#neoliberal theory

[nando161mando]

Horseshoe theory only makes sense if you've been kicked by a horse

[xinakwans]

went to look at news about that new avatar show and i am so glad i dont care it’s a shitshow in there

[whereserpentswalk]

If the brutality of gilded age capitalism came in physical stress upon the body, the brutality of 21st century capitalism can be defined by the extent that the company is able to claim ownership over a worker's life.

[lordandgodoftheobvious]

[dn-838]

If America was becoming Fascist, you wouldn’t be seeing so many Socdems and Neoliberals calling it out as “Fascism” or opposing Trump. Fascism was a very specific ideology that formed mostly as an extreme way of opposing the growing fear of the Soviets and to counter the risk of any kind of Socialist uprising in the countries it was applied to. Progressives, Conservatives, Socdems, even some Demsocs, were all heavily in support of it as a tool to counter Communism, and it usually took over through heavy support from Establishment Liberal Democracy and Social Democratic entities.

Trump has a lot of Fascists in his supporter base yes, Trump has Fascist-esque policies and is an authoritarian reactionary, Trump would be in full support of Fascism if the conditions were reached for it, and Musk did that pose very intentionally, however he is NOT making America a Fascist state in the present. There’s no USSR to oppose or big uprising in America to counter, if there was, both parties would have supported a politician or party promising Fascist countermeasures, as would the European countries who have only reacted to Trumps victory with fear.

Trumps ideas are horrifying and oppressive, he is a Reactionary leader regressing on a lot of Social issues, yes you should continue to keep your mouth shut if you know an immigrant or LGBT+ person, however this is NOT Fascism, this is NOT comparable to the rise of the Nazis, and claiming it is gives too much credit to those “progressive” groups who oppose this but would willingly throw all their ethics under the bus in the case of actual Fascism (if they oppose Communism and are the sort of people who insist that voting for what they themself consider a Genocidal regime was “necessary” to avoid the “worse Fascists”, then they’d absolutely throw the marginalised under the bus to support genuine Fascism) and just gives more fuel to the Imperialist machine using these deluded political narratives and revisionist history that could end up helping actual Fascism in the future.

[lovefeedsthefire]

The call center experience distils the political phenomenology of late capitalism: the boredom and frustration punctuated by cheerily piped PR, the repeating of the same dreary details many times to different poorly trained and badly informed operatives, the building rage that must remain impotent because it can have no legitimate object, since - as is very quickly clear to the caller there is no-one who knows, and no-one who could do anything even if they could. Anger can only be a matter of venting; it is aggression in a vacuum, directed at someone who is a fellow victim of the system but with whom there is no possibility of communality. Just as the anger has no proper object, it will have no effect. In this experience of a system that is unresponsive, impersonal, centerless, abstract and fragmentary, you are as close as you can be to confronting the artificial stupidity of Capital in itself.

- Mark Fisher in Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? (2009)

[raffaellopalandri]

Understanding as Resistance: Against the Empire of Engineered Ignorance

We live not merely in an age of information, but paradoxically, in an age of cultivated unknowing—where the proliferation of data conceals a deliberate architecture of ignorance. Photo by Janko Ferlic on Pexels.com The noise that floods our perceptual space is not neutral; it is weaponised, designed to distract, fragment, and pacify. We are no longer passive recipients of ignorance, but active…

[fanboy-feminist]

I just saw an American tankie on Twitter say that Carter helped lead the way to neoliberalism. And… no, you absolute dipshit, no he did not. He was the victim of the Reagan campaign’s collusion with Iran to steal the 1980 presidential election (1)(2), whose administration ACTUALLY built the neoliberal projects that have wrecked the global south, the labor movement, racial justice movements, criminal justice movements, gender and sexual liberation movements, and the planet.

Use your goddamn heads for once! The Wikipedia for 1980 October Surprise Theory is free! Christ!

[nando161mando]

Trickle-down economic theory

He says the more he eats the more crumbs we will get

https://t.me/crapitalism/253

[grandpasessions]

The worst thing in the world is a flatterer. With him, you can be sure that at the first opportunity he will strike you a blow, that he will take revenge for having groveled before you. And since he humbles himself before everyone … Flatterers are traitors, without exception. I have always despised them, but I have not been wary enough of them. Unfortunately, we tolerate one who compliments us better than someone who tells us true, and therefore unpleasant, things about ourselves. Thus, it is we ourselves who favor, who encourage our worst enemies. The man we could kill without regret: A “friend” who flattered you every time and who abandoned you for some unknown reason.

Notebooks Emil Cioran

[thoughtportal]

David Graeber

[dayofphylosophyorideology]

Social Populism

Social populism is a political ideology and strategy that combines elements of populism with social justice-oriented policies. It is typically characterized by a rhetorical and programmatic commitment to the empowerment of the "common people"—particularly working-class and marginalized populations—through the expansion of welfare states, redistribution of wealth, and increased economic and political inclusion. Social populism is generally situated on the left or center-left of the political spectrum and distinguishes itself from right-wing or nationalist populism by its emphasis on egalitarianism, solidarity, and universal social rights. While it shares certain rhetorical and strategic features with other populist movements, social populism is fundamentally shaped by its focus on collective welfare, progressive taxation, and robust public services.

The ideological roots of social populism can be traced to a confluence of democratic socialism, labor activism, and agrarian populist traditions that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The agrarian populist movements in the United States (e.g., the People's Party of the 1890s) and similar movements in Latin America (e.g., the early phases of Peronism in Argentina) provided early examples of political mobilization against elite domination in defense of economically disadvantaged groups. However, these movements were often ideologically heterogeneous and included both left-leaning and conservative elements.

Social populism began to acquire more coherent ideological form in the mid-20th century, particularly during the post-World War II period, when Keynesian economics and the welfare state became dominant paradigms in Western democracies. The rise of mass parties representing labor interests—such as the British Labour Party, the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO), and Scandinavian Social Democratic parties—helped institutionalize social populist principles in governance. These parties promoted policies like universal healthcare, free education, pension systems, public housing, and strong labor rights, often coupling these with anti-elitist critiques of traditional ruling classes and economic oligarchies.

In Latin America, social populism took on a distinct trajectory, especially through charismatic leaders like Juan Perón in Argentina, Getúlio Vargas in Brazil, and later Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. These leaders combined leftist economic policies with nationalist and populist rhetoric, often bypassing traditional party systems and governing through direct appeals to the masses.

1. Anti-elitism and Popular Sovereignty

At the heart of social populism lies a fundamental distrust of economic and political elites, who are often portrayed as having subverted democratic institutions to serve their own interests. Social populist discourse emphasizes the idea of a morally virtuous and economically exploited "people" who must reclaim control over political and economic systems. This rhetoric is not merely symbolic; it is translated into policy proposals designed to redistribute power and resources from elites to the broader population.

2. Social Justice and Redistribution

Unlike right-wing populism, which may focus on nativism or cultural grievances, social populism emphasizes economic inequality as a central societal ill. It advocates progressive taxation, wealth redistribution, and public investment in social services as mechanisms to correct historical and structural injustices. Policy tools commonly endorsed by social populist movements include minimum wage laws, universal basic income, rent controls, and labor union empowerment.

3. Public Provision and Welfare Statism

A defining feature of social populism is its commitment to state-led solutions for social problems. This often manifests in strong advocacy for publicly funded education, healthcare, childcare, and pensions. Social populists typically oppose privatization of public services and view the welfare state as a means to achieve both social cohesion and economic stability.

4. Participatory Democracy

While social populism sometimes involves the personalization of power in charismatic leaders, many of its proponents emphasize participatory forms of governance. These may include referenda, participatory budgeting, grassroots assemblies, and the decentralization of decision-making processes. The goal is to reduce the distance between citizens and the state, thereby enhancing democratic legitimacy.

5. Internationalism and Solidarity

Though not universal, many social populist movements embrace a form of progressive internationalism, advocating solidarity with oppressed peoples globally and criticizing neoliberal institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. However, there is variation in how social populism interacts with globalization: some variants are staunchly protectionist, while others support open borders coupled with international labor standards.

The distinction between social populism and other populist ideologies is crucial. Right-wing populism, for example, also employs anti-elitist rhetoric but typically defines "the people" in ethnonationalist or culturally exclusive terms. It often scapegoats immigrants, minorities, or foreign institutions. In contrast, social populism defines the people along socio-economic lines, emphasizing class and economic marginalization rather than ethnicity or religion.

Moreover, social populism diverges from neoliberal centrism, which accepts market primacy and often favors technocratic governance over mass mobilization. While neoliberalism seeks to depoliticize economic decision-making, social populism re-politicizes the economy, framing issues like taxation, public investment, and corporate regulation as matters of democratic choice.

Social populism faces several institutional and structural challenges. Its reliance on strong state institutions for redistributive policy can be hindered by fiscal constraints, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and resistance from entrenched economic elites. In some cases, social populist governments have been criticized for undermining institutional checks and balances, particularly when charismatic leadership concentrates power and marginalizes dissent.

Moreover, critics argue that some variants of social populism risk lapsing into clientelism, where state resources are distributed in exchange for political loyalty. This danger is particularly acute in contexts with weak democratic institutions or high levels of corruption. Additionally, some observers question the long-term sustainability of expansive social spending, particularly in the absence of strong economic growth or diversified revenue sources.

In Latin America, social populism has been a recurring force since the mid-20th century. Classic examples include Peronism in Argentina, which combined state-led industrialization, labor union support, and charismatic leadership. In the 21st century, a new wave of left-wing populist governments—often referred to as the "Pink Tide"—emerged in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Leaders such as Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa promoted extensive social programs funded by commodity exports, reasserted state control over key industries, and framed their governance as participatory and anti-imperialist.

While these regimes achieved significant gains in poverty reduction and literacy, they were also criticized for democratic backsliding, erosion of press freedoms, and overdependence on resource rents. The collapse of oil prices in the mid-2010s exposed the vulnerabilities of these models.

In Europe, social populism has manifested more frequently through established parties adopting populist strategies. Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the UK Labour Party (2015–2020) is one example, marked by calls to nationalize public utilities, expand social services, and challenge the financial sector. Similarly, Spain’s Podemos and Frances La France Insoumise combine anti-austerity platforms with populist appeals to the working class and youth disillusioned with traditional parties.

However, these movements have had mixed electoral success and often face difficulties in coalition politics, especially in multi-party parliamentary systems. Institutional constraints imposed by the European Union, particularly fiscal rules and monetary policy, have also limited the scope of redistributive policies.

In the U.S., social populism has been represented by figures such as Bernie Sanders, whose campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination emphasized universal healthcare (Medicare for All), free college tuition, labor rights, and opposition to corporate influence. Although not successful in securing the nomination, Sanders’ campaigns shifted public discourse and policy agendas within the Democratic Party.

Social populism often intersects with broader social movements, including labor unions, feminist organizations, indigenous rights groups, and climate justice activists. In many cases, these movements provide the grassroots infrastructure and ideological content for social populist projects. However, tensions can arise when populist leaders centralize authority or when social movements demand more radical changes than political parties are willing to enact.

Economically, social populism draws on Keynesianism and, to a lesser extent, neo-Marxist and post-Keynesian theories. It challenges the orthodoxy of neoliberal economics, arguing that state intervention is necessary to correct market failures and ensure equitable distribution. Social populist policies may include:

Public sector job creation

Infrastructure investment

Universal basic services

Financial regulation

Debt forgiveness

Land reform (in agrarian contexts)

These measures are often justified both morally and pragmatically, as a means of stimulating aggregate demand, reducing inequality, and promoting social cohesion.

Social populism represents a significant current in global political development, offering a vision of democracy that is both participatory and economically inclusive. While it shares the populist emphasis on "the people" versus "the elite," it diverges sharply from authoritarian or exclusionary variants of populism by promoting egalitarianism, solidarity, and universal rights. Its impact is contingent on institutional capacity, economic conditions, and the ability to maintain both popular support and democratic integrity. As global inequality persists and disillusionment with neoliberalism grows, social populism is likely to remain a vital—if contested—element of 21st-century political life.

[workersolidarity]

The Civil Rights Movement against structural racism, sexism, genderism, etc. and Class Struggle are deeply and intimately connected and intertwined.

This is why the Capitalist Ruling Class works so hard to disentangle the Civil Rights struggle from Class Struggle.

Democrats and Republicans both encourage Culture War divisions, using people's tribal instincts to keep the Working Class from uniting, organizing and fighting back against the Capitalist Class. The Culture Wars are a tool of the Capitalist Class to keep Workers divided.

In this way, the Capitalist Class can appear to be giving concessions that fulfill the demands of the People, all without altering the Class Structure of American Capitalism.

Armed with this knowledge, Workers must set aside their cultural and ideological differences and struggle together against the Capitalist Ruling Class, and not be distracted by the Identity Politics that seek to keep us fighting amongst ourselves, giving the Capitalists the breathing room they need to tighten the noose around Worker's necks.

[lordandgodoftheobvious]

A truth can be so obvious that literally everyone who isn't brainwashed by neoliberal propaganda specifically will see it, and then neoliberals will use the fact that both the far right and the far left believe X as proof that horseshoe theory is real.

[raffaellopalandri]

Dwelling Beyond Capture – Reclaiming the Texture of Being

In a digital epoch saturated by relentless visibility, the imperative to be seen has become axiomatic. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com Algorithms sculpt perception, presence is quantified into reach and engagement, and our subjectivities, once sacred, unruly, and intimate, are now datafied for optimisation, circulation, and extraction. What is lost in this conversion is not merely privacy or…

[fanboy-feminist]

The worst part about poststructuralism is that it actually does make life a richer and more coherent experience and everything begins to Make Sense.