zlacker

>>obilgi+(OP)
I wonder if it's bigger than Sealand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

When I look at the list of demands I'm pretty quick to dismiss it. Then I remember how I dismissed the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle too, and how many of the fears those protesters had were realized over the next two decades. I might be too hopeful, but I really think the city leadership should talk to them and hear them out, instead of just trying to push them over.

>>yingw7+S2
many of the fears those protesters had were realized over the next two decades

Is there a list of these fears somewhere? Ideally as presented at the time.

>>harryh+5I
well, globalization on neoliberal terms has continued to hollow out living standards in advanced countries while turning neocolonial countries into large sweatshops. the life expectancy in the US has fallen for 2 or 3 years in a row now largely as a downstream result of this. that is my understanding of one major concern from that.

>>0x262d+Ez1
What does “neoliberal” mean in this context?

>>throwa+SP1
I think of neoliberalism and neoconservativism as offshoots of corporatism, which is the idea that government can most efficiently serve the people by protecting the interests of corporations above all else.

This leads to the idea that regulatory capture is economically efficient (“Who is better qualified to regulate industry than successful industrialists?”)

It also leads to things like banning class action law suits, allowing binding arbitration, and allowing individuals to sign away arbitrary rights by implicitly accepting non-negotiated contracts they haven’t even seen.

Oakland has commercial enforcement zones, where private police enforce the law. The idea is that business owners weren’t getting a good deal by paying taxes to fund the police, because it was subsidizing law enforcement in residential areas. Instead, the merchants hire their own police, and pay less taxes. Oakland’s (mostly poor, black) residents fund the police that protect them out of their own taxes.

Anyway, you get the idea. Back to your question:

Neoconservatives generally think corporatism is best achieved by dismantling the government (“repeal Obamacare”).

Neoliberals think it is best achieved by restructuring it (mandate health insurance for all).

(Contrast that with the populists in that debate. They want to dismantle the health insurance industry and replace it with medicare.)

Usually, when people talk about moderates in the US, they mean corporatists. The MAGA crowd are mostly “right wing” populists (xenophobic, “America first”, bring back factory jobs), the BLM types tend to be “left wing” populists.

If you look up corporatism, you’ll see it is a shortened form of “corporate fascism”. I don’t think that term is particularly constructive, though it is accurate: the MAGA and BLM movements both accuse the establishment of being fascist.

One side targets neoliberals, the other, neocons. As General Mattis pointed out last week, divided we fall.