The neoliberal left

[Ajidica]

I was just trying to say that often a dictatorship is necessary to develop the social advancements needed for a republican government.

Africa is, like, what; 1 for 54 then on the dictatorship to democracy scoreboard?

 

[VarrangianBard]

Africa is, like, what; 1 for 54 then on the dictatorship to democracy scoreboard?

Huh?

 

[Ajidica]

African countries have seen many dictatorships, yet only a handful have transitioned from "dictatorship" to "republican government".

 

[VarrangianBard]

Yep. Not every dictatorship presides over social advancements. It's a lot easier to be corrupt than to fight for social progress. There's few and far between that would rather build a nation than exploit one, unfortunately.

 

[choxorn]

Africa is, like, what; 1 for 54 then on the dictatorship to democracy scoreboard?

Kind of depends on how you're defining "democracy," I guess. Do South Africa and Tunisia both count? And there's a few others that are at least nominally democratic or couldn't really be neatly described as a dictatorship.

 

[metalhead]

Maybe my view on this is a bit myopic, but many of the most explicitly "identitarian" activists out there that I see and follow very directly challenge the systems which are so easily used to further the ends of discrimination.

I don't think it is "neoliberal" to call for an end to mortgage discrimination. I don't really get the logic of that at all. Is it that it you aren't advocating for strict socialism and the elimination of markets for housing you're "neoliberal?" If so, then I think that you're operating under and abjectly terrible definition of "neoliberal."

 

[Katie88]

Maybe my view on this is a bit myopic, but many of the most explicitly "identitarian" activists out there that I see and follow very directly challenge the systems which are so easily used to further the ends of discrimination.

I don't think it is "neoliberal" to call for an end to mortgage discrimination. I don't really get the logic of that at all. Is it that it you aren't advocating for strict socialism and the elimination of markets for housing you're "neoliberal?" If so, then I think that you're operating under and abjectly terrible definition of "neoliberal."

I think it's more that socialists would prefer decent public housing as an option for people of lesser means, rather than a solution that plunges them into debt bondage for most of their lives.

 

[metalhead]

I think it's more that socialists would prefer decent public housing as an option for people of lesser means, rather than a solution that plunges them into debt bondage for most of their lives.

The point is, you can do both things. It's better to do both things. Arguing in favor of one thing in no way precludes support for the other. Ending mortgage discrimination doesn't mean forcing people to then go out and buy homes. That's where the logic breaks down for me in trying to paint that as somehow a "neoliberal" policy position. Racial discrimination is in no way limited in its impact to the people at the bottom.

 

[Katie88]

The point is, you can do both things. It's better to do both things. Arguing in favor of one thing in no way precludes support for the other. Ending mortgage discrimination doesn't mean forcing people to then go out and buy homes. That's where the logic breaks down for me in trying to paint that as somehow a "neoliberal" policy position.

In theory, yes. In practice, what tends to happen is that when centre-left parties adopt market-based solutions, which generally benefit a small class of people (housebuilders, financiers, etc.), they abandon ones based on social provision. In the UK, this meant a severe lack of council house building, added to very weak demand control methods, and disasters like PFI for other public service provision under a centre-left government. The situation may be different in the US of course.

 

[metalhead]

I'm not sure I follow. Ending mortgage discrimination is necessary as long as there is a private housing market. I don't believe that supporting the continued existence of a private housing market in some form is itself a "neoliberal" stance, although I could be persuaded that not taxing sales proceeds of one's residence counts as such. This is an entirely separate issue from how local governments go about ensuring adequate affordable housing supply for low and moderate income households. Surely discrimination is an issue there as well, but again, I don't see where an anti-discrimination stance necessarily begets support for market-based solutions as opposed to social provision.

In other words, the causal relationship posited in the OP seems to be entirely lacking. It doesn't make sense to me that one necessarily is abandoning social provision as an integral part of policymaking by focusing on non-economic "identity politics." I could see a credible argument that the causal relationship is, in fact, backwards - when the American left sold out the socialists and people of color, they needed a way to retain their loyalty as voters. Hence, the focus on non-economic "identity politics." However, this means that the OP has it completely wrong - advocating on behalf of those discriminated against in no way entails any endorsement of the neoliberal order. To import that context is simply wrong.

 

[Katie88]

Yes, I think we are talking at cross purposes. I'm afraid that I don't know enough about mortgage discrimination in the US to comment intelligently on it.

My point was about centre-left parties accepting 'neoliberal' solutions for things like housing or healthcare and the consequent abandonment of solutions based on social provision. This is certainly a big issue in the UK and Europe, but perhaps less so in the US?

But I take your point about the identity politics not necessarily leading to adopting 'neoliberal' policies.

 

[Senethro]

Discrimination damages cohesion and trust in societies and socialism is easier (only possible?) to implement in societies with a good degree of trust and cohesion.

I suspect those leftists who think that every bit of energy spent on identity politics delays the Day of the Great Revolution and Final Victory are wrong.

 

[Lexicus]

My point was about centre-left parties accepting 'neoliberal' solutions for things like housing or healthcare and the consequent abandonment of solutions based on social provision. This is certainly a big issue in the UK and Europe, but perhaps less so in the US?

It's probably a bigger issue in the UK because you did actually have at least one party that was overtly committed to eliminating private markets, or at least drastically reducing their scope. We've never had that in the US. In both countries, though, the increasing embrace of neoliberalism by the center-left is not a result of the embrace of identity politics. Neoliberal politics spring essentially from the patronage of Very Rich people, of the political parties directly ('campaign finance' in US parlance) and, perhaps more importantly in the long term, of the universities that produce the professional class from which most politicians, political consultants, and so on are drawn.

 

[innonimatu]

In theory, yes. In practice, what tends to happen is that when centre-left parties adopt market-based solutions, which generally benefit a small class of people (housebuilders, financiers, etc.), they abandon ones based on social provision. In the UK, this meant a severe lack of council house building, added to very weak demand control methods, and disasters like PFI for other public service provision under a centre-left government. The situation may be different in the US of course.

This. You get it, for some reason most people in the US miss this point. It is as if (as if...) they have spend their lives being conditioned to believe that debt bondage is something desirable. Hence the obsession with credit ratings...

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, I think we are talking at cross purposes. I'm afraid that I don't know enough about mortgage discrimination in the US to comment intelligently on it.

My point was about centre-left parties accepting 'neoliberal' solutions for things like housing or healthcare and the consequent abandonment of solutions based on social provision. This is certainly a big issue in the UK and Europe, but perhaps less so in the US?

But I take your point about the identity politics not necessarily leading to adopting 'neoliberal' policies.

The US does have its own version of council housing. But, as with everything to do with poverty relief in the US, there isn't enough of it, and it isn't very good. That isn't specifically a race issue. Although race is always in the background being alluded to as an way to get voters to not do more.

That said, the US housing issue is more complex than that. Much more. And metalhead is right in that mortgage discrimination is a very serious problem. It is only one issue of the overall problem. But it's no less serious for the fact that it is only one of many problems.

To understand this you have to understand the extent to which localism dominates American politics. I'll give you an example from the area around where I live.

The racial makeup of the city was 29.8% white, 38.7% African American or black, 0.6% Native American, 2.8% Asian, 0% Pacific Islander, 23.9% from other races, and 4.2% from two or more races. 43.4% of the population were Hispanic or Latino, chiefly of Puerto Rican origin.[62] Whites not of Latino background were 15.8% of the population in 2010,[63] down from 63.9% in 1970.


The median income for a household in the city was $20,820, and the median income for a family was $22,051. Males had a median income of $28,444 versus $26,131 for females. The per capita income for the city was $13,428.

Move one town west. That is, a town which shares a border along the whole north-south axis of both towns, and to get from one to the other is exactly crossing a street.

The racial makeup of the town was 79.6% White, 6.3% African American, 0.2% Native American, 7.4% Asian, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 3.8% from other races, and 2.7% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 9.8% of the population.



The median income for a household in the town was $80,061, and the median income for a family was $106,089 as of a 2011 estimate.[24] Males had a median income of $69,888 versus $56,162 for females. The per capita income for the town was $45,453. About 3.7% of families and 6.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5.3% of those under the age of 18 and 9.6% ages 65 or older.

Or how about the town directly adjacent west of that.

The racial makeup of the town was 85.92% White, 2.21% African American, 0.04% Native American, 9.59% Asian, 0.49% from other races, and 2.43% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.98% of the population.


The mean income for a household in town is $133,160, and the mean income for a family is $159,834[11]). Males had a median income of $80,182 versus $61,098 for females. The per capita income for the town was $54,754. About 3.1% of families and 5.8% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.9% of those under age 18 and 6.3% of those age 65 or over.

This is the point I think metalhead was trying to get to. The total distance from the east end of the first to the west end of the 3rd is about 15 miles. 3 separate governments. 3 police departments. 3 fire departments. 3 school systems. Wanna guess which is best and which is worst? They are almost different worlds.

This is where the historical pattern of housing discrimination is really felt. Not in the lack of council housing, but in the fact of the exclusion of the poor, and even the not so poor, who are very commonly not white from the towns that are primarily white...

And have better police departments, better fire departments, and, even more critically, better school systems.

You lock up all the colored kids in the city with the crappy schools, and it really doesn't matter how smart those kids are. They'll never have access to the kind of education which gives them the opportunity to benefit from whatever brainpower they were born with.

Now, all that said, mortgage discrimination is only one aspect of the problem. Lack of privately owned rental properties are another major one. But while speaking of mortgage discrimination only addresses a piece of the total problem, it is by no means a small piece of it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My hometown did even better. Both it and the only neighboring city just excluded blacks and pushed them into a couple of selected rural areas "out in the county." Since the entire area is out on the very edge of a county with a whole lot of people in it we are all at pretty much the bottom rung on the county priority ladder, so by excluding them from city services they had basically no services at all. In the 1960s, while the two cities were competing over who could provide the better schools, fire protection, and police services, our black communities were pooling their resources to get wells drilled so they could have water.

 

[metalhead]

This. You get it, for some reason most people in the US miss this point. It is as if (as if...) they have spend their lives being conditioned to believe that debt bondage is something desirable. Hence the obsession with credit ratings...

It is as if (as if...) you prefer arguing with caricatures of people in the U.S. instead of actually engaging with anything they might post here, because you are only interested in a platform for your half-baked ideas, and not engaging in any discussion which might affect them.

 

[Broken_Erika]

It is as if (as if...) you prefer arguing with caricatures of people in the U.S. instead of actually engaging with anything they might post here, because you are only interested in a platform for your half-baked ideas, and not engaging in any discussion which might affect them.

Who wouldn't?
Caricature people are so much funnier than real people!

 

[Lexicus]

It is as if (as if...) you prefer arguing with caricatures of people in the U.S. instead of actually engaging with anything they might post here, because you are only interested in a platform for your half-baked ideas, and not engaging in any discussion which might affect them.

Indeed, I have been extremely disappointed by the lack of engagement with my posts.

 

[Katie88]

The US does have its own version of council housing. But, as with everything to do with poverty relief in the US, there isn't enough of it, and it isn't very good. That isn't specifically a race issue. Although race is always in the background being alluded to as an way to get voters to not do more.

That said, the US housing issue is more complex than that. Much more. And metalhead is right in that mortgage discrimination is a very serious problem. It is only one issue of the overall problem. But it's no less serious for the fact that it is only one of many problems.

To understand this you have to understand the extent to which localism dominates American politics. I'll give you an example from the area around where I live.

[Cut for quote length]

Now, all that said, mortgage discrimination is only one aspect of the problem. Lack of privately owned rental properties are another major one. But while speaking of mortgage discrimination only addresses a piece of the total problem, it is by no means a small piece of it.

Very interesting info. Thanks, Cutlass.

Funnily enough, we have rather the reverse problem here. Specifically, a lot of private landlords rent out to council tenants and the council pays (most of) the rent as housing benefit. At the same time, there are national level policies that inflate the housing market. This leads to high rents, based on high house prices, while tenants have less reason to negotiate since someone else is paying; and as many of the people in receipt of housing benefit are in work, it also puts downward pressure on wages, since these need not cover the full cost of rent.

So it's very damaging, unless you're a landlord or capitalist of course, but to untangle this mess, unless done very carefully, would cause serious hardship to many poorer people. It's a lesson on the dangers of mixing public provision with private gain.