And I mean, the Democratic party doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If you don’t try to change anything, of course the awful “moderates” stay in charge. But it is possible to overtake them, just look at Mamdani. But some people won’t even try that because “it’s a lost case”…
He now holds the primary attendance record in NYC. It was only 30% of eligible voters, up from 21% in the last election. That’s literally all it takes. We just need to show the fuck up.
Congressional primaries see less than 15% attendance. We’ve been letting retirees pack our ballots with centrists for 40 years, then complain about our choices in the general elections. We wouldn’t be calling for term limits if we consistently participated in primaries.
Mamdani also won the primaries because Harris/Biden and the DNC being punished in the presidential election weakened them just enough that they couldn’t strangle Mamdani politically anymore. Not that they didn’t and still try.
The DNC could not have offered him less support in his primary campaign. He won over the city with 50k volunteers going door-to-door, a strong social media campaign, and his focus on the concerns of the working class New Yorker.
And Kamala losing galvanized that volunteer effort. Mamdani would not have won the primary if Kamala were currently sitting in the White House. Kamala losing did huge damage to the brand of every corporate Democrat. Kamala winning would have showed that that kind of candidate is still viable. Cuomo would have coasted to an easy victory.
No “progressive” will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn’t the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they’d just organize people into voting in every primary.
No “progressive” will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn’t the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they’d just organize people into voting in every primary.
“vote blue no matter who” is peak martyrdom politics.
Do you know why Mamdani won the primaries? Because he actually promises change. The argument wasn’t to never vote Democrats. The argument was to punish them unless they produce a decent candidate.
If Harris wasnt punished, the DNC that is fighting Mamdani by and large would have been to strong and most likely had prevented Mamdani.
“vote blue no matter who” is peak martyrdom politics.
“Martyrdom politics is when you want to prevent fascists from murdering people instead of embracing it in the hopes that it will cause the people’s hearts to spontaneously fill with l’Internationale after seeing how nobly marginalized groups are murdered!”
Uh, okay.
Do you know why Mamdani won the primaries?
Because NYC has enough progressives to elect a progressive in a Dem primary, and progressives decided to actually turn out for once?
If Harris wasnt punished, the DNC that is fighting Mamdani by and large would have been to strong and most likely had prevented Mamdani.
The Democrats support Fascist commiting genocide in Palestine.
Did you follow any of the primary debates? How all the other DNC candidates sucked up to Israel how they would go there first? How the Zionist lobby rabidly spouted accusations of Antisemitism against Mamdani?
If Harris/Biden,who declared themselves loyal Zionists had won, these campaigns would have hit even stronger.
It is the fact that people understood the genocidial status quo of the party has to end, that gave Mamdani the momentum.
The Democrats support Fascist commiting genocide in Palestine.
Luckily, you threw your support behind the fascists who want the Zionists to commit even more genocide in Palestine, creating glorious martyrs for some vaguely leftist cause in the US that never seems to actually rear its head!
This is definitely not martyrdom politics though!
Any number of dead Palestinians, after all, is worth you feeling smug showing the shitlibs what for.
If Harris/Biden,who declared themselves loyal Zionists had won, these campaigns would have hit even stronger.
It is the fact that people understood the genocidial status quo of the party has to end, that gave Mamdani the momentum.
lmao
Yes, that’s it. The mayor of New York was elected on the strength of his foreign policy positions.
Did you just forget the lesson of Nuremberg? You’re supposed to punish people who commit crimes against humanity. Doesn’t matter what party they belong to. Doesn’t matter what other good they might be capable of doing. You must have been a huge fan of Operation Paperclip. After all, we couldn’t hang those evil Nazi scientists, we can use their talents!
I think that’s a little simpler than that: one of those options requires a great deal of risk, while the other does not. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the current system and fight for change.
Not everyone can be brave.
I’m not trying to make an excuse for these people and their cowardice, I’m just trying to offer a better explanation.
It’s funny you mentioned this because I was thinking about this before you commented: if these people are simply stupid and weak, is it really right to feel contempt for them? It’s not that they made a conscious choice to be this way. I understand being resentful, which I am too, but is it really ethical to feel contempt for someone when it’s an involuntary character flaw that may not be able to be remedied?
It feels like judging someone for having a mental or psychological disability. I have pity for them. And I feel that those who can should do for those who can’t. Because that’s the only useful thing I can take from the situation, the only solution I can see. Because this sort of thing can’t be avoided, it’s just one of those things we, as a society, have to get through. But there are better ways of getting through it then pointing fingers and blaming the weak and stupid for being weak and stupid when it’s not their fault.
Smart people who do stupid things, and those who are willfully, ignorant, obviously that’s a choice for which I have contempt. But for those who were too weak and too stupid?
I don’t know… It’s just something I was thinking about.
If you don’t try to change anything, of course the awful “moderates” stay in charge.
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do. And while they failed to move the needle in the 2024 election, in 2028, the Democrats will have to think a lot more about whether they want to keep losing in exchange for supporting genocide.
Remember, it’s always “the most important election ever.” Every election is billed as that. But sometimes you need to be willing to accept a short-term loss in exchange for long-term progress. Myopically focusing on just the election right in front of you is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Kamala losing gave space for someone like Mamdani to win. It’s clear that corporate DNC centrism is a toxic losing brand. If Kamala had won, it is extremely unlikely that Mamdani would have won the NYC primary.
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do
Where did I say anything bad about them? It was about the primary and not about the general election.
I actually get your point in theory as you could see elections in a game theory type of setting. The problem is that the last elections have been “the most important election ever” because well… they have gotten increasingly more significant and important. 2016 allowed Trump to shift the Supreme Court long-term and change decades-old consensus. It alone almost got him to do a coup. 2020 could have very well literally enabled that, and 2024 well… just look at everything that is happen. This is not the beginning of fascism, that’s well some steps inside.
I get the theory, and if the opponent was a McCain I could even understand your thought. But if it’s the election of 1930, where every vote counts to defeat the bigger evil, it’s not the time to sit it out for future benefits.
The point is that socialism cannot be achieved by electoral means. At best, if the masses in the street really pressure those in power, you get social democracy. That being said the choice for Americans was neoliberalism or fascism. The reasons for fascism winning go deeper than “the left was to whinny”, but that’s beside the point being made here.
Apparently that very controversial position makes us shitlibs instead of people who would like to not be abducted by unmarked secret police and taken to a black site while we try to organize socialist political movements.
Playing devil’s advocate here. It’s probably much easier to grow a resistance against fascism than neoliberalism, as neoliberalism is comfortable enough for most people.
People here keep using that word uncomprehendingly like they’re a dumb AI matching & associating on the root liberal.
Neoliberalism is free market capitalism, a conservative ideology embraced by Margaret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan.
Democrats are for many things: environmental regulation, social safety nets, market regulation, spending on social programs, labor protections, consumer protections, etc.
That’s a far cry from free, unregulated markets.
The Democratic platform is a far cry from proper safety nets and regulations.
Every Democratic president since Clinton was a neoliberal. Now that Trump is going with protectionism, they are in essence more neoliberal than the Republicans.
In the most recent elections, Kamala talked good shit initially, until her corporate allies talked her down, and like the good little neoliberal she is she started sputtering out market-based “solutions” to everything.
Every Democratic president since Clinton was a neoliberal.
Nah: they passed the ACA, expanded Medicaid, passed Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, started the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tried to ban non-compete clauses, tried to enact rules for “click to cancel” subscriptions & end junk fees, standardized disclosure of fees for finance services, voted in the FTC to enforce right to repair, sustained social programs.
That & much more happened after Clinton (whereas Republicans defunded Medicaid, added restrictions, defunded SNAP, defunded school lunch programs, rolled much of this back).
The ACA is not that different from Romneycare or the old Republican HEART bill that was proposed in opposition to Clinton’s attempts at passing universal healthcare. It remains a market-based solution.
The establishment of the CFPB, like the passing of the ACA, was a stripped-down pro-market version of what could have been.
In terms of foreign policy, the Democrats have enthusiastically supported and continued to support the globalisation of capital through such agreements as NAFTA and continued various imperialist adventures (Obama’s use of drones is legendary).
In terms of workers rights, a lot of the bullshit from the Reagan years is still alive and well, unquestioned by the mainstream of either big party (it is frequently said on Lemmy and elsewhere that nearly everything wrong with modern America can be traced back to Reagan). Antitrust measures remain largely unenforced.
Stuff like this is well within the preview of other neoliberal parties like Fianna Fail/Fine Gael or the CDU. They too have limited market-based “solutions” to social problems. Just tax carbon emissions and the market will fix climate change. Stimulate more housebuilding and homelessness will be solved. This pattern continues.
Only during Biden’s term was there some deviation from the old formula, in the form of stimulus checks and more investment in infrastructure, along with some support of trade unions. These were good steps in a shift towards the social-liberal wing of the party. Kamala leaned into this early in the campaign but then towards the end she decided it was better to get the endorsement of people like Dick Cheney.
The matter is simple.
Yes or no: are they for market regulation & intervention?
Yes.
Therefore, they’re not neoliberal.
You can hue & cry all you want, but words mean things.
If you want a word that means not anti-market, then find that word.
Neoliberal isn’t it.
Your criticisms of those social programs & market regulations only amount to claiming they don’t go far enough even though they definitely are market regulations & interventions.
If they weren’t social programs & market regulations, then the Republicans wouldn’t have anything to cut & deregulate as they are doing: the current administration is rescinding consumer & labor protections proposed by the previous administration & they’re restricting & defunding major public programs (Medicaid, SNAP, medical research, public health programs, national weather service, public broadcasting).
While you seem to take these programs & regulations for granted, treat them like nothing, & act like they weren’t a significant undertaking that could only barely scrape through our political obstacle course, they make a significant difference in people’s lives.
What Republicans offer with their senseless trade war & cuts isn’t protections to the working class, but the illusion of protections to some domestic businesses while exploiting other domestic businesses (reliant on international trade), labor (losing protections from defunded regulatory agencies & programs), consumers (shafted with consumer protection losses, tariff costs, less affordable goods & services) & while transferring income from the poor to the rich.
Calling market regulation & social programs neoliberal indicates you don’t know the meaning of words.
Market intervention & regulation isn’t free, unregulated market, ie, neoliberalism.
Any policy in support of a mixed economy with regulated markets suffices to not be neoliberal.
Comrade, the only people who are for complete nonintervention are right-“libertarians”.
To call the Democratic ideal a mixed market is kinda wild. Nearly everything that could be privatized already is, besides perhaps the post office.
I will not pretend that the current programs are not significant or that cutting them will not kill people. But the fact of the matter is that it’s peanuts compared to the social-democracy that reigned in Western Europe for most of the Cold War or even the social-liberalism of the pre-Reagan US.
I am not sure what your talk of the Republicans has to do with this. I am certain they’re not really neolibs though. They’re fascists, or close to it.
You can’t have your cake & eat it too.
This is simple logic.
You’re talking about differences in degree the words do not imply.
You’re confusing mixed market with rejection of markets & muddling words.
You don’t have to agree with their policies to understand they don’t fit the definition.
Definitions don’t imply your approval/disapproval.
If they are for unregulated, free markets, then they are absolutely neoliberal.
If they are not for that (eg, they’re for regulated markets & public services), then they are not neoliberal.
Unless you can refute a definition, you’re just fighting logic (in vain).
There are goals before socialism that ARE achievable electorally which are still worth pursuing in the meantime, like stalling fascists, or prevent genocide of immigrants and queer folks
We need never be afraid of the vote of informed Americans. It is only the ignorant voter we have to fear, ignorant politically, no matter how fine his house or how expensive his schooling. Such people have never experienced democracy; they have merely enjoyed its benefits. It is hard to explain what democracy is; it is necessary to participate in it to understand it.
The former Berlin businessman I referred to earlier told me that he blamed his own group, people with the time and the money and the opportunity to know better, for what happened to Germany. “We ignored Hitler,” he said. “We considered him an unimportant fellow, not quite a gentleman, not of our own class. We considered it just a little bit vulgar to bother with him, to bother with politics at all.”
They thought of the government as “They.” The only possible route to a clear conscience in politics is to accept political responsibility, either as an active member of the party in power or as an equally active member of the loyal opposition.
Thank you. I really don’t get those people.
And I mean, the Democratic party doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If you don’t try to change anything, of course the awful “moderates” stay in charge. But it is possible to overtake them, just look at Mamdani. But some people won’t even try that because “it’s a lost case”…
He now holds the primary attendance record in NYC. It was only 30% of eligible voters, up from 21% in the last election. That’s literally all it takes. We just need to show the fuck up.
Congressional primaries see less than 15% attendance. We’ve been letting retirees pack our ballots with centrists for 40 years, then complain about our choices in the general elections. We wouldn’t be calling for term limits if we consistently participated in primaries.
Well that and ranked choice, right?
He won majority first round. Granted, I’d love to see ranked-choice in our federal elections, but that didn’t matter in Mamdani’s case.
Would people have felt empowered to vote for him first if it wasn’t ranked choice?
I believe so. The massive increase in zero prime voters (people who haven’t voted in a primary before) was due to his grassroots campaign.
Mamdani also won the primaries because Harris/Biden and the DNC being punished in the presidential election weakened them just enough that they couldn’t strangle Mamdani politically anymore. Not that they didn’t and still try.
The DNC could not have offered him less support in his primary campaign. He won over the city with 50k volunteers going door-to-door, a strong social media campaign, and his focus on the concerns of the working class New Yorker.
And Kamala losing galvanized that volunteer effort. Mamdani would not have won the primary if Kamala were currently sitting in the White House. Kamala losing did huge damage to the brand of every corporate Democrat. Kamala winning would have showed that that kind of candidate is still viable. Cuomo would have coasted to an easy victory.
No “progressive” will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn’t the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they’d just organize people into voting in every primary.
No “progressive” will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn’t the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they’d just organize people into voting in every primary.
They are either trying to trick people into not voting against the GOP or they have been tricked themselves.
“Both sides are the same” has been a bad faith argument I’ve heard from conservatives for decades.
Worse. They think martyrdom and purity politics are preferable to making any sort of actual difference. They have to keep their souls pure, you see.
It’s religion for the irreligious.
“vote blue no matter who” is peak martyrdom politics.
Do you know why Mamdani won the primaries? Because he actually promises change. The argument wasn’t to never vote Democrats. The argument was to punish them unless they produce a decent candidate.
If Harris wasnt punished, the DNC that is fighting Mamdani by and large would have been to strong and most likely had prevented Mamdani.
“Martyrdom politics is when you want to prevent fascists from murdering people instead of embracing it in the hopes that it will cause the people’s hearts to spontaneously fill with l’Internationale after seeing how nobly marginalized groups are murdered!”
Uh, okay.
Because NYC has enough progressives to elect a progressive in a Dem primary, and progressives decided to actually turn out for once?
Jesus fucking Christ.
The Democrats support Fascist commiting genocide in Palestine.
Did you follow any of the primary debates? How all the other DNC candidates sucked up to Israel how they would go there first? How the Zionist lobby rabidly spouted accusations of Antisemitism against Mamdani?
If Harris/Biden,who declared themselves loyal Zionists had won, these campaigns would have hit even stronger.
It is the fact that people understood the genocidial status quo of the party has to end, that gave Mamdani the momentum.
Luckily, you threw your support behind the fascists who want the Zionists to commit even more genocide in Palestine, creating glorious martyrs for some vaguely leftist cause in the US that never seems to actually rear its head!
This is definitely not martyrdom politics though!
Any number of dead Palestinians, after all, is worth
you feeling smugshowing the shitlibs what for.lmao
Yes, that’s it. The mayor of New York was elected on the strength of his foreign policy positions.
Utter insanity.
The Zionist lobby in New York went rampant against Mamdani. So yes, the primary was heavily influenced by foreign politics.
https://truthout.org/articles/zionists-tried-to-make-nyc-race-about-israel-zohran-mamdani-didnt-give-in/
Did you just forget the lesson of Nuremberg? You’re supposed to punish people who commit crimes against humanity. Doesn’t matter what party they belong to. Doesn’t matter what other good they might be capable of doing. You must have been a huge fan of Operation Paperclip. After all, we couldn’t hang those evil Nazi scientists, we can use their talents!
I think that’s a little simpler than that: one of those options requires a great deal of risk, while the other does not. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the current system and fight for change.
Not everyone can be brave.
I’m not trying to make an excuse for these people and their cowardice, I’m just trying to offer a better explanation.
The bravery of… Throwing LGBTQ+ people under the bus and trying to force violent conflict. Nah. I don’t buy it.
Good thing, too, because that explanation would only increase my contempt for them, LOL!
It’s funny you mentioned this because I was thinking about this before you commented: if these people are simply stupid and weak, is it really right to feel contempt for them? It’s not that they made a conscious choice to be this way. I understand being resentful, which I am too, but is it really ethical to feel contempt for someone when it’s an involuntary character flaw that may not be able to be remedied?
It feels like judging someone for having a mental or psychological disability. I have pity for them. And I feel that those who can should do for those who can’t. Because that’s the only useful thing I can take from the situation, the only solution I can see. Because this sort of thing can’t be avoided, it’s just one of those things we, as a society, have to get through. But there are better ways of getting through it then pointing fingers and blaming the weak and stupid for being weak and stupid when it’s not their fault.
Smart people who do stupid things, and those who are willfully, ignorant, obviously that’s a choice for which I have contempt. But for those who were too weak and too stupid?
I don’t know… It’s just something I was thinking about.
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do. And while they failed to move the needle in the 2024 election, in 2028, the Democrats will have to think a lot more about whether they want to keep losing in exchange for supporting genocide.
Remember, it’s always “the most important election ever.” Every election is billed as that. But sometimes you need to be willing to accept a short-term loss in exchange for long-term progress. Myopically focusing on just the election right in front of you is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Kamala losing gave space for someone like Mamdani to win. It’s clear that corporate DNC centrism is a toxic losing brand. If Kamala had won, it is extremely unlikely that Mamdani would have won the NYC primary.
Where did I say anything bad about them? It was about the primary and not about the general election.
I actually get your point in theory as you could see elections in a game theory type of setting. The problem is that the last elections have been “the most important election ever” because well… they have gotten increasingly more significant and important. 2016 allowed Trump to shift the Supreme Court long-term and change decades-old consensus. It alone almost got him to do a coup. 2020 could have very well literally enabled that, and 2024 well… just look at everything that is happen. This is not the beginning of fascism, that’s well some steps inside.
I get the theory, and if the opponent was a McCain I could even understand your thought. But if it’s the election of 1930, where every vote counts to defeat the bigger evil, it’s not the time to sit it out for future benefits.
Literal accelerationism. Jesus fucking Christ.
Removed by mod
Every election since I could vote (early 2000s) has been the most important.
Why? Because the results built the Supreme Court that curtailed every progressive policy achievement and accelerated our current descent into fascism.
Without GWB you don’t have Roberts or Alito. Without Trump you don’t have Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, or Barrett.
Those fuckers have lifetime appointments. One lost election sets us back decades. The only good time for a protest vote is the primary.
The point is that socialism cannot be achieved by electoral means. At best, if the masses in the street really pressure those in power, you get social democracy. That being said the choice for Americans was neoliberalism or fascism. The reasons for fascism winning go deeper than “the left was to whinny”, but that’s beside the point being made here.
Okay, so, which is easier for socialists to organize under? Neoliberalism, or fascism?
Neoliberalism, obviously. Kamala probably wouldn’t be in favour of people being abducted off the street and shoved into unmarked vans.
Apparently that very controversial position makes us shitlibs instead of people who would like to not be abducted by unmarked secret police and taken to a black site while we try to organize socialist political movements.
Removed by mod
Playing devil’s advocate here. It’s probably much easier to grow a resistance against fascism than neoliberalism, as neoliberalism is comfortable enough for most people.
Don’t you see? Only when it’s all ashes can we start the utopia. /s
Removed by mod
People here keep using that word uncomprehendingly like they’re a dumb AI matching & associating on the root liberal.
Neoliberalism is free market capitalism, a conservative ideology embraced by Margaret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan. Democrats are for many things: environmental regulation, social safety nets, market regulation, spending on social programs, labor protections, consumer protections, etc. That’s a far cry from free, unregulated markets.
The Democratic platform is a far cry from proper safety nets and regulations.
Every Democratic president since Clinton was a neoliberal. Now that Trump is going with protectionism, they are in essence more neoliberal than the Republicans.
In the most recent elections, Kamala talked good shit initially, until her corporate allies talked her down, and like the good little neoliberal she is she started sputtering out market-based “solutions” to everything.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250126160126/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/25/us/politics/harriss-economic-pitch-capitalism-for-the-middle-class.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20250213014747/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/business/harris-economic-plan-wall-street.html
Nah: they passed the ACA, expanded Medicaid, passed Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, started the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tried to ban non-compete clauses, tried to enact rules for “click to cancel” subscriptions & end junk fees, standardized disclosure of fees for finance services, voted in the FTC to enforce right to repair, sustained social programs. That & much more happened after Clinton (whereas Republicans defunded Medicaid, added restrictions, defunded SNAP, defunded school lunch programs, rolled much of this back).
You just have a memory deficiency.
The ACA is not that different from Romneycare or the old Republican HEART bill that was proposed in opposition to Clinton’s attempts at passing universal healthcare. It remains a market-based solution.
The establishment of the CFPB, like the passing of the ACA, was a stripped-down pro-market version of what could have been.
In terms of foreign policy, the Democrats have enthusiastically supported and continued to support the globalisation of capital through such agreements as NAFTA and continued various imperialist adventures (Obama’s use of drones is legendary).
In terms of workers rights, a lot of the bullshit from the Reagan years is still alive and well, unquestioned by the mainstream of either big party (it is frequently said on Lemmy and elsewhere that nearly everything wrong with modern America can be traced back to Reagan). Antitrust measures remain largely unenforced.
Stuff like this is well within the preview of other neoliberal parties like Fianna Fail/Fine Gael or the CDU. They too have limited market-based “solutions” to social problems. Just tax carbon emissions and the market will fix climate change. Stimulate more housebuilding and homelessness will be solved. This pattern continues.
Only during Biden’s term was there some deviation from the old formula, in the form of stimulus checks and more investment in infrastructure, along with some support of trade unions. These were good steps in a shift towards the social-liberal wing of the party. Kamala leaned into this early in the campaign but then towards the end she decided it was better to get the endorsement of people like Dick Cheney.
The matter is simple. Yes or no: are they for market regulation & intervention? Yes. Therefore, they’re not neoliberal.
You can hue & cry all you want, but words mean things. If you want a word that means not anti-market, then find that word. Neoliberal isn’t it.
Your criticisms of those social programs & market regulations only amount to claiming they don’t go far enough even though they definitely are market regulations & interventions. If they weren’t social programs & market regulations, then the Republicans wouldn’t have anything to cut & deregulate as they are doing: the current administration is rescinding consumer & labor protections proposed by the previous administration & they’re restricting & defunding major public programs (Medicaid, SNAP, medical research, public health programs, national weather service, public broadcasting). While you seem to take these programs & regulations for granted, treat them like nothing, & act like they weren’t a significant undertaking that could only barely scrape through our political obstacle course, they make a significant difference in people’s lives.
What Republicans offer with their senseless trade war & cuts isn’t protections to the working class, but the illusion of protections to some domestic businesses while exploiting other domestic businesses (reliant on international trade), labor (losing protections from defunded regulatory agencies & programs), consumers (shafted with consumer protection losses, tariff costs, less affordable goods & services) & while transferring income from the poor to the rich.
Calling market regulation & social programs neoliberal indicates you don’t know the meaning of words. Market intervention & regulation isn’t free, unregulated market, ie, neoliberalism. Any policy in support of a mixed economy with regulated markets suffices to not be neoliberal.
Comrade, the only people who are for complete nonintervention are right-“libertarians”.
To call the Democratic ideal a mixed market is kinda wild. Nearly everything that could be privatized already is, besides perhaps the post office.
I will not pretend that the current programs are not significant or that cutting them will not kill people. But the fact of the matter is that it’s peanuts compared to the social-democracy that reigned in Western Europe for most of the Cold War or even the social-liberalism of the pre-Reagan US.
I am not sure what your talk of the Republicans has to do with this. I am certain they’re not really neolibs though. They’re fascists, or close to it.
You can’t have your cake & eat it too. This is simple logic.
You’re talking about differences in degree the words do not imply. You’re confusing mixed market with rejection of markets & muddling words.
You don’t have to agree with their policies to understand they don’t fit the definition. Definitions don’t imply your approval/disapproval.
If they are for unregulated, free markets, then they are absolutely neoliberal. If they are not for that (eg, they’re for regulated markets & public services), then they are not neoliberal.
Unless you can refute a definition, you’re just fighting logic (in vain).
There are goals before socialism that ARE achievable electorally which are still worth pursuing in the meantime, like stalling fascists, or prevent genocide of immigrants and queer folks
—Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government