neoliberal policies


NEOLIBERALISM is that politician who’s just a tad too friendly with big business & Wall Street banks, but not very friendly to teachers and labor unions. Neoliberalism is “socially liberal, but very fiscally conservative

Neoliberalism is for good things like marriage equality, but its also in favor of terrible things like private prisons, mass incarceration, privatized schools, gutting welfare, “ means testing” basic social services, and approving the keystone pipeline

Neoliberalism never goes hard in the paint for a $15 an hour minimum wage

Neoliberalism is putting a smiley face on harmful Republican fiscal policies

Neoliberalism is soft conservatism

nightsky6  asked:

I don't understand, aren't liberals democrats and progressives...? I'm a little confused. Pls shed some light

Anonymous said to berniesrevolution:

I thought Bernie was a liberal

Anonymous said to berniesrevolution:

Protip: don’t say the whole “left” thing. Bernie is a progressive and wonderful person. Applying simply “left” to him is not a good discription. It kind of fucks both parties here.

Anonymous said to berniesrevolution:

Is a liberal now like a neo-liberal? Sorry, I’m confused by all the terms now…

We have had a few of these recently, so I figured I would address them all at once. 

There is a problem with using the term Liberal in politics, especially in the United States. Two facets of any ideology are Social and Economic policy. In the United States, we have had an odd arrangement with our political parties. Prior to Clinton, the Democratic party had Liberal Social and a more Conservative Economic Policy. The Republican’s, since Reagan, have had Conservative social and Neo-Liberal Economic Policy. Since Clinton, the Democrats have been pushing Liberal Social and Neo-Liberal Economic Policy. 

See how confusing that is? When you say “Liberal” context is important. Are we talking economic issues, social issues or the amount of cheese on nachos? 

It can become very confusing. 

That being said, here are some basic definitions to help you out:

Hence why Bernie is a Leftist, a Progressive and a Liberal. 

This is also why I am @theliberaltony

anonymous asked:

war is a necessary evil for the us gov, this is fact. obama did what he could to limit suffering and death, even if he still was responsible for taking lives he did it in the most humane way imo. trump thinks we should ramp up our nuclear arsenal and most likely would engage war in the most brutal/pragmatic way. im not the same anon but i find it ridiculous to think democrats, especially obama, would conduct war in a less humane way than repubs/trump. just my 2cents

the wars the US has been involved in in afghanistan and iraq and syria are not necessary in any way they were and are pointless wars that did nothing but murdered thousands of people. and theres no fucking humane way to murder kids via drone strikes i seriously cant believe people think theres a “good” way to implement neoliberal imperialist policies that blow up civilians. “in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.” from

heres another article on the amount of strikes and civilian deaths:

how is this necessary or humane in any way. i agree that trump is worse but dont act like obama hasnt been killing people either and there was never anything necessary about it. theres no humane way to murder people

neoliberal-warhawk replied to your post: tfw you learn that may called a snap election in…

Corbyn is their Burning Sandals, so Labour is fucked. And the LibDems have imploded because of their coalition with the Tories from 2010-2015

yeah, i know about corbyn. i didn’t know that about the libdems though, damn. i’m just wondering what either of their odds are to pick up some seats, if any.

i’m going on an article hunt, lol.


Trump is not antineoliberal. He is attempting to be a charismatic fascist which fully included supporting capitalists and a managerial class

Agreed. But he has been heralded, by many on the Left, as a “sign of the times,” i.e., as a rejection of the neoliberal policies of globalism/unilateral free trade that led to the loss of American manufacturing jobs overseas. Trump ran on an anti-globalist, protectionist platform. He has bowed out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, plans to divest millions from the World Bank, and vowed to slap high tariffs on overseas imports/restructure NAFTA, etc. 

So on the one hand there is no doubt that his election presents a negative reaction to neoliberal economic policy. But my point is that it can’t just narrowly be defined as that. Not only because, as you point out, he fully represents the interests of Wall Street and abides by neoliberal conceptions of the state, etc. But also, because Trumpism/ “neofascism” as a phenomenon is not what happens “after” neoliberalism but might be internal to neoliberalism itself as mode of ensuring that “after” doesn’t come about. I guess the question is if an anti-globalist neoliberalism can exist, and whether it might not be its next iteration.

UK In Shock: Edwina Is Back

In 1988, then Health Secretary Edwina Currie was forced to resign from Britain’s Conservative government. Why? She had informed the public that “most of the egg production in this country, sadly, is now affected with salmonella.” This claim was untrue and, not surprisingly, caused a fair amount of public hysteria. Edwina was gone.

She’s back though. This time, she has singled out not eggs but hungry children. The woman seems determined not to believe reports pointing out that there is hunger on a massive scale in one of the richest countries in the world. Yet while this is indeed hard to credit, it nevertheless is a fact - a disgusting, appalling, sickening consequence of neoliberal policies.

Here’s what she tweeted on the subject - and I have added my favorite reply, which in a few simple words explains reality to yet another representative of a clique obviously determined not to accept hard evidence where this clashes with their ideology.
Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us | Paul Verhaeghe
Paul Verhaeghe: An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities
By Paul Verhaeghe

We tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces. But over decades of research and therapeutic practice, I have become convinced that economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities. Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has become normative. If you’re reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.

There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is articulateness, the aim being to win over as many people as possible. Contact can be superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won’t really be noticed.

It’s important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you’ve got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That’s why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.

On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges. In practice, this leads to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won’t be you who has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy checklist by Robert Hare, the best-known specialist on psychopathy today.

This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation.

Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it’s known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.

Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has aptly described as the “infantilisation of the workers”. Adults display childish outbursts of temper and are jealous about trivialities (“She got a new office chair and I didn’t”), tell white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings of revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees as adults.

More important, though, is the serious damage to people’s self-respect. Self-respect largely depends on the recognition that we receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes to a similar conclusion when he sees the main question for employees these days as being “Who needs me?” For a growing group of people, the answer is: no one.

Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated, guilty and ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage of our social security system.

A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom. Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.

The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: “Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless.” We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.

Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, “make” something of ourselves. You don’t need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master’s degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?

There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy reflects changed ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us.

Carry on the Legacy of Malcolm X, Yuri Kochiyama, and Ho Chi Minh
May 19, 2015

Anakbayan-USA honors and celebrates the birth anniversaries of Malcolm X, Yuri Kochiyama, and Ho Chi Minh, three staunch anti-imperialists who embodied the spirit of international solidarity. Just as Yuri and Ho stood in solidarity with oppressed African Americans in their time, we stand with the people of Baltimore, Ferguson, and people across the US who are rising up in protest against the brutal extrajudicial killings of our Black brothers and sisters. We call upon all Filipino American youth to heed Yuri Kochiyama’s life-long call to “build bridges, not walls.” We are in solidarity with all oppressed peoples and communities fighting for self-determination against economic attacks and state terrorism under US imperialism, our common enemy.

At the same time, we stand with the call of Asians across the US who also cry justice for slain African-American Akai Gurley and demand that Chinese-American NYPD officer Peter Liang be held fully accountable for his death. We will not allow white supremacy to drive a wedge between Black and Asian communities and pit us against each other in the media  in order to maintain the status quo. All police officers, no matter what their race, must be held accountable for the killings they commit.

The lives of Malcolm, Yuri, and Ho continue to serve as examples for youth of color facing white supremacy and state violence today. It is justified to rebel against an oppressive system that does not serve the needs and interests of the people, to defend oneself as Malcolm stated, “by any means necessary.”  After living as a worker in the US from 1912-1918 and integrating with the progressive Black community in Harlem, Ho Chi Minh later returned to Vietnam to lead the national liberation struggle against French colonialism. Yuri Kochiyama also worked with the progressive Black community in Harlem fifty years later during the 1960’s and joined Malcolm X’s organization. She also supported various national liberation struggles throughout her life, including today’s ongoing revolution in the Philippines. The extrajudicial killing of Malcolm X in 1965 by government assets was executed at a time when his politics began to evolve towards an internationalist perspective due to his travels among the oppressed people of the world.

We urge today’s youth to learn from their examples and realize the interconnectedness between the struggles of poor and working class people across the world. Only by immersing ourselves in working class communities can we concretely understand how people from the US to the Philippines and countries across the globe are all suffering under US imperialism and neoliberal policies. We must carry on and push forward the organizing work started by Malcolm, Yuri, and Ho in order to bring about a more just and humane future.

State terrorism and fascist police violence against African-Americans in the US are a constant thread throughout this country’s existence. The police principally function to serve and protect the property and business interests of the ruling class by quelling the resistance of the working class masses. This rang true in the 1960’s during the time of Malcolm X and was recently demonstrated in Baltimore as well as in other uprisings such as Los Angeles in 1992.

The US was founded by racist slave owners and the wealth of this nation’s ruling class was accumulated through the massive inhumane exploitation of working people and people of color. The first police forces in the US were Slave Patrols created to protect the property of slave owners from rebellion by interrogating and persecuting African-Americans without any justification or due process. This unjust practice continues today as police are increasingly being exposed for their unjust and widespread treatment of African-Americans as automatic criminal suspects and threats to the oppressive status quo.

In tandem with the denial of basic resources and underfunding of social services such as education and youth development programs, the police consistently attack African-American and other communities of color as a means to continue capitalist profit-making through the prison-industrial complex. We demand an end to this malicious scheme and call for systemic changes for the people to gain political power to determine the future of their communities.

Anakbayan-USA raises our fists across the nation to remember and learn from Malcolm, Yuri and Ho as revolutionary examples of offering one’s life in complete service of the people. In the same spirit, we salute the community organizers and people of Baltimore who are proactively seizing the situation as a way to build collective strength in their community and work towards meaningful social change. We are in solidarity with the people of Baltimore who are in the struggle for their livelihood; calling for liveable jobs to rise from poverty, to end the school-to-prison pipeline, to seize self-determination, and demanding their right to live.

anonymous asked:

Can you make a post about what neoliberalism involves? What policies neoliberal governments have? When they started to adopt these policies, etc?

yeah i’ll post one probably much later tonight and reblog tomorrow day it’s not a short story and i don’t have time immediately.

but in the mean time this is a quite good article on neoliberalism in canada from canadian dimension.

kellytran  asked:

hi! i saw your post about filipinx and just my opinion i think that the discussion on it should include filipino-americans or western filipinos since it's that community that seemed to use the term a lot i'm not one of them but ive been discussing it somewhat with a friend of mine and we both think that it's not as simple as "let's use/not use this term" especially when you take into consideration how they're trying to adapt to western contexts because of their migrant situation

hello! thanks for your question! it’s refreshing to see someone actually want to discuss the issue instead of just reblogging it and going “ay” “this” “oh”. anyway, let’s get to it

we (filipinos in the philippines) are not discounting the struggles in diaspora—and we can never identify with these experiences until we, too, are displaced—but the way filipinx/pilipinx identity is mobilized needs to be interrogated. the term is problematic at its mildest, and actively harmful at its worst.

Keep reading

If centrist political parties want leftists to vote for them, they should try responding to the concerns of leftist voters, rather than just telling them that they’re a bunch of nazis if they don’t keep supporting utterly failed neoliberal policies for eternity.

Neoliberalism is living on borrowed time, friends.

Neoliberalism insists that the creation of a free market, which means the elimination of all attempts by states to restrain the market, will ultimately benefit all countries. A fundamental axiom of conventional economics is that the market acts as a regulator. Whether and how it does so applies mainly to the prices, production, and sale of commodities. The use of the surplus, however, has no such clear relation to the market’s regulatory mechanism. This has become increasingly evident as the stagnation tendency has persisted. As opportunities for investment in production of goods and services slowed down, despite the opportunities offered by the new technology, more and more of the surplus was devoted to a vast expansion of finance.

As capital’s expansion through imperialism and colonialism began to run out of new people and places to drain the value from, it turned largely to the creation and accumulation of debt as the rates of growth, wages and demand all became stagnant. The following shows the increasingly large portion of Gross National Product that the finance-capital debt has constituted since 1950.

We can clearly see the sudden climb in the early 1980s with sweeping introductions of neoliberal policies. With capitalism’s (and neoliberalism’s) failure to stimulate increasing growth this house of cards built from obscene levels of debt made it possible to hide the throes of capitalist crises by using it to boost demand despite decades of wage stagnation. The internal contradictions of capitalism are always intensifying, and the only thing keeping it from crumbling onto the shaky foundation of that debt is further globalization.

Aided by information technology, financial markets became increasingly international. Globalization became the order of the day as capital searched every recess of the globe for profit opportunities. The ruling ideology celebrated the speed-up of globalization claiming that a rising tide raises all ships—even more so for the underdeveloped countries if the latter would adopt the free market ideology of the core countries. The result—hardly what was promised—has been plummeting growth rates in most cases.

For those whose vision of the future is confined within those boundaries acceptable to capitalism, all of this will no doubt be viewed as an utterly gloomy picture. Globalization under neoliberal regimes has meant in many ways the globalization of stagnation tendencies and financial crisis. The capitalist world economy is confronted everywhere with unused productive capacity and mountains of debt. Nor is there any obvious solution to these problems within the context of the system. To top it all off, the social fallout of this latest phase of crisis has yet to emerge.

Yet it is upon such social fallout that all those whose vision of the future is not confined to capitalism pin their hopes—the opening up of alternative paths through struggle. We do not know what the future will bring, nor how many struggles will be needed to reach the aim of a society ruled by the people and designed to meet the needs of populations throughout the world. We can, however, be assured of two things: that this aim will never be achieved without militant class struggle, and that an equitable, sustainable capitalist world economy is not part of the future of humanity.

Quotes from “The New Face of Capitalism: Slow Growth, Excess Capital and a Mountain of Debt” Paul M. Sweezy, John Bellamy Foster, Robert W. McChesney, & Harry Magdoff (Monthly Review)

I’ve tried to stay silent about politics, but I wanna take a second to explain who are the people that are saying “Never Hillary”. It’s not just the “Bernie Bros” that are butt hurt that their guy didn’t win. I’ve been marching in Philly for the past couple of days and I meet and heard a lot of people talk out about how Hillary and the neoliberal policies of the democrats have effected their lives.

I met mothers who continue to live in poverty because of the 1996 welfare reform act that decimated the welfare system, and then lost their sons and daughters to broken windows policing. I met people who remember when Philly democrats bombed a black liberation group in a residential neighborhood.

I met undocumented immigrants who had to flee their countries because of instability caused by the drug war or by military coups supported by the US while Hillary was Secretary of State, only to face the criminalization of border crossing, or else long interments in ICE prisons, and continued risk of violent, unannounced deportation during the night. ICE has increased under president Obama 3600%.

I meet people who were mysteriously deregistered upon getting to the polls, even though they had checked their registration online and had been voting for years. I meet statisticians who where studying ballot discrepancies between hand counted and machine counted ballots, in favor of Hillary, some by up to 10%. Those same statisticians where studying very curious statistical anomalies over the 20+ states they had studied so far. All of it points to wide spread voter fraud that favored Hillary.

The democrats are undoubtedly more progressive than the Republicans. But the system is so deeply broken that the tired call to “vote for the lesser of too evils” feels very hollow to those most hurt by the current democratic leaders. And the patronizing attitude towards people who “will let Trump win just to prove a point” will do nothing to change peoples minds. We can only hope that Democrats will understand what we have been trying to say when they see the consequences of their refusal to reform. We must have compassion for those who have been most hurt by our system. I don’t know who I’m going to vote for, and I certainly won’t tell anyone else how to vote. There are no good choices in this election. And to quote Ted Cruz, of all people, “We must vote with our conscience.”

Neoliberalism absolutely must be smashed.

The absolutely disastrous policies of neoliberals have caused so much ground to be lost to fascism. The longer their bankrupt ideology has any real power anywhere the more and more ground will be lost to the fascist menace. Do not allow the neoliberals to control discourse or debate. Challenge them at every turn. Hound them for losing so much to fascism. Hound them for their capitulation to capitalism. Do not allow them even a Vichy Government.

As it stands, Turkey under Erdogan is incredibly unstable [despite how Turkish media may make it seem] and Erdogan’s policies only make things worse and worse. Turkey’s economy is somewhat similar to that of the US before the housing market crash, as it’s built on an unsustainable bubble based on neoliberal economic policies and extreme development projects that have made thousands of Turks essentially homeless. This, coupled with the influx of refugees that Turkey can’t properly sustain, who were accepted so that Erdogan could ~show the world~ how noble and capable a leader he is, spending tons of money on “state of the art refugee camps” that can only house a small fraction of the number of refugees in Turkey in the first place, as well as his pushing of Islam into politics and governance [from his school reform programs, to his restructuring of the police forces, who were on his side during the coup], ON TOP of his direct support of ISIS [treating ISIS/Daesh commanders in Turkish hospitals and then letting them go, bombing the Kurds fighting against ISIS] have all contributed greatly to this instability and precarious position, greatening the split in Turkish society between those who practically worship him, and those who want him gone

Despite all this, however, a military coup right now [despite being “ripe” for it, so to speak] is extremely dangerous, which could be part of the very reason why it failed in the first place.

Were a coup to take place and succeed, Erdogan would be ousted and the military would be in charge. The problem is, there hasn’t been a leader with as strong a following since modern Turkey’s founder, Ataturk [who Erdogan despises while also trying to emulate him]. Even if Erdogan was ousted and a military coup was successful, his legion of followers, from those in the government [he has been consolidating power over the last few years] to the millions of citizens, to the entire police force that practically works for HIM, would not take it sitting down. There would be conflict, greater instability, and more turmoil than anything we’re seeing right now. 

This kind of turmoil is not something Turkey can afford right now, as such cracks in Turkish society/governance/military would allow ISIS to seep in from the Syrian border and increase the number of attacks against civilians. Such a situation would lead to extremely elevated levels of xenophobia towards the Syrian refugees [who are already facing lots of trouble and racism] as well as Turkey’s Kurdish citizens, who are always the scapegoats for when things go wrong.

It’s this same threat of complete chaos, the same threat that may have helped motivate those responsible for the coup, that may have led to its collapse and failure.

Unless the coup was completely successful without hitch, the military risked the above scenario and a potential civil-war. They may have underestimated the legions of people who support Erdogan answering his call and taking to the streets to fight off the coup. This friction/opposition meant that the military had to decide between fully committing to the coup and fighting back and risking such a civil war, or realizing that they had failed and kinda just half-assing it…knowing that their lives are essentially over no matter how it goes anyways. The fear of what damage they may potentially cause if they weren’t completely successful may have served to destroy moral in this already poorly-executed coup.

The second Turkey’s control starts to slip, it’s nothing but a steep downhill decline in security and heavy lurch to the far-right in sight.

As it stands, however, the failure of this coup is no doubt only going to strengthen Erdogan’s position. Supporters of Erdogan will become emboldened by their success in fighting off the military, Erdogan will now have field-tested the support of his cult followers, and he will use this to his advantage to cleanse the remaining opposition he faces in whatever sectors of society/government he chooses to target and bolster his influence in the region as he becomes emboldened and tries to move Turkey past what is currently happening.

Given all the different variables, the entire ordeal is lose/lose. Under Erdogan, Turkey has become more and more unstable, he is among those responsible for ISIS growing strength in Syria, and whether or not a military coup will be the cause of it, he is setting the stage for a major economic collapse in Turkey. Under the military, there may have potentially been greater internal conflict within Turkey, further exacerbating the instability, resulting in a fractured military trying to rule with an iron fist “in the name of security” while ISIS takes advantage and seeps in.

Frankly, it’s a mess, and while civilian casualties are never something to celebrate or jeer at, I wouldn’t be opposed to comments of “you will reap what you sow” aimed at Erdogan, as despite Turkey’s history of military coup’s, he is to blame for the current situation in Turkey and making these people WANT a coup in the first place.
Goodbye, American neoliberalism. A new era is here | Cornel West
Trump’s election was enabled by the policies that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. We gird ourselves for a frightening future
By Cornel West

The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians.

The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.

White working- and middle-class fellow citizens – out of anger and anguish – rejected the economic neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process.

This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.

(Continue Reading)

What I say: “Maybe some white working class voters chose Trump because they’ve been living with the consequences of the Democrats’ neoliberal policies for so long. These policies have stripped them of their dignity and livelihoods and driven them into the hands of fascists and white supremacists who offer (what has now become) the only narrative that makes sense any more. Perhaps the only way to detoxify these people and to challenge racism effectively is to dismantle the systems that drive people into the arms of racists”

What liberals hear: “Maybe the Dems should try being more racist next time”


In-depth reports and analysis from our extensive network of correspondents throughout the region on the most important developments in Latin America. After traveling throughout Mexico for 11 days, a caravan of Yaqui indigenous leaders, labor unions, environmental rights activists,  and farm workers marched in Mexico City against neoliberal policies that have forced them off their lands, privatized their natural resources and left them exploited in the workplace. They are also demanding freedom for Yaqui political prisoners Mario Luna and Fernando Jimenez, imprisoned for the last eight months. Since 2010, the Yaqui tribe which has defended their territory and way of life for more than 2,000 years in the northern state of Sonora, has been threatened by a state-sponsored aqueduct that illegally pumps 16 million cubic liters of water a year from the Yaqui river to private developers and industry. During the caravan, they met people in different parts of the country who are facing similar problems. The Yaquis propose that people in all parts of the country implement injunctions against the new federal water privatization bill that allows for full or partial concessions to private companies to operate, preserve, maintain, rehabilitate, modernize or expand water infrastructure built by the federal government.

Shred Your Licenses!

Marriage, as a goal, was specifically conceived of as a way to gain the financial benefits that were afforded to apparently-straight couples, and moreover within a revolutionary framework required the justification that the importance of marriage was an affirmation of a specific colonizing concept-of-marriage between individualized and yet nonexistent heterosexuals, and that the ideology surrounding it specifically invoked the prohibitionary view on homosexuality that informed the concept of heterosexuality. 

Marriage, as a goal, was not merely about love because legal marriage defining love is specifically paired with the redoubling of marriage where the ceremony denoting love is paired with the legal status of becoming married, of a specific relationship between man and woman that was conceived of under this heterosexual framework and thus only named as marriage in legal terms.

Conceiving of marriage as a goal of love is specifically a liberal assimilationist turn that takes the attempt to find legal protection and specifically utilizes it for the justification of the institution itself. The prohibited homosexual sense of marriage must reflect a heterosexual one, and moreover is even in “equality” still fundamentally lacking, but that this could be fixed through the structures of government which created the deficit in the first place.

Advances in trans rights have been much the same, in that they have come only when subjected to a specific teleology of the body that affirms violent and horrifying claims about transness, and moreover require an acquiescence to binary gender. Having gendered markers to affirm nonbinary gender is part of demarcating dysphoria, nonbinary identity, and the phenomenological experience of the two as only legible with the state’s hand inscribing it upon oneself. 

That gender markers are so often linked with an affirmation of transness as pathological, and in fact are in many ways the basis of a trans pathology, the creation of sex-and-thus-gender, the act of differentiation between the two noted as part of a medicalization of the body cannot be separated from how that marking process is a coercive and violent structure. No matter how affirming that one letter on your license may seem, it is part of a structure wherein gender is only made intelligible through the sexing-and-thus-gendering of the body through violent demarcation, through designation into one of two possibilities and extrapolation from that. 

Trans liberation cannot meaningfully occur within or through structures, machines, acts that are directing the flows which make transness comprehensible as a relationship between coercive structures. Being able to start and stop specific flows does nothing to destroy the machine in question, and the fascist tendencies of liberalism and capitalism make it so that the expansion of capitalism’s body has more of these machines with which to direct its violence. That one may occasionally be able to start or stop a specific flow does not mean that the machine can be entirely controlled by oneself, or even by a collective (one, you, us, we, so on). 

The opportunity for conceiving of radical assembly, radical democracy, movement towards class consciousness or even the organization of a people’s war is only hampered by the process of thanking liberal apologists for the amelioration capitalism offers. Their willingness to allow the flow of fascist libidinal desire is quite evident. The electoral college has placed a fascist-elect in the White House, and while his opponent won the popular vote she was even less popular than a Massachusetts neoconservative who ran in 2012. Affirming one over another is specifically a rejection of radical democracy as a basis for or a part of assembly, and rejecting the possibility for a break from this. 

The multiplicity of gender that has supposedly followed queer theory, one derided as at fault for the loss of an uninteresting neoliberal better suited to policy advisor than presidential candidate, is not itself to be blamed for affirming a binary structuring of gender when its character is so immediately rhizomal. However, the language in which it deals is specifically one that institutes a Euro-American imperialist discourse upon bodies, one that cannot function without a priori institution of coercive structures of sex and gender. Sexed and gendered violences are the core of this structure and a knot of rhizomality within arborescent bodies cannot be mistaken for anything more than it can be, cannot be understood without that arborescent nodal connection.