So is the opening the financial crisis made possible now closed?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Now reading Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste (http://www.versobooks.com/books/1613-never-let-a-serious-crisis-go-to-waste). Hard to argue against the authors conclusion that neoliberalism made it through the crisis not only intact but if anything stronger.

Does anyone else think that the left had its moment during the crisis ... and that moment is gone? Are we going to have to keep ourselves warm in the coming years with memories of Occupy general assemblies?

[The Feral Underclass]

I think the answer to the question is essentially yes, the left has failed to gather a coherent response to the crisis and continues to fail in every regard to building opposition to capitalism. This question, however, is premised on the assumption that there was a moment for the left to have in the first place. I think we have to consider the possibility that the failures of the left, which have repeated since the middle of the 20th century, happen because there is no other possibility for the left in the west but to fail. And that failure is not because there isn't the constituency or conditions for escalation, but because of the banal and cowardly formation of the so-called left.

[BIXX]

I think the answer to the question is essentially yes, the left has failed to gather a coherent response to the crisis and continues to fail in every regard to building opposition to capitalism. This question, however, is premised on the assumption that there was a moment for the left to have in the first place. I think we have to consider the possibility that the failures of the left, which have repeated since the middle of the 20th century, happen because there is no other possibility for the left in the west but to fail. And that failure is not because there isn't the constituency or conditions for escalation, but because of the banal and cowardly formation of the so-called left.
To add to this, I think that at any point, a raising of tension, escalating conflict, is appropriate and can lea to interesting things. Not saying that it'll cause revolution, but that it can lead to new events that may allow for you to carry on attack for whatever purpose you may have- thus putting you in a constant position of readiness. Furthermore, you never lose the possibility of living your life in permanent conflict with capital, which, while it won't destroy capital, it would for some people help their mental status greatly, just from the enjoyment of revolt.

Kinda forgot what i was talking about but hope it added to te thread meaningfully.

[Popular Front of Judea]

And provide tasty riot porn to play in the background of sneaker commercials...

[John Nada]

Yeah, the left(what is leftover) should've be at the forefront right away, like defending workers getting kicked out of there homes, and workplaces laying everyone off. Oh well, recession happen like every ten years anyway, same with wars(already happening), next one will probaby worse.

The right has the theory of waiting for a crises too. It shouldn't be expected that when another crises arise that it'll naturally go to the left's favor. Same way tactics in a war aren't exclusive to one side. I don't think there should be a "wait for shit to hit the fan" strategy. I think it should be constant to the point where the left is the crises.

[Synergy]

The media conglomerates have done an excellent job making people feel apathetic about politics by focusing on the wrong topics and by framing news inside a right wing perspective.

[Q]

The 2008 crisis most definitely has shown that the activist economism of most of the left is simply a complete waste of everyone's time. As Feral pointed out we need to get our act together. Only where the left is strong can crises offer potentialities. But in most places the far left is marginal at best, trying to outcompete eachother like their life depends on it.

But the same is true for the inverse: If there actually is an uptide, then "all the boats will rise". So, in a relative sense, the far left gains nothing in this case either. We need party building and for that we need a revolutionary overthrow of the existing left, base it again on a radical democratic and explicit communist footing (as opposed to the cliques that exist today, thinking they can win the masses by TUSC and other economistic and opportunistic initiatives).

[BIXX]

I think it should be constant to the point where the left is the crises.

While I am not interested in the left being the crisis, I do think you have a good point here. The constant negation of the ability for law/capital to control us (whether it is by a radical or someone who considers themselves a liberal) is already seen as a crisis by bosses and cops, so the generalization of this I think is most likely to lead to interesting circumstances.

[willowtooth]

we elected the first black president, we passed healthcare legislation allowing 16 million people to get healthcare, legalized gay marriage in 37 states (with more to come), legalized marijuana in 2 states (with more to come), and decriminalized it in most of the country, contraception abortion and equal pay laws have all been passed, we also outlawed torture, secret prisons, and wiretapping. opened trade relations with cuba, signed a nuclear treaty with iran, killed osama and withdrew almost entirely from the iraq-afghanistan war, passed numerous banking regulations, passed civil rights laws like the fair sentencing act and dramatically strengthened the civil rights department of the DOJ, doubled federal spending on clean energy

should I go on?

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

[Q]

we elected the first black president, we passed healthcare legislation allowing 16 million people to get healthcare, legalized gay marriage in 37 states (with more to come), legalized marijuana in 2 states (with more to come), and decriminalized it in most of the country, contraception abortion and equal pay laws have all been passed, we also outlawed torture, secret prisons, and wiretapping. opened trade relations with cuba, signed a nuclear treaty with iran, killed osama and withdrew almost entirely from the iraq-afghanistan war, passed numerous banking regulations, passed civil rights laws like the fair sentencing act and dramatically strengthened the civil rights department of the DOJ, doubled federal spending on clean energy

should I go on?

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/
Please do go on and explain how this will bring us closer to socialism. Are you serious?

[willowtooth]

Please do go on and explain how this will bring us closer to socialism. Are you serious?

well i guess it depends on how you look at things? if you feel living in fascistic right wing regime provides the conditions necessary for social revolution? and that making lives generally worse for people too demonstrate how evil capitalism really is and force them too revolt? then I would say it brings us further away, from socialism, as the left is a now little more complacent

but if you believe that creating a more democratic-socialist, or egalitarian society can lead to the social revolution, where communism and socialism are being discussed openly instead of outlawed, where websites like this aren't even monitored much less illegal, can lead to the social revolution or as some hypothesize a non-violent social revolution, then promoting things like this helps.

for example before the crash "socialist" was a four letter word and considered an insult in america, now we have a self described democratic socialist running for president. that could have never happened before 2008

[oneday]

for example before the crash "socialist" was a four letter word and considered an insult in america, now we have a self described democratic socialist running for president. that could have never happened before 2008

But they changed the word "socialism" to mean liberalism / social democracy. If anything this signifies a shift to the right. The left is completely on the defensive, right now if you support not cutting the education budget you are a "socialist".

[Popular Front of Judea]

Let's say for the sake of argument that list was indeed accomplished in the last 8 years. What in that list goes against the dominant logic of neoliberalism? A healthcare program that originated in the Heritage Foundation?


we elected the first black president, we passed healthcare legislation allowing 16 million people to get healthcare, legalized gay marriage in 37 states (with more to come), legalized marijuana in 2 states (with more to come), and decriminalized it in most of the country, contraception abortion and equal pay laws have all been passed, we also outlawed torture, secret prisons, and wiretapping. opened trade relations with cuba, signed a nuclear treaty with iran, killed osama and withdrew almost entirely from the iraq-afghanistan war, passed numerous banking regulations, passed civil rights laws like the fair sentencing act and dramatically strengthened the civil rights department of the DOJ, doubled federal spending on clean energy

[willowtooth]

Let's say for the sake of argument that list was indeed accomplished in the last 8 years. What in that list goes against the dominant logic of neoliberalism? A healthcare program that originated in the Heritage Foundation?

neoliberalism is basically the free market system, obamacare is a taxpayer subsidy to provide health insurance. The left wing in america has been demanding universal healthcare for decades and has gotten nowhere, this compromise, albeit a right wing compromise, is helping people that would simply go without under the free market principles of neoliberalism

[Popular Front of Judea]

You may want to read up on what exactly neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is all about the promotion of markets, using such as ideological cover. The ACA is a classic example of such. Of course there are left and right variants. We got the right variant in the Bush administration, the left in the Obama administration. But the overlap is considerable. They both share a common set of ideological assumptions.

Am I pleased that Obama won in 2008 and 2012? Given the alternative yes. But Obama was no Roosevelt. Structurally very little has changed.




neoliberalism is basically the free market system, obamacare is a taxpayer subsidy to provide health insurance. The left wing in america has been demanding universal healthcare for decades and has gotten nowhere, this compromise, albeit a right wing compromise, is helping people that would simply go without under the free market principles of neoliberalism

[willowtooth]

You may want to read up on what exactly neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is all about the promotion of markets, using such as ideological cover. The ACA is a classic example of such. Of course there are left and right variants. We got the right variant in the Bush administration, the left in the Obama administration. But the overlap is considerable. They both share a common set of ideological assumptions.

Am I pleased that Obama won in 2008 and 2012? Given the alternative yes. But Obama was no Roosevelt. Structurally very little has changed.

fair enough but I guess it depends on what definition of neoliberalism you're using it's changed alot over the years

[BIXX]

fair enough but I guess it depends on what definition of neoliberalism you're using it's changed alot over the years

I mean sure yeah it depends on if you're using the historically relevant definition or your definition.

[willowtooth]

I mean sure yeah it depends on if you're using the historically relevant definition or your definition.

the first sentence in the wikipedia entry for neoliberalism is


Neoliberalism is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[Popular Front of Judea]

fair enough but I guess it depends on what definition of neoliberalism you're using it's changed alot over the years
This is a good start: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/16/1007496/-UPDATED-What-is-Neoliberalism

I would add that it came together as response to the crisis of the 1970s. Harvey dates the domestic arrival of it with the near bankruptcy of New York in 1975.

[willowtooth]

This is a good start: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/16/1007496/-UPDATED-What-is-Neoliberalism

I would add that it came together as response to the crisis of the 1970s. Harvey dates the domestic arrival of it with the near bankruptcy of New York in 1975.

okay thats the defintion from the 1980's, well then that goes against your original point, they beleive in a truly free market with little or no government intervention whatsoever. keep in mind milton freidman wouldn't have been called neoliberal when his writings first came out, nor would hayek's.

If your saying that ACA is example of neoliberalism then it would be more appropriately tied to the 1930's 3rd position neoliberals who after the great depression, opposed the free market (or classical liberalism) that caused the collapse and opposed a planned economy, but Reaganomics and thatcherism would not be described as neoliberal under the 1930's definition which requires heavy government intervention in the market. which would be an appropriate description of the ACA

[Popular Front of Judea]

Actually there was a period of time when those associated with the Mont Pelerin Society (established in 1947) -- which included Friedman and Hayek -- did call themselves 'neoliberals'. But the 'neo' was felt to be too much of a tip-off so the label was dropped.

The ACA has very little in common with historic American liberal programs like Social Security and Medicare. No pretense in setting up a marketplace like the ACA does with its exchanges. Needless to say that is why they both work and are popular with the American public.

Neo-liberalism is all about government intervention in the private economy but a different type of intervention. An intervention on the side of capital with the covering fig leaf of establishing markets where markets did not previously exist.


okay thats the defintion from the 1980's, well then that goes against your original point, they beleive in a truly free market with little or no government intervention whatsoever. keep in mind milton freidman wouldn't have been called neoliberal when his writings first came out, nor would hayek's.

If your saying that ACA is example of neoliberalism then it would be more appropriately tied to the 1930's 3rd position neoliberals who after the great depression, opposed the free market (or classical liberalism) that caused the collapse and opposed a planned economy, but Reaganomics and thatcherism would not be described as neoliberal under the 1930's definition which requires heavy government intervention in the market. which would be an appropriate description of the ACA

[willowtooth]

Actually there was a period of time when those associated with the Mont Pelerin Society (established in 1947) -- which included Friedman and Hayek -- did call themselves 'neoliberals'. But the 'neo' was felt to be too much of a tip-off so the label was dropped.

The ACA has very little in common with historic American liberal programs like Social Security and Medicare. No pretense in setting up a marketplace like the ACA does with its exchanges. Needless to say that is why they both work and are popular with the American public.

Neo-liberalism is all about government intervention in the private economy but a different type of intervention. An intervention on the side of capital with the covering fig leaf of establishing markets where markets did not previously exist.

well since the 1930's when fdr first proposed universal healthcare in america its been shotdown, again and again, obama and his administration would've pushed for universal healthcare many of them had in the past but they couldn't get it. As I said, its right wing comprise, but that doesn't mean we on the left didn't get access to decent healthcare for 16 million including millions of children with pre-existing conditions that would never get access to decent healthcare

that's 16 million potential new comrades, we will need them to be healthy and strong, if we are to over throw the bourgeoisie, comrade

[willowtooth]

Actually there was a period of time when those associated with the Mont Pelerin Society (established in 1947) -- which included Friedman and Hayek -- did call themselves 'neoliberals'. But the 'neo' was felt to be too much of a tip-off so the label was dropped.

The ACA has very little in common with historic American liberal programs like Social Security and Medicare. No pretense in setting up a marketplace like the ACA does with its exchanges. Needless to say that is why they both work and are popular with the American public.

Neo-liberalism is all about government intervention in the private economy but a different type of intervention. An intervention on the side of capital with the covering fig leaf of establishing markets where markets did not previously exist.

well since the 1930's when fdr first proposed universal healthcare in america its been shotdown, again and again, obama and his administration would've pushed for universal healthcare many of them had in the past but they couldn't get it. As I said, its right wing comprise, but that doesn't mean we on the left didn't get access to decent healthcare for 16 million including millions of children with pre-existing conditions that would never get access to decent healthcare

that's 16 million potential new comrades, we will need them to be healthy and strong, if we are to over throw the bourgeoisie, comrade

[BIXX]

Willowtooth do you advocate for voting for the democrats

[Os Cangaceiros]

Don't worry, there will be another economic crisis. Someday official unemployment will be back up to 10% and there will be even more handwringing and moaning by the left-wing organizations, followed by a long malaise when they realize that they haven't actually accomplished that much.

Is the sovereign debt crisis in Europe even over? I haven't really been paying attention, although I caught something on the news about Greece earlier in the week. I guess it's still a basketcase, or...?

The last time I was really inspired and invigorated by events was back in 2011, honestly. The events in Egypt followed by the 100,000 strong Wisconsin capital occupation followed by Occupy Wall Street, which had suprising longevity...I seriously thought that it would be isolated to NYC & would be over in a week. I'm 26 years old and that was the only time in my entire life when I actually thought that the world might be headed in a positive direction. So hopefully by the time I'm 50 it'll happen again!

Another thing to consider is what "success" would actually look like...what did you hope to come out of the crisis?

[Os Cangaceiros]

This was a good post about "obamacare":



A couple of notes here: Why stop calling Obamacare Obamacare? The bill was crafted behind the scenes by the insurance companies, in conjunction with Obama's approval, and then subtly filtered into congressional committees bit by by through back channels by the White House. The bill is exactly the one Obama wanted. The result is Obamacare. Even the liberals who think Obama can do no wrong now embrace the term. So in short, deal.

Two: Not to sound heartless, but I'm tired of hearing "Well, this is a good bill because my grandmother can get her kidneystones taken care of!" The country and world are bigger than your grandmother, as lovely as I am sure she is. We might as well concede to capitalists that capitalism is a damn good thing when capitalists argue, "Well, it lets my kids go to the finest schools and develop their full potential!" You need to think about the subpar, for-profit care that is now locked into place on a near-permanent basis thanks to this law, and you need to think of the hundreds of thousands of working people who will be mandated to pay, unsubsidized, for health insurance they can neither afford nor really use (since the policy won't be anything near respectable), lest they face a six hundred dollar fine from the government. Not only will they continue to lack healthcare, but they'll be even worse off thanks to the mandate. What about them? I guess they're not as important as your grandmother.

Three: The law will not provide "universal" healthcare. And nowhere does it even bother to pretend that it treats healthcare as a right. Even the most optimistic estimates indicate that hundreds of thousands of people (the penalty payers, mostly) will still not have health insurance or health care.

Four: There is a difference between health insurance and health care. The former is an institutionally based policy that is supposed to guarantee access to the other, but in for-profit systems such as in the US, this is far from always the case. Many of the policies that the newly "insured" people will have to fork out big money for will feature deductibles and co-pays so high that they will function as worthless certificates -- perhaps overpriced catastrophic insurance -- for their bearers (though, of course, they represent dollar signs for the insurance company).

from here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/supreme-court-upholds-t173092/index2.html) (a post from yours truly about the role of the pharmaceutical industry in the whole affair is also there, yeah! Haha)

Anyway, this is a site for the discussion of far left politics so please, no shilling for obomber.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Don't worry, there will be another economic crisis. Someday official unemployment will be back up to 10% and there will be even more handwringing and moaning by the left-wing organizations, followed by a long malaise when they realize that they haven't actually accomplished that much.

Is the sovereign debt crisis in Europe even over? I haven't really been paying attention, although I caught something on the news about Greece earlier in the week. I guess it's still a basketcase, or...?

The last time I was really inspired and invigorated by events was back in 2011, honestly. The events in Egypt followed by the 100,000 strong Wisconsin capital occupation followed by Occupy Wall Street, which had suprising longevity...I seriously thought that it would be isolated to NYC & would be over in a week. I'm 26 years old and that was the only time in my entire life when I actually thought that the world might be headed in a positive direction. So hopefully by the time I'm 50 it'll happen again!

Another thing to consider is what "success" would actually look like...what did you hope to come out of the crisis?
Success would be the left actually being able to intervene and change the terms of debate the next time that capitalism has one its periodic crisis of legitimacy. The last time the left was able to do so was in the 30s.

Since the crisis this time was a financial one it will take years for the debt overhang to be worked out of the system. We have just entered the chronic phase of the crisis. With austerity firmly in place.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's kind of hard to use the 1930's as a benchmark for today's era but the left pretty much failed then too, didn't they? If anything that was really a low-mark for the left internationally, with fascist regimes seizing power in Spain (after a bitter defeat for communists), Germany and Italy, and with Stalin cementing his power in the USSR.

In the USA there was some progress for worker's organizations and labor movements but the far left was pretty much thwarted and marginalized here too, ultimately.

Also, the previously mentioned USSR. It existed during the 1930's and served as a beacon for the far left during that time (the official communist organizations in the USA like the Communist Party pretty much took Stalin at his word). We don't have anything like that today

[Popular Front of Judea]

It's kind of hard to use the 1930's as a benchmark for today's era but the left pretty much failed then too, didn't they? If anything that was really a low-mark for the left internationally, with fascist regimes seizing power in Spain (after a bitter defeat for communists), Germany and Italy, and with Stalin cementing his power in the USSR.

In the USA there was some progress for worker's organizations and labor movements but the far left was pretty much thwarted and marginalized here too, ultimately.

Also, the previously mentioned USSR. It existed during the 1930's and served as a beacon for the far left during that time (the official communist organizations in the USA like the Communist Party pretty much took Stalin at his word). We don't have anything like that today
Sadly the far left's historical role has been that of a foil to the center left. The center left can say to the capitalist establishment "the only thing standing between those far left crazies and you is us". Unfortunately for us today there isn't much of a credible far left threat to speak of.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think willowtooth highlights an important reality about the left, which is that it has become an extension of social services. The left no longer poses a legitimate challenge to capitalism, but provides a service in which the issues of capital are managed. Not only is it providing this service, but we should all feel ethically emboldened by it.

[Mr. Piccolo]

It's kind of hard to use the 1930's as a benchmark for today's era but the left pretty much failed then too, didn't they? If anything that was really a low-mark for the left internationally, with fascist regimes seizing power in Spain (after a bitter defeat for communists), Germany and Italy, and with Stalin cementing his power in the USSR.

In the USA there was some progress for worker's organizations and labor movements but the far left was pretty much thwarted and marginalized here too, ultimately.

Also, the previously mentioned USSR. It existed during the 1930's and served as a beacon for the far left during that time (the official communist organizations in the USA like the Communist Party pretty much took Stalin at his word). We don't have anything like that today

The collapse of the USSR, as imperfect as it was, was a complete disaster for the Left because it removed the primary living model of socialism in the world that kept Western capitalists on their toes. The transition to capitalism in China had the same negative impact.

Another problem has been the increase in social isolation and individualism among working people that makes organization very difficult. How can you build a popular left-wing movement when people don't feel any solidarity with each other?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

One of the most important things I took away from reading "The Coming Insurrection" is that we are currently living, and have always lived, in the "crises." An "economic crises" means nothing. Capitalism is nothing but a crises and there is no such thing as "social peace" under it's system, just managed conflict. No, the "opening" has not been closed. Revolutionaries should always be looking for ways to "unmanage" conflict, escalating tension, polarizing bodies, and sabotaging daily life.

This is why it is so important to begin from attack and from a refusal to bargain with the existing power structure.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Ah "The Coming Insurrection". Takes me back to those heady days of 2008...

[willowtooth]

Willowtooth do you advocate for voting for the democrats

thats a loaded question, i don't obviously recommend electoral politics as a way to bring about the social revolution, and I certainly wouldn't argue with someone who abstains from voting, whether as, an objection to their voting system, or because they just simply don't believe in voting.

but if someone is going to participate in electoral politics and is going to vote for someone anyway, then yes I would

I think there is big misunderstanding between parliament style democracy and american style democracy, the democrats are the oldest political party on planet earth still in existence, so why not vote for them? Wouldn't any other political party that stands a chance at winning, be just as bad? Should we vote for a party that will maybe control 3% of the vote and not get a single representative elected? Americans reform their parties while parliaments seem too overthrow political parties, by making mergers, and all of sorts of parties get into office (I honestly don't know how you guys can stand it lol:) )

[RedMaterialist]

Yes. But the next crisis, due in 2015-2018, will open a new window. Because of the internet the memory of the 2008 crisis will be fresh.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm unemployed now but right before i left my last job our insurance premiums were increasing 100% over 2014's which had already seen a 50% increase from 2013. A number of my friends at other employers had their insurance dropped altogether when obama care finally got rolling. I'm not really prepared to accept that as a victory. Has anyone actually gone on the exchange and looked at what's on offer? That shit is not cheap and the cheapest ones have insane deductibles and copays. The Medicaid expansion is great, but its like they intentionally tried to fuck as many people as they could in the process.

[Blake's Baby]

One of the most important things I took away from reading "The Coming Insurrection" is that we are currently living, and have always lived, in the "crises." An "economic crises" means nothing. Capitalism is nothing but a crises and there is no such thing as "social peace" under it's system, just managed conflict. No, the "opening" has not been closed...

I disagree. With the latter part if not the former. Yes, 'crisis' (with implications that it's a short-term or unusual thing, a destabilisation of some kind of 'normal' 'smooth running') is not a suitable word for the way capitalism operates. But the particular conjunction of disasters that gave us some scope to make propaganda from 2007-2011 is over. 'We' (for any given value of 'we') missed the boat and failed to make of the particular shitstorm of capitalism what we we could have made.



... Revolutionaries should always be looking for ways to "unmanage" conflict, escalating tension, polarizing bodies, and sabotaging daily life.

This is why it is so important to begin from attack and from a refusal to bargain with the existing power structure.

Don't disagree with this at all, however. I just think it's going to be harder now than it was maybe 5 years ago.

[cyu]

Capitalism creates the conditions for its own demise.

Moderates can delay revolution with reforms - maybe 50% homelessness and unemployment lead to revolution, but 5% homelessness with the rest doing useless make-work is acceptable.

Right-wingers might try fascism or world war as a last ditch attempt to distract the masses.

In either case, neither is any real solution to the failures of capitalism. It's just the ruling class too afraid of change, so they try to kick the can down the road, but like any festering disease, capitalism itself will haunt capitalists until it's cured.

[cyu]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-08/billionaire-cartier-owner-sees-wealth-gap-fueling-social-unrest

the South African who has made billions peddling Cartier jewelry and Chloe fashion, said tension between the rich and poor is set to escalate.

“We cannot have 0.1 percent of 0.1 percent taking all the spoils, it is not sustainable.”

Conflicts between social classes will make selling luxury goods more tricky as the rich will want to conceal their wealth, Rupert said at the Financial Times Business of Luxury Summit in Monaco.

“We are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us. So that’s what keeps me awake at night.”

“We’re in for a huge change in society. Get used to it. And be prepared.”

[Comrade Jacob]

It's a shame things are working out for the capitalists, it shows we really don't have any potential and are still too comfortable.
We grew a bit but still didn't make the most of it.

[James_Connolly]

It's a shame things are working out for the capitalists, it shows we really don't have any potential and are still too comfortable.
We grew a bit but still didn't make the most of it.

It's definitely a shame. But history is on our side :grin:

[Rafiq]

This crises will never die. Why? Because even if all is well on the stock markets, the fact is that for the past three decades the working people have not remained docile, content, and servile because they were living well. It was ultimately the ideological, the political shifts in the rule of capital that struck the biggest blow to the working people - it was the illusion of a new era, following the collapse of the Socialist bloc and with it all hope for an alternative society, coinciding with an era of rapid globalization and financial growth.

Two events, 9/11, and the 2008 financial crises shattered this dream forever. There is no going back to it - people have seen the depravity of capitalism first hand, and even if they recovered now the precariousness of which this "new order" rests upon has been made bare to all. The financial crises was important NOT because it simply induced suffering among the masses, but because it created a permanent rift in ruling ideology, a sense of insecurity, and most of all it once again was able to divide society on class lines.

The "opening" has been here, and has always been here - in fact it is the financial crisis which had instilled hope in the incompetent left in the first place! The grievances and ills of the working people have not decreased, but greatly increased through neoliberalism. Who fell the most susceptible to the dream of the 1990's? It was not the working people, it was the Left! The Left has failed to provide leadership - that is why we are in this mess we are. Working people are always ready to bring fire and brimstone upon this world, there need not be crisis to motivate them. Even during the stable years before the financial crisis, class antagonism still existed. Only the Fascists gain from crisis - let the Great Depression be a reminder of that.

[cyu]

I remember just a few years ago, media commentators were all giddy about the fact that the internet was going to be opening up anti-democratic societies, and that things like Twitter-revolutions were going to take down those nasty dictatorships once and for all. Little did they know they were also describing their own countries - it's all fun and games gloating about the fall of "enemy" nations, until it happens to your own :lol: