Abundance Movement is a Neoliberal Rebrand

[FlickShagwell]

1980 Democratic Party Platform | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

Two can play at this game.

Beginning March, 1933, the Democratic Administration took a series of actions which saved our system of free enterprise.

It brought that system out of collapse and thereafter eliminated abuses which had imperiled it.

It used the powers of government to provide employment in industry and to save agriculture.

It wrote a new Magna Carta for labor.

It provided social security, including old age pensions, unemployment insurance, security for crippled and dependent children and the blind. It established employment offices. It provided federal bank deposit insurance, flood prevention, soil conservation, and prevented abuses in the security markets. It saved farms and homes from foreclosure, and secured profitable prices for farm products.

It adopted an effective program of reclamation, hydro-electric power, and mineral development.

It found the road to prosperity through production and employment.

We pledge the continuance and improvement of these programs.

1944 Democratic Party Platform | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

 

[seminole97]

The true socialists that want to like make billionaires illegal, or execute landlords or whatever...they lost. It's over.

Bernie bro belief burns brightly.

The island wide blackout in Cuba is no doubt a conspiracy of the billionaires.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

...the case he is making so far is that we need government to actually be able to do stuff and not get blocked by well intentioned policies/regulations that prevent positive projects from happening efficiently.

And if you put ten people in a room, you get ten ideas for what that means.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

And if you put ten people in a room, you get ten ideas for what that means.

That is a fair criticism and probably a big part of the reason we are where we are.

 

[FlickShagwell]

The island wide blackout in Cuba is no doubt a conspiracy of the billionaires.

And the ones in Texas?

What a self-own you didn’t know you were doing.

 

[Colonoscopy]

The true socialists that want to like make billionaires illegal, or execute landlords or whatever...they lost. It's over.

Bernie bro belief burns brightly.

The island wide blackout in Cuba is no doubt a conspiracy of the billionaires.

I'm not so sure you guys are seeing this correctly.

I think we're probably going to be in as strong a position for major reform of a socialist -- I'm talking socialistic measures, not a true socialist economy -- as we've seen in a long time.

1) The change candidate has been the favorite for over a decade now.
2) Even the right is talking about economic populism. Populism is a thing now.
3) Wealth inequality is the highest it has been in over 100 years. (issues relating to cost of living, education, healthcare, etc, has been well documented)
4) MAGA is unlikely to deliver on their economic populist promises.
5) MAGA is likely enough to pass tax cuts for the ultra wealthy; cut spending on things people actually care about; and otherwise feature very prominently people like Musk. Which gives the opposition some real opportunity to make headway on the basis of the before mentioned items.
6) We're absolutely set for backlash against the ultra-wealthy.
7) Bernie, AOC etc... are already starting to tap into this. That's organic excitement returning on the democrats side.
8) The power the Trump admin is (potentially) giving the executive only better enables the opposition to pull this sort of reform off.

I think the cultural issues are set to take a back seat; "wokeism" or whatever you want to call it was waning before Trump took office.

If Trump 24 ends in a thud (where economic populism is concerned) and the democrats finally hit the right admixture where economic/working class issues are concerned -- while finally figuring out how to leave unpopular/interesting social issues on the sidelines -- then I think the stage is set.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

That is a fair criticism and probably a big part of the reason we are where we are.

'The best is the mortal enemy of the good'

- Montesquieu

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

He probably meant the agenda on its entirety. Which is a bar that has never been reached and would have you explain the intricacies of the change of an entire society and government.

I thought it was another case of sealioning or at least setting the stage for it.

Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter.




I'm such a damn cynic at this point that phrases like that scare me off. It's really hard to un-cynic nowadays for me.

I get the cynicism. Hell I share it, anyone that is against the current GOP agenda must feel at least bit cynical at the moment. We have a felon for a president, a DNI that perjures herself as part of an active cover up, a Bond villain running wild firing federal employees and disreputable teenagers running amok in our nation’s data.

At the same time, I think it is reasonable to question whether the regulations we put in place 50 years ago are doing the job we expect them to do today. Now, we might screw it all up in implementation, but I honestly think the Dems need to find a way to make government work better for their constituents than it does today. 2024 was not an affirmation of Trump. It was a cry for help from disadvantaged Americans that are looking for any port in a storm. Trump fed them some BS and they are likely not connecting the dots to see the rocky shoals that await if we allow the GOP to keep a stranglehold on all branches of government past 2026.

Is it possible to fix these things in today’s divisive climate? I don’t know. But I believe it is critical we debate them and find a path forward that helps Americans and not just the billionaires who are currently raiding the pantry.

 

[Ree4]

And if you put ten people in a room, you get ten ideas for what that means.

Actually you get 7 people that agree and then two of them that blame all the problems on the 10th person while trying to screw over the other 8

 

[Ree4]

I’ve read Bernie’s campaign website and his plans but it still doesn’t solve the core issue that is being presented by the Abundance theory and the arguments laid out by Ezra.

You can be general in your specifics as I’m not looking at the bones of each and every policy. To implement universal healthcare, (If I remember correctly, it would be like $40-$45 trillion over a decade.) how would the progressives use our current government to implement it to the masses and run it efficiently?

Some other time, I don't have the energy or time to respond now. At a buddy's house grilling and having a few beers.


There are plenty of places to research this but you're not being honest with yourself if you don't account for the current $5 trillion per year cost, $15,000 per capita which is double the cost and with some of the worst outcomes in the developed world with 68,000 dead annually because of lack of access.

 

[ericram]

Who doesn't love abundance? That is the first hint that this movement falls in line with the consumer and expansion functions of neoliberalism. The next hint is that neoliberal mouth piece Ezra Klein is behind it. Turns out it is also billionaire backed by people such as the still alive Koch brother as well as other libertarians.

Stop falling for centristy sounding things. We already have enough unfettered capitalism, and not enough regulations. This is just another attempt to move the Overton Window over to the right.

Neoliberal: an advocate or supporter of free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending
Overton Window: The Overton window is the range of subjects and arguments politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time

The Abundance Agenda: Neoliberalism’s Rebrand

The new centrist push to regain control of the Democratic Party, with corporate money

prospect.org

I am so far to the left of what is happening, I am currently standing on their right.

 

[seminole97]

And the ones in Texas?

What a self-own you didn’t know you were doing.

How many days since the blackout in Texas?
What percentage of homes, and for how many days?

Now tell us the same for Cuba.

I don't think you have any idea what is happening there.

I'm completely willing to make this comparison as far as you want to go.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

How many days since the blackout in Texas?
What percentage of homes, and for how many days?

Now tell us the same for Cuba.

I don't think you have any idea what is happening there.

I'm completely willing to make this comparison as far as you want to go.

Why do you keep bringing up Cuba. Do you think liberals want to make America Cuba?

That is pretty f*cking silly.

 

[FlickShagwell]

Now tell us the same for Cuba.

What the hell does Cuba have to do with anything?

 

[seminole97]

Why do you keep bringing up Cuba. Do you think liberals want to make America Cuba?

That is pretty f*cking silly.

Do you have any questions you'd like me to pose to my data analyst (Cuban emigre) about how Cuba delivered 'free healthcare' and avoided the pesky abundance problem?

The real shame of the Soviet collapse and the dissolution of the German Democratic Republic is the irreplaceable example it provided of the dearth that bureaucratic service and product delivery provides relative to the consumer driven model.

 

[seminole97]

What the hell does Cuba have to do with anything?

Lord knows we don't want to pay attention to the results of leaving the provision of goods and services to bureaucrats.

Let's pretend how it could be instead.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Lord knows we don't want to pay attention to the results of leaving the provision of goods and services to bureaucrats.

Let's pretend how it could be instead.

The reason I said you were being silly is most liberals like free markets. Suggesting most liberals want to make us Cuba is like me suggesting most conservatives want to make us Nazi Germany.

 

[FlickShagwell]

Suggesting most liberals want to make us Cuba is like me suggesting most conservatives want to make us Nazi Germany.

I mean….

 

[seminole97]

The reason I said you were being silly is most liberals like free markets.

Moral will tell those are really Neoliberals, not to be trusted, much less appealed to.

"Neoliberal: an advocate or supporter of free-market capitalism"

Suggesting most liberals want to make us Cuba is like me suggesting most conservatives want to make us Nazi Germany.

And yet Nazi Germany didn't have markets, production, prices, even where you were employed, were determined only with the approval of Nazi planners. National Socialism was complete government control of the economy and society.

Most liberals want the government to run major aspects of the economy. They don't want consumer choice driving things like education, or healthcare.

 

[TC Nole OX]

 

[Moral]

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Friendly reminder, you can't run a political party on your dad's credit card and good vibes.

 

[TC Nole OX]

Also posted in the Left Wing Media Hosts thread

What Is The 'Abundance' Agenda?​

 

[BrunoMars420]

Also posted in the Left Wing Media Hosts thread

What Is The 'Abundance' Agenda?​

View embedded media

I’ll take a listen to those two videos you and Moral posted today. Maybe I can have a better understanding of your side of the issue. Thanks for posting

 

[Nole Lou]

Just read/watch this, and Jon Stewart's reaction, and defend this way of doing things. Please try to defend that this is a good way for the government to deliver things.

 

[BrunoMars420]

Just read/watch this, and Jon Stewart's reaction, and defend this way of doing things. Please try to defend that this is a good way for the government to deliver things.

View embedded media

I was about to point out where we can all agree with this process.

So during the 14 steps the federal, state, and local governments give time for outside forces to basically litigate or give the ability for outside forces to push agenda/create policy. Wouldn’t we all be in agreement that this is one of the issues of this process is that we are giving certain outside forces too much influence on trying to complete a project? We all hate Citizens United but this kind of goes hand in hand with Citizens United and political influence imo. Why can’t we cut this process down, streamline the government, and still keep smart regulations?

 

[Nole Lou]

Please, please defend this state of affairs:

 

[ISUBryce]

Friendly reminder, you can't run a political party on your dad's credit card and good vibes.

The republican party is currently running on dad's credit card and bad vibes.

I'll take the other option.

 

[jneffer]

I was about to point out where we can all agree with this process.

So during the 14 steps the federal, state, and local governments give time for outside forces to basically litigate or give the ability for outside forces to push agenda/create policy. Wouldn’t we all be in agreement that this is one of the issues of this process is that we are giving certain outside forces too much influence on trying to complete a project? We all hate Citizens United but this kind of goes hand in hand with Citizens United and political influence imo. Why can’t we cut this process down, streamline the government, and still keep smart regulations?

allowing public input and review is pretty important part of planning or development, especially when being financed by the federal government

i deal with this stuff all the time, and there are many opportunities to streamline/improve/make more efficient.

but that conversation is a little disingenuous. the process klein is describing is "announcing the grant is open, developing a plan to spend the money available, getting that plan approved, get the money to spend"

what part of that general process is not necessary? states and counties and towns do not have existing strategies or analysis telling them where things like broadband investments should go. so if we're going to give them funds to spend on that, let's make sure that's being done based on some logical, analytical approach.

 

[BrunoMars420]

allowing public input and review is pretty important part of planning or development, especially when being financed by the federal government

i deal with this stuff all the time, and there are many opportunities to streamline/improve/make more efficient.

but that conversation is a little disingenuous. the process klein is describing is "announcing the grant is open, developing a plan to spend the money available, getting that plan approved, get the money to spend"

what part of that general process is not necessary? states and counties and towns do not have existing strategies or analysis telling them where things like broadband investments should go. so if we're going to give them funds to spend on that, let's make sure that's being done based on some logical, analytical approach.

I’m not saying take away public input as it is very important like you say.

“there are many opportunities to streamline/improve/make more efficient.”

Since you deal with this all the time, Can you give some examples on what we can do to do this?

 

[jneffer]

I’m not saying take away public input as it is very important like you say.

“there are many opportunities to streamline/improve/make more efficient.”

Since you deal with this all the time, Can you give some examples on what we can do to do this?

faster review times would be the best...but that takes a well staffed government agency.

most of the ones we deal with have 2 or 3 people covering an entire state (and that was under biden, getting even worse under DOGE)

but, in general, federal funds are SUPPOSED to be the hardest, most annoying funds to spend. we want them being spent on projects for which there aren't other alternatives (typically big, impactful projects)

 

[Nole Lou]

Also posted in the Left Wing Media Hosts thread

What Is The 'Abundance' Agenda?​

View embedded media

This is incredibly uncompelling. You can see them casting about for actual objections, but even those they raise would be easily shot down by abundance advocates. And good luck selling any of the anti-abundance takes to the general public.

The very most generous anti-abundance take you can come up with is "Well, I have other priorities." I think there aren't really any other priorities more important right now, but at least that's an argument that could be in good faith.

Everything else is ridiculous, or so outside the mainstream.

It's hilarious to see anti-abundance folks painting abundance dems as libertarians and DOGE adjacent, when the abundance folks specifically hold up FDR and the New Deal as an example of the kind of things government is capable of. It's so disingenuous.

And again, they never actually defend the state of affairs.

 

[BrunoMars420]

View embedded media

Just listened to this and it still doesn’t disprove why the abundance theory is bad at all or why it isn’t a good idea. The lady just keeps bringing it back to citizens United essentially and big money lobbyists. There was really no argument made at all against the theory really.

Why can’t we go after Citizens United and implement the Abundance theory? I think that would be a great way to run our government

 

[BrunoMars420]

This is incredibly uncompelling. You can see them casting about for actual objections, but even those they raise would be easily shot down by abundance advocates. And good luck selling any of the anti-abundance takes to the general public.

The very most generous anti-abundance take you can come up with is "Well, I have other priorities." I think there aren't really any other priorities more important right now, but at least that's an argument that could be in good faith.

Everything else is ridiculous, or so outside the mainstream.

It's hilarious to see anti-abundance folks painting abundance dems as libertarians and DOGE adjacent, when the abundance folks specifically hold up FDR and the New Deal as an example of the kind of things government is capable of. It's so disingenuous.

And again, they never actually defend the state of affairs.

Yeah this was a trash video haha. The lady thought this was deliberate to release it right now after 4 years of these dudes working on a book to be published? But I agree with most of what you say about this interview except this point:

“Everything else is ridiculous, or so outside the mainstream.”

I will say that rich people dictating politics is not outside the mainstream. I get it and a lot of people within this abundance movement agree with this. But then again, that is their main objection to this type of policy because they didn’t make it the top issue in the book about policy on how their vision of government should run and build for its citizenry?

Pretty weak argument against this imo. We can mutually agree that we can eliminate citizens United and implement government reform where we get results compared to no broadband after 4 years.

 

[Moral]

Just listened to this and it still doesn’t disprove why the abundance theory is bad at all or why it isn’t a good idea. The lady just keeps bringing it back to citizens United essentially and big money lobbyists. There was really no argument made at all against the theory really.

Why can’t we go after Citizens United and implement the Abundance theory? I think that would be a great way to run our government

I believe what she was driving at is that the underlying causes of the issues aren't related to too many regulations rather systemic issues from the government not being representative of the people. Honestly, the more I learn about it the sillier it seems. It is a theory or philosophy that aims to concentrate population in city centers because of a potential boom in housing and with population growth more money in the area to leverage technology. In a way in mirrors some of what the tech oligarchy has in mind for society which isn't a surprise when you consider where the abundance movement comes from.

It could be a philosophy put into other philosophies but on its own it is really idealistic. It would also look like public money funding private industry to build housing so in my view that is the type of government funding that gets heavily exploited much like how the railroads were funded during the gilded age which with rife with grift and graft.

As a caveat, why am I really only seeing libertarians and libertarian adjacent people supporting it? It is the poorest veiled of libertarian theories I have seen. I am going to be extra weary of a movement of and by libertarian lite people trying to trojan horse itself as a liberal movement.

Semantically you could call it a classical liberal movement. Let's not try to lure in other people by being disengenious though. This is marketing, and neoliberals trying to recreate themselves a little bit after the election embarrassment by being neoliberals but with extra steps.

Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to progressive branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.

 

[Moral]

Pretty weak argument against this imo. We can mutually agree that we can eliminate citizens United and implement government reform where we get results compared to no broadband after 4 years.

You are treating it like like it is sacrosanct. It is a partially built out political idea on the back of the already existing neoliberals. In 2025 if you aren't trying to battle the oligarchs who are taking over the government then your movement goes into the trash. Full stop.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

You are treating it like like it is sacrosanct. It is a partially built out political idea on the back of the already existing neoliberals. In 2025 if you aren't trying to battle the oligarchs who are taking over the government then your movement goes into the trash. Full stop.

I don’t think these things are in as much conflict as you lay out. I think they may even be complementary in some ways and part of this is just sequencing in my opinion. Yes we should be fighting what Musk and crew are doing. No doubt in my mind they are destroying essential government services.

At the same time, we should be open to better ways of doing things going forward. The examples put forward (CA high speed rail, urban housing, rural broadband, etc) are absolutely examples of worthwhile projects that have been stymied for a myriad of process/regulatory/special interest reasons. Ignoring the fact that these types of projects are unproductive disasters is overlooking one of the key reasons that everyday people voted in Trump and crew.

Failure to design an efficient process for getting things done means that liberals lose the right to do things to a team of psychopaths. Yes we should work to block the psychopaths, but maybe we should also clean up some of the root causes that helped put them in power in the first place - and that requires a focus on how things get done.

 

[BrunoMars420]

I don’t think these things are in as much conflict as you lay out. I think they may even be complementary in some ways and part of this is just sequencing in my opinion. Yes we should be fighting what Musk and crew are doing. No doubt in my mind they are destroying essential government services.

At the same time, we should be open to better ways of doing things going forward. The examples put forward (CA high speed rail, urban housing, rural broadband, etc) are absolutely examples of worthwhile projects that have been stymied for a myriad of process/regulatory/special interest reasons. Ignoring the fact that these types of projects are unproductive disasters is overlooking one of the key reasons that everyday people voted in Trump and crew.

Failure to design an efficient process for getting things done means that liberals lose the right to do things to a team of psychopaths. Yes we should work to block the psychopaths, but maybe we should also clean up some of the root causes that helped put them in power in the first place - and that requires a focus on how things get done.

What traveler said @Moral

 

[BrunoMars420]

I believe what she was driving at is that the underlying causes of the issues aren't related to too many regulations rather systemic issues from the government not being representative of the people. Honestly, the more I learn about it the sillier it seems. It is a theory or philosophy that aims to concentrate population in city centers because of a potential boom in housing and with population growth more money in the area to leverage technology. In a way in mirrors some of what the tech oligarchy has in mind for society which isn't a surprise when you consider where the abundance movement comes from.

It could be a philosophy put into other philosophies but on its own it is really idealistic. It would also look like public money funding private industry to build housing so in my view that is the type of government funding that gets heavily exploited much like how the railroads were funded during the gilded age which with rife with grift and graft.

As a caveat, why am I really only seeing libertarians and libertarian adjacent people supporting it? It is the poorest veiled of libertarian theories I have seen. I am going to be extra weary of a movement of and by libertarian lite people trying to trojan horse itself as a liberal movement.

Semantically you could call it a classical liberal movement. Let's not try to lure in other people by being disengenious though. This is marketing, and neoliberals trying to recreate themselves a little bit after the election embarrassment by being neoliberals but with extra steps.

Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to progressive branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.

“It would also look like public money funding private industry to build housing so in my view that is the type of government funding that gets heavily exploited much like how the railroads were funded during the gilded age which with rife with grift and graft.”

See I in my view I believe we need a strong public/private partnership to make our country thrive. I do admit it has lended its hand to Crony Capitalism but to have the right regulations in place and to get back to repealing Citizens United I think we can have a government that can be looked at as somewhat positive compared to the boogeyman. But at the same time, if we don’t let government get out of governments way then we will never have any faith in the institutions you are fighting to preserve and we get Trump and DOGE.

 

[jneffer]

I don’t think these things are in as much conflict as you lay out. I think they may even be complementary in some ways and part of this is just sequencing in my opinion. Yes we should be fighting what Musk and crew are doing. No doubt in my mind they are destroying essential government services.

At the same time, we should be open to better ways of doing things going forward. The examples put forward (CA high speed rail, urban housing, rural broadband, etc) are absolutely examples of worthwhile projects that have been stymied for a myriad of process/regulatory/special interest reasons. Ignoring the fact that these types of projects are unproductive disasters is overlooking one of the key reasons that everyday people voted in Trump and crew.

Failure to design an efficient process for getting things done means that liberals lose the right to do things to a team of psychopaths. Yes we should work to block the psychopaths, but maybe we should also clean up some of the root causes that helped put them in power in the first place - and that requires a focus on how things get done.

i don't really disagree...i just don't find much value in simply listing things that are issues. without a realistic accounting and representation of those issues - and how things we generally like and don't want to change impact or often times create those issues, it's hard to distinguish the abundance agenda from a slightly more palatable, but no more insightful complaining about govt

the biggest issue with housing is private property rights and local control of land use decisions. people can generally build (or not build) what they want, but the local ordinances that frame those decisions are driven by people that will be voted out of office based on the rezoning or development of, sometimes, a single property in a community. liability and public safety concerns impact it a little, but where i work, proposing anything other than $500K houses sitting on 1.5 acre lots gets every neighbor at the meeting trying to get the development stopped. try building multifamily or any form of housing that might attract anyone who makes less money than the typical resident and/or that has children...pandemonium.