I can hardly find one thing I could agree in this and wonder what on earth is such useless documents be promoted in here for?
This analysis could have come from any Marxist party, in a cowardly traditional manner of being unable to challenge a comma or an exclanation mark of classic M&E theory.
In the dead ends and tremendous contradictions of marxist theoretical development this is just another attempt of trying to paint a reality in such a way as to fit the theory, and we all thought it was meant the other way around, and in this "WE" I would include Karl Marx but especially Engels who was the true dialectical materialist. There is somewhere in Karl's writing that says that he would have been most happy to alter and revise the thery if reality show that the theory is invalid. Marxists since then have elevated those books into theology where terror and exile is upon those who dare challenge the theology.
Neo-liberalism in the 80s ... because this is what fits in theory? By the time the term neo-liberalism was announced and made public as part of politics it was at a period where a 40+ year transformation of state an economy was taken place to fit this propaganda. It was safe to mention it. It was pretty much the same time that social democracy died, for which many Marxist would die defending.
You can't reverse history, you can only write the future, and going back to social democracy would mean a revolution and a total overthrow of the globalized economy.
Unless the Marxist has the all powerful, autonomous, and manageable state as a safe harbor, the Marixst has nothing to step on and propagandize. A bankrupt ideology based on a weak theory, even though it may be the only theory we have ever had.