I saw this exchange (which I participated in) which I found amusing. The implication of Decker (captgouda24) seems to be that capitalism is immoral, as is a fundemental sort of socialist view on labor (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To\_each\_according\_to\_his\_contribution).
His suggestion seems far more in line with the ideas of 'Ricardian socialists' and is quite literally one of the critiques Marx made of capitalist production (though the observation isn't unique to Marx). Marx's imagined completed communist system would have a world of shared goods distributed according to need, but before that he imagined a world where capitalist systems were abolished in favor of workers receiving compensation equal to their contributions.
Personally, I am not a Marxist or a communist, but I find it funny how his statements, while seeming to want to be more aligned with ancaps, really fit more with a critique of the systems he supports.
It blows my fucking mind that a subreddit exists where people voluntarily, free of any coercion, choose to celebrate their love for neoliberalism.
It's also one of the subs that pops up most frequently in user histories when I see people saying utterly unhinged shit on Reddit.
I used to post in that sub. It's mostly a normie democrat sub at this point. It's further left on some things. The sub is pro-trans rights to the point where talking about not letting trans women in women's sports almost always gets an immediate ban because it's bad faith. The sub is also way more pro open borders than most people are comfortable with.
It's one of the only places on reddit where I could say "we should have higher taxes on the middle and upper class like in Scandinavian countries and in France" and not get downvoted. Or where I can say that I'd like the US to adopt a Healthcare program similar to that of Germany's (I don't hold this opinion anymore after reading more about German healthcare vs. other developed nations.)
Iirc, the sub was created because r/badeconomics posters were always called "neoliberal" whenever they opposed a policy of Bernie Sanders, so they adopted the name ironically.
It's one of the last places where I can say "my taxes are way too low" and not get yelled at lol (I believed this even when I was making $70k/year, and I believe it now several years later.) It doesn't follow "neoliberalism" as commonly described. It's really just a name that the sub is stuck with.
I mean the same subreddit thought chelsea manning and Edward snowden were "traitors" who deserved jail and went around defending israel for most of the year until it was unconscionable.
I mean, personally I am still a bit iffy on both of them. I wouldn't call them traitors though. I would say I think it is reasonable to hold them somewhat accountable for the damage they did where they leaked information that was of limited public interest and was substantially damaging.
Snowden did do quite a bit of damage because of his failures to actually review and limit what he disclosed to what was relevant to the whistleblowing. And now he has helped out Russian propaganda a bit.
Manning I am largeky on the side of (the videos and evidence of war crimes (and knowledge thereof) which Manning released were absolutely noble things of her to leak). But how some of the diplomatic cables came out through wikileaks from her, may well have done harm than good. A lot of the things were things everyone already knew, but weren't exactly good to have public statements from officials on (i.e., China doesn't really trust North Korea, leaders of Middle Eastern countries were enriching themselves, etc). Also meant eroding trust as other countries will be more hesitant to communicate frankly with Americans if they fear leaks.
Anybody that causes damage to Amerikkka is my hero...
Destabilizing international relations and putting people's lives in danger is bad.
If they are Amerikkkan CIA agents, it's good actually.
I mean, it seems there idea of what neoliberalism is, is very different from the popular one. Most political terms are fairly imprecise. Neoliberalism can be used to mean a lot of things. I think it is silly to choose to associate with a term that has predominantly been used as a pejorative for decades, and tied to views which the sub's description is explicitly opposes to. But if that is the hill they want to tie to themselves to, it is just a word.
The concrete positions they list on the sub are:
By and large I agree with these in some form on paper, but the devil is in the details, and their links are often scant on details. Like, I agree we should reform occupational licensing, and perform cost-benefit analyses to what a licensing system should look like. But how you do that analysis is a complex, unclear proposition. It is easy to say "we should do things in a better way" it is a lot harder to actually develop a better system (or a system for evaluating what a better system looks like).
I once casually pointed out that Reagan and Thatcher are what's typically associated with neoliberalism (as sourced by "neutral" enough sources like Wikipedia) and they downvoted me into oblivion.
I know they have their own pet definition of it, but they sure are inconsistent with it. Users there very often crosspost to arr conservative and have neocon positions like "actually occupying Iraq for a decade was a great thing".
It's one of the worst cesspits I've found on the internet, I usually find most boards on 4chan more reasonable and less rage inducing, maybe because people there don't sound as serious when they're being ignorant assholes.
I only came across them here and scrolled through the sidebar a bit.
Even some of the readings in the sidebar seem to imply that, lol. But yea, if I were to give a common usage definition, as applied to US politics, i would say something like "a set of mainstream political establishments that came to dominate policy makers from the 80s, and is widely, pejoratively, associated with laissez-faire economics, deregulation, and international interventionism."
Lol, just for curiosity I searched for what they thought of mixed economies and half of them are like "of course we are all in favor of mixed-economies. The Reagan and Thatcher style privatization is not what we are after," and then others are like "the privatization of UK industries under Thatcher is testament to how great neoliberalism is."
if you agree with free trade, open borders, occupational licensing reform, zoning reform & carbon pricing... yes I do think that makes you at minimum neoliberal-leaning.
I mean, with all of these I have lots of caveats as I said. I agree, it wouldn't be unreasonable to describe that as "neoliberal leaning." But the sort of laissez-faire or Reaganomic-esque approach to policy commonly associated with neoliberalism are positions i would categorically oppose (and that sub's side-bar indicates they would oppose). I am not going to complain if someone calls me neoliberal, but I wouldn't use the label myself because it is associated with ideologies and policy positions I am categorically opposed to.
Personally, I would say I fall closer to a 'social liberal,' if I have to pick a label.
would you categorically oppose immigration amnesty? Reagan had many policies so it seems odd to categorically oppose them.
No, I am not saying I would categorically oppose everything Reagan did.
Like most things it all sounds so non-threatening. But in practice it always boils down to, "Let us carry on an exploitative, hierarchical system that punishes the poor and marginalized... but without the crassness and vulgarity of conservatives. And let's silence all progressive voices so that no one is made to feel bad about our profoundly unjust society."
I mean, not necessarily? Those listed policies are largely independent of one's view on social welfare, taxation and economic redistribution. You can believe in strong systems of welfare while supporting those ideas or you can oppose social welfare while embracing them. Decker obviously is strongly opposed to social welfare. He has lately been ranting about how teachers and veterans receive too support from the state, lol.
The sub was created with an ironic name, though it does genuinely hold quite a few neoliberals but still a lot more socdem and keynesian than actually neoliberal.
That is very strange to hear, considering that most of the neoliberal users I've encountered in the wild were rabidly anti-progressive in their politics.
It's a heavily biased dataset, of course. But I don't think I have the stomach to trawl the sub and find out more.
Are you referring to people being anti-progressive, as in conservative, or anti-progressive as in "against people like Bernie Sanders" ?
It's a sub of policy nitpickers in a website considered to be typically left-wing, so you'll see a ton of posters who put a lot of energy into punching left. It's essentially "I agree with your ends (affordable dense housing, universal healthcare, etc.) but take great enmity with your analysis of causality and your policy solutions." It's a very online thing where two sets of people who are both still to the left of the median American* fight a great conflict with each-other.
Of course, that's mixed with a decent chunk of what one may call "heartbroken conservatives" who are essentially Republicans who ran away from the party when they realized that the fascist element was no longer just the rabid base kept at bay and used as a tool by gatekeepers at the top, but instead, had overtly taken over the party. You might be seeing those people.
I'm referring to people who read The Atlantic -- people who blame all of the problems of society on "the left". They reliably dislike the Right, but put such a disproportionate amount of energy into attacking the Left that they tell on themselves. They essentially have no substantive beef with conservatism other than a dislike of the crassness, vulgarity and religious bullshit. But the Left represents a genuine threat to their economic ideology and privilege, so that's who gets all of their ire.
I mean, you can go look at the subreddit right now, and see what articles are upvoted to the top. I’d hardly describe it like that at all
Like I say, I have no real interest in the subreddit. I can only speak to the users I've encountered in the wild, which is no small number. Their sub may claim to believe in this or that, but the actions of its users is what matters to me.
I think there used to be a tongue in cheek online "Neoliberal Shill" Bracket that included commentators like Matt Yglesias and Noah Smith, my assumption was that the subreddit was created in the same vein.
Yes though worth saying that both Ygelsia and Smith have trended more towards the right. Ygelsia is complex, his grandfather was an avowed socialist, and has always beenore of a contrianian than anything else but he supported Sanders in 16. Smith has always been an anti-socialist liberal and he's only gotten more and more anti-progressive, now recently coming out against trans rights as a platform and openly flirting with switching to the Republicans.
I think they're just nostalgic for the 90s and 2010s to be honest. They're like, why can't things be like they were when the government was selling all their assets and we had lots of money? What do you mean we tore the house down for firewood, and now we're out in the cold?
It started off as a bit of an ironic thing that eventually became unironic.
Isn't it funny how Reddit always does that?
Ricardian socialism very cool 😎
I would tbh sort of argue Marx could even be called a Ricardian socialist to an extent. A lot of the economic ideas Marx builds his economic ideas off of are lifted from Ricardo (and were also used by others in the Scottish enlightenment). I would include some of the things I would say are erroneous/unhelpful.
Ricardo did use those economic ideas at times to make arguments in favor of workers and whatnot, but did not argue for a system resembling socialism.
The definition of socialism has always been wooly, and there is no reason to treat it as a single true or ideal system. Historically, many people advocated arrangements that were called socialism at the time, or reasonably fall under that label, without fitting into a marxist framework.
That includes Proudhon, Henry George, and John Stuart Mill, all of whom supported forms of social ownership or worker control that did not resemble marxism. Even Keynes explicitly described himself as a liberal socialist, albeit meaning extensive public management of investment and economic stability within a liberal democratic framework, not the abolition of private property.
But yah Ricardo def had huge influence on marx. It's kind of crazy to realize how much overlap there was between all these thinkers prior to the 20th century.
Same thing with eg. Ernst Wigforss and other social democratic thinkers. The entire "Control does not have to mean ownership and can be excercised in other ways"
Ricardian socialism refers to a set of social systems advocated by some economists influenced by Ricardos work, but the type of social systems they argued for are not present in Ricardo’s work. Their main arguments (which is pretty much what Decker implied) was that if, as Ricardo defined, value is a product of labor, laborers ought to have a natural right to thay value, so believed that economies should be structured with laborers receiving ownership of the full product of their labor and generally also advocated for social systems that provided for general welfare.
Yea, though Marx deliberately tries to down play how heavily his ideas were drawn were the Scottish enlightenment, and presents them as uncritically accepting eachother while placing himself in the opposing role (despite himself in effect uncritically adopting a lot of their ideas and frameworks).