this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
643 points (94.1% liked)

You Should Know

32595 readers
7 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Why YSK: I’ve noticed in recent years more people using “neoliberal” to mean “Democrat/Labor/Social Democrat politicians I don’t like”. This confusion arises from the different meanings “liberal” has in American politics and further muddies the waters.

Neoliberalism came to the fore during the 80’s under Reagan and Thatcher and have continued mostly uninterrupted since. Clinton, both Bushs, Obama, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Johnson, and many other world leaders and national parties support neoliberal policies, despite their nominal opposition to one another at the ballot box.

It is important that people understand how neoliberalism has reshaped the world economy in the past four decades, especially people who are too young to remember what things were like before. Deregulation and privatization were touted as cost-saving measures, but the practical effect for most people is that many aspects of our lives are now run by corporations who (by law!) put profits above all else. Neoliberalism has hollowed out national economies by allowing the offshoring of general labor jobs from developed countries.

In the 80’s and 90’s there was an “anti-globalization” movement of the left that sought to oppose these changes. The consequences they warned of have come to pass. Sadly, most organized opposition to neoliberal policies these days comes from the right. Both Trump and the Brexit campaign were premised on reinvigorating national economies. Naturally, both failed, in part because they had no cohesive plan or understanding that they were going against 40 years of precedent.

So, yes, establishment Democrats are neoliberals, but so are most Republicans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] utopianfiat 42 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Globalized trade is good actually

[–] aski3252 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Globalized trade has been a thing long before neo-liberalism existed, arguably longer than capitalism has existed. Equating neo-liberalism with "global/globalized trade" is incredibly reductive..

EDIT: I read the comment wrong, OP is saying that international/global trade is not inherently bad, not that neo-liberalism is the same thing as international/global trade.

[–] KuchiKopi 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't see that comment as reductive. More like pointing out a part of neo-liberalism that the commenter thought was good.

In other words, the comment is simply "globalized economy is good." The comment is not what you're inferring: "neo-liberalism is good because globalized economy is good "

[–] utopianfiat 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes this is actually what I meant.

I do not subscribe to neoliberal economics- if anything I'm just left of the average Keynesian.

[–] aski3252 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you for clearifying, I have misinterpreted your comment in that case.

[–] KuchiKopi 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I love how civil everyone is being! And I appreciate that you edited your earlier comment.

[–] regular_human 4 points 1 year ago
[–] Fried_out_Kombi 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm Georgist, and I agree with you that global trade is good. Why would we purposely do to ourselves what we do to our adversaries during wartime? One certainly doesn't have to subscribe to all of neoliberalism to believe global trade is good.

[–] KuchiKopi 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep, the best way to prevent rich powerful assholes from getting us into huge wars is to make it extremely unprofitable. Don't want to kill your market or labor force. Don't want to disrupt your supply chain. Etc.

[–] utopianfiat 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Literally the Ukraine war is an excellent example of this. Second most powerful army in the world fighting a much smaller and poorly equipped army. Now only the second most powerful army in Russia.

[–] Sektor 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wouldn't say an army with airforce, patriots, himars, bunch of javelins and now western tanks is poorly equipped.

[–] utopianfiat 2 points 1 year ago

With the exception of the air force, most of this stuff came after Russia began the invasion in 2014. The Ukranian Air Force, absent support from allies, is actually kind of a liability since it's largely Mikhoyan and Sukhoi materiel where the maintenance, modernization, and operational expertise is concentrated in Russia. Ukraine basically had to invent its own supply chain from scratch.

[–] Gabu 12 points 1 year ago

Much more than globalized trade, globalized sharing of knowledge, awareness and circumstance - perhaps even globalized power, one day. The fight against capitalism will definitely require a great plan to take global communication away from private capital.

[–] wclinton93 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

On the whole, for sure. But that doesn't make it any more palatable for workers when jobs are relocated from their area.

[–] kautau 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or the workers in the nation where the work is moved, and since companies are min-maxing their profits with no regulation, you have factories with suicide nets

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I won’t completely dispute your point regarding suicide nets. But I would add context that these “factories” have 200k workers that live there in dormitories away from their families. Suicide rates of the general population is about 10 per 100,000. So you’d expect 20 suicides per year from the workforce just based on statistics. Suicide nets just make sure they don’t do it that way and force trauma on bystanders.

I have no idea if the conditions at Foxconn increase (shitty paying job that treats you like slaves including locking you in at night) or decrease (well paying job with food and accomodation taken care of, and security when you sleep) suicide rates. It really depends on your outlook, and I’m sure both views are held by people working there.

[–] utopianfiat 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right, but that's less of a consequence of Globalization and more of a consequence of our national economy being structured in a way that offsets risk onto the most vulnerable working class folks. If we had universal healthcare not reliant on employment, reskilling assistance, and some kind of basic income, it would be easier to both protect people and reap the benefits of Globalization.

[–] queermunist 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

our national economy being structured in a way that offsets risk onto the most vulnerable working class folks

i.e. neoliberalism

Internationalism is good. Globalism is not. All globalism means is open borders for capital and hard borders for workers.

[–] utopianfiat 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Globalism when used by like 95% of people includes dropping immigration restrictions, so I'm not sure what you're on about here.

[–] queermunist 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (29 children)

Not really. They emphasize "legal" immigration, by which they mean a series of restrictions on how people are allowed to enter the country and what qualifies them to become citizens. The actual implementation of neoliberal policies always includes strict border controls, limited asylum seeking, 2nd class citizenship for migrants, and harsh penalties for migrating "wrong" and not jumping through all the legal and financial hoops.

Capital moving freely while migrants die in the Mojave and drown in the Mediterranean.

load more comments (29 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Who is our/we? You’re literally in Lemmy.world.

load more comments (6 replies)