

3 Likes

#38

This headline will be misunderstood by Americans and previous commenters who keep conflating neoliberalism with liberals/Democrats.

0 Likes

#39

Not so much.

Neoliberalism has been the economic policy of both US parties for decades, and it is an ideology that originally arose from liberalism (hence the name). Liberalism is a centre-right position, same as ever. It’s the party of capitalist dominance.

Corbyn is criticising the right, not just the fascists. From Corbyn’s perspective, “the right” includes the corporate Dems and Blairites.

11 Likes

#40

A reminder of the Blairites:

:wink:

1 Like

#41

I was thinking about just that earlier today. Throwing money at a problem is highly effective, if the problem is not enough money.

4 Likes

#42

Related:

There is an absolute mountain of well-supported findings built over a century of research demonstrating that by far the most effective form of welfare is to just give the fucking cash to the peasants already. Bureaucracy is waste, and the people on the ground are usually by far the best judge of their own needs.

Middle-class paternalism is actively destructive.

14 Likes

#43

That really is the paradigm we should look at, I think. Trickle down didn’t work. How about we just float it all up instead? “Raise up” economics? In principle I’d rather see bigger state and smaller federal taxes, but if we are going to tax people it makes sense to tax those who can afford it. While over burdening is a valid concern, the wealth gap increase clearly shows that isn’t a problem.

3 Likes

#44

downtonfencing

1 Like

#45

Well, supplying direct, basic needs also works pretty damn well: shelter, food, light, HVAC (yes, really), transportation, hygiene necessities, birth control… etc., etc., etc. Doing so actually ends up cheaper to society in both the short run (instantly lower crime, for example) and long run (much lower overall costs, very low rates of recidivism, much more effective anti-TB and STD efforts, much more effective addiction treatments, less jail needs, etc.) And yes, in modern society, some sort of internet and a little bit of money IS necessary, pretty much. We want these people to get healthy and get jobs, right?

Every city that has tried “microhousing” for the homeless, for example, has saved a LOT of money. Literally every single one. Yet we still end up with idiots who would rather spend more to prevent someone from getting that hand up, cuz it makes them feel nice, warm, and squishy inside to grind down someone they can feel superior to. And I’m f*cking sick of it! I have neither the money nor lack of empathy to tolerate this shit!

12 Likes

#46

This idea, that neoliberalism has failed, is the reason why we got a left wing government here in New Zealand this week

4 Likes

#47

Left-wing but with support from the nationalist and populist New Zealand First party, I’m reading? How is that going to work? (Genuine question; I know nothing about NZ politics, just hoping for an answer to guide further reading. Explain as though to a child.)

0 Likes

#48

Well NZ First are a weird party, essentially they largely represent the retired - and tend to want NZ to be the way it used to be (pre the neo-liberal changes back in the 90s), they remember a country without obvious poverty when everyone could own (a probably govt built) house. They’re a bit reactionary about immigrants (one might say a bit racist even at times). They remember a country that was white (with a few Māori) … none of the wonderful melting pot we have now.

Their (to them) charismatic leader came out swinging when he announced which parties he would go into coalition with, declaring that “capitalism had failed” - which has since been echoed by our new PM - this is why I felt the Corbyn analogy was string here, it’s not just the left who think we’ve gone too far.

The left in general are all for reducing the number of immigrants (while raising the number of refugees we take) not because we don’t want foreigners here, but more because immigration has gone way beyond our infrastructure to support it … plainly we need to build a whole bunch of houses, schools, suburbs, sewers, parks etc

3 Likes

#49

Not saying it could not happen, but it would take a lot of drugs, sex, and money - LOL.

1 Like

#50
0 Likes