[platz]

It should be recognized that the left, especially neoliberals, has played just as much a role in atomization of the public as the right.

Indeed, it is usually conservatives that actually, in practice, attempt to promote community and family values.

Although portions of the right have contributed to atomization via the 'free market', the left's project of scientism and eschewing of tradition arguably has also contributed significantly to this.

[rusk]

> the left, especially neoliberals

It seems kind of funny to see these two lumped together ... I don’t think neoliberalism would be considered left by left people ...

I think the confusion arises from the different interpretation of liberalism on either side of the Atlantic.

Neoliberalism is an economic movement rather than a social one (unlike neoconservatism, the political ideology that funnily enough advocates neoliberalism) and it’s an iteration of classical economics aka “economic liberalism”.

Liberal economics is actually more like libertarianism which is paradoxically more closely aligned with the “right wing” mindset.

Neoliberalism does incorporate some notes about redistribution of wealth for reasons of economic expedience but this is rarely seen in practice.

This all goes to show that words are slippery and labels are bullshit and you’re far better off trying to understand where the people you’re disagreeing with are coming from than be lazily painting them as this or that.

[platz]

I'm not sure what the point you're driving at is; it seems you did understand the gist of my point.

It seems like you want a semantics debate about how neocons and neolibs are are equivalent terms? Sorry, not the conversation for me, nor the main point I was making.

[flagrant]

I think what he's driving at is that your point relies on the assumption that neoliberalism is left wing, when this is not true.

[rusk]

To be honest all I think I was really driving at is that he sets the tone in the first sentence that he’s uninformed about what he’s talking about. I kind of get the impression also that he’s trying to be divisive rather than understand the issues at hand. I kind of feel he goes against the hacker ethic on both points ...

[platz]

> your point relies on the assumption that neoliberalism is left wing, when this is not true

I didn't say that all neoliberals were left wing.

I said that there were some people on the the left that were neoliberals.

Please understand this difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#United_States

> Early roots of neoliberalism were laid in the 1970s during the Carter administration, with deregulation of the trucking, banking and airline industries,[144][145][146] as well as the appointment of Paul Volcker to chairman of the Federal Reserve.[21]:5

> During the 1990s, the Clinton administration also embraced neoliberalism[130] by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[147][149][150]

You seem to presuppose your claims are de-facto correct; I don't think that is true.

[rusk]

Nope, sorry, not convinced. There’s something askew in your outlook and I think it’s affecting your ability to make your point. I’d suggest reevaluating your fundamentals and going from there. Take care brother

[yrimaxi]

d

[rusk]

You didn’t make it very well it seems.

[yrimaxi]

d

[platz]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25850671

[dragonwriter]

> It should be recognized that the left, especially neoliberals, has played just as much a role in atomization of the public as the right.

Neoliberalism is a center-right, corporate capitalist economic ideology. It has nothing to do with the Left, which it sees (and is seen by as) an enemy. (Americans are particularly likely to get confused by this because the dominant, more centrist faction of the Democratic Party is neoliberal, and the Democratic Party is the left-most of the US’s major parties.)

But, yes, it has played a central role in atomization of society.

[platz]

> It has nothing to do with the Left

Well, nothing to do with the left may be a bit of an overstatement, imho.

If the "Left" is such a problematic term, then let's just agree to avoid using the term, since you seem to be of the position that the "more centrist faction of the Democratic Party" is not Left.

I would assume the term "Left" includes both the "more centrist faction of the Democratic Party" and the more left-leaning social-democratic ideologies.

The left is a big tent composed of many factions.

also, linking this for citations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25850671

[dragonwriter]

> since you seem to be of the position that the "more centrist faction of the Democratic Party" is not Left.

It's not.

Also, neoliberalism was the economic ideology of the dominant faction of the Republican Party prior to Trump, too, and few would call them “the Left". (There were differences in social ideology, of course, between Republicans and Democrats.) Hence the “neoliberal consensus” of the 1990s and beyond.

[platz]

I don't think anyone is confusing the Republican party with the left.

However it seems who gets to be in "the left" and who doesn't seems to be very up for debate these days.

I'm fairly certain if you asked anyone in the 90's if the clinton administration was on the left they'd answer in the affirmative.

I understand the social democratic part of the left has evolved and differentiated itself since then. This is great, but I think it problematic to retcon the history exclusively this view.

Just because the social democratic faction would like complete ownership on the term "the left" I think does not make it so, or at least can be agreed to be a subjective claim.