What do you think?
Rate this book
The Old Is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born: From Progressive Neoliberalism to Trump and Beyond
Across the globe politics as usual are being rejected and faith in neoliberalism is fracturing beyond repair. Leading political theorist Nancy Fraser, in conversation with Jacobin publisher Bhaskar Sunkara, dissects neoliberalism's current crisis and argues that we might wrest new futures from its ruins.
The global political, ecological, economic, and social breakdown--symbolized, but not caused, by Trump's election--has destroyed faith that neoliberal capitalism is beneficial to the majority. Fraser explores how this faith was built through the late twentieth century by balancing two central recognition (who deserves rights) and distribution (who deserves income). When these began to fray, new forms of outsider populist politics emerged on the left and the right. These, Fraser argues, are symptoms of the larger crisis of hegemony for neoliberalism, a moment when, as Gramsci had it, "the old is dying and the new cannot be born."
Explored further in an accompanying interview with Jacobin publisher Bhaskar Sunkara, Fraser argues that we now have the opportunity to build progressive populism into an emancipatory social force, one that can claim a new hegemony.
The global political, ecological, economic, and social breakdown--symbolized, but not caused, by Trump's election--has destroyed faith that neoliberal capitalism is beneficial to the majority. Fraser explores how this faith was built through the late twentieth century by balancing two central recognition (who deserves rights) and distribution (who deserves income). When these began to fray, new forms of outsider populist politics emerged on the left and the right. These, Fraser argues, are symptoms of the larger crisis of hegemony for neoliberalism, a moment when, as Gramsci had it, "the old is dying and the new cannot be born."
Explored further in an accompanying interview with Jacobin publisher Bhaskar Sunkara, Fraser argues that we now have the opportunity to build progressive populism into an emancipatory social force, one that can claim a new hegemony.
65 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 16, 2019
About the author
Nancy Fraser
111 books475 followersNancy Fraser is an American critical theorist, currently the Henry A. and Louise Loeb Professor of Political and Social Science and professor of philosophy at The New School in New York City. Fraser earned her PhD in philosophy from the CUNY Graduate Center and taught in the philosophy department at Northwestern University for many years before moving to the New School.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author with this name in the Goodreads database.
See also: Romance author Nancy Fraser
Librarian Note: There is more than one author with this name in the Goodreads database.
See also: Romance author Nancy Fraser
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 140 reviews
July 6, 2024
The defeatism of Western Left academia…
Preamble:
--My initial excuse to review this limited book-essay was to actually review a deeper academic article by the same author, which I’ll post in the comments below (Note: I wish Goodreads also catalogued academic articles, so they can be reviewed and popularized outside academic silos).
--However, this book’s limitations offered an opportunity to flesh out something that has plagued my mind and kept me with only one foot in academia.
Highlights:
--First, I’ll summarize Fraser’s book. In considering the battle for political “hegemony” (a little Antonio Gramsci, see later), Fraser starts with:
i) Distribution: how society should distribute resources (esp. economic class).
ii) Recognition: how society should recognize social status (social hierarchies/identities).
--Next, Fraser applies this to the pre-Trump Western hegemony of “Progressive Neoliberalism” (esp. US’s Bill Clinton/Obama, and their lapdog Britain’s Blair):
i) Distribution: the “Neoliberalism” part is a continuation of the prior Milton Friedman/Reagan “trickle-down economics” dismantling the welfare state to funnel more resources to the top. Bill Clinton further deregulated Finance Capitalism (Wall Street) with caused escalating speculation (ex. Silicon Valley’s Dot Com bubble).
ii) Recognition: the “Progressive” rhetoric (but not substance) allowed “Neoliberalism” to continue its hegemony by repackaging it as inclusive of various identities, coopting social movements (feminism/antiracism/multiculturalism/environmentalism/gender) into Hollywood fantasies while enabling further Financialization (ex. “inclusive” predatory lending, carbon trading, etc.). Equality was neutralized as meritocracy, to diversify the top of social hierarchies. This broke the New Deal alliance that paired (relatively) redistributive recognition with (relatively) redistributive distribution.
--Finally, Fraser proposes the “counter hegemonic” force as populism, coming in 2 forms:
1) Reactionary populism (i.e. Trump): volatile leader and ruse, still reliant on Republican Party.
i) Distribution: rhetoric of reviving US industries and infrastructure projects
ii) Recognition: inclusion via exclusion (“white working class”)
2) Progressive populism (i.e. Bernie, Corbyn): has the redistributive substance to challenge “Progressive Neoliberalism”, but still too close to the enemy risking sabotage (which the 2020 Biden election confirmed once again).
i) Distribution: redistributive
ii) Recognition: redistributive; how to evolve a New Deal alliance were race/social identities and economic class are not zero sum (i.e. not casting away “half” of Trump voters as “deplorables”)? How to prevent liberal cooptation (ex. Hillary Clinton's “lean in” feminism vs. Feminism for the 99%: A Manifesto).
Lowlights:
1) Target audience?:
i) General public? For a book so short and marketed as an intro, it’s not particularly accessible. It’s revealing that I’d recommend (for the US public) a politician over an academic, in this case Bernie’s 2023 It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism (despite being a full-length book, it flows easily as Bernie has set the foundations in his campaigns).
…and for a big picture intro on theory: Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails
ii) Academics? Is the theory foundational? Thankfully, Fraser does consider more material structures (unlike the meandering speculations of Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?), but this still pales in comparison to Fraser’s academic article (so see the end of this review if you feel I’m bashing Fraser too much!).
iii) Activists? After the academic deconstruction, how much space was given for constructive alternatives? Just further critiques that the Left needs a programmatic vision and cannot rely solely on social movements (need unions/parties etc.).
…Why the academic defeatism? Are the academic expectations so utopic and far-removed from material conditions? Here is Fraser throwing her hands in the air at the lack of constructive alternatives; one wonders what social science academics do with all their time… [emphases added]
...Channeling Vijay Prashad, how the hell is “postcapitalist” a “programmatic vision”? How defeatist are leftists, to use such a vague word that literally covers anything and everything that can come after capitalism? “Socialism or barbarism”, as Rosa Luxemburg reminds us while resisting capitalism/imperialism’s first World War.
2) The West (and the rest?):
--A clue to the academic defeatism is its Western/Global North context. It’s one thing to start with US domestic politics when you are campaigning as a US politician like Bernie. It’s another when you’re an academic writing about “The Old is Dying” (surely this refers to US-led capitalism, which has a global context).
--If we take a geopolitical economy approach, Fraser’s foundations seem suspiciously like David Harvey’s A Brief History of Neoliberalism, centering the rise of Neoliberalism on US domestic affairs (for Harvey it was New York City budget crisis 1974-75) rather than on global geopolitics (The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South) and geopolitical economy (Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present).
--I had a good chuckle during the interview at the end of the book. The interviewer is Bhaskar Sunkara, who authored the similarly-tepid 2019 The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality; he should have just named it “The Postcapitalist Manifesto”, but I guess NATO-loving Paul Mason stole the thunder in his 2015 Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future.
…Anyways, Sunkara actually prompts the global context when asking [emphases added]:
…Since this book’s publication, COVID-19 has further revealed this prejudiced Western Left defeatism. Those Global South countries/states (Vietnam/Cuba/Laos/Kerala) that actually managed to better handle COVID-19 despite poorer economics (no thanks to imperialist terms of trade etc.: The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions) must just be “authoritarian” after all…?
-Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism.
3) Commodification of Academia?:
--I hear this from academics I respect, where they do not feel like they have the right to propose “their” alternatives, with the assumption that it’s up to “the people” (to “spontaneously” figure it out?).
…Let’s start with academia’s commodification of “intellectual property”: you didn’t just construct the alternative ideas all in your mind (and if you just sat in your ivory tower navel-gazing, then that would be the root problem), and now you somehow own the ideas…
…Part of social research surely involves engaging with “the people” in the real-world, and such engagements are never so sterile where both sides leave unaffected. That’s the nature of ideas: they flourish (and evolve) when they are shared (this is a messy social process, not an instantaneous market exchange between two strangers! Debt: The First 5,000 Years) and they wilt when they are not shared (like residing in the silos of academia).
...Haven’t these trendy Western-Left academics all read Pedagogy of the Oppressed? i.e. the distinction between:
i) “Banking model”: teacher depositing info into students, vs.
ii) “Problem-posing model”: dialogue between teacher-students and student-teachers (students as agents/co-creators, teacher as facilitator).
--A social researcher is privileged with the time/opportunities to engage with numerous groups, to facilitate/synthesize/play with the ideas that emerge, and then gift this back to the participants and the world.
…What is the point of “leftist intellectuals”, if they are not using their allotted time to extract/synthesize/amplify the alternatives being forged by those busy struggling on the front-lines? How do you have the right to critique those on the front-lines (as if this part is purely “empirical”/“objective”), yet there’s nothing constructive to synthesize and gift back?
4) The New Intellectual?:
--Of course there will always be the concern of intellectuals abusing their positions of privilege and imposing their views. But not actively using your positions of privilege only reinforces those who intentionally abuse their privileges. Real-world contradictions are not neatly resolved through crude avoidance.
--To unpack this further, Vijay presents his approach to social research (leaving academia proper to direct the Tricontinental Institutive for Social Research) in this lecture titled You Can’t Know the World Unless You’re Trying to Change It; this link is time-stamped to start at Vijay playing with the distinctions made by Gramsci (coming full circle):
i) “Traditional intellectual”: serving (and communicating the framing of) elite class interest (while universalizing it as “objective”), via the authority of established institutions.
ii) “Organic intellectual”: serving (and communicating the framing of) their own class interest, via their own skills/class recognition etc. However, every class has intellectuals organically rooted to their class (Vijay contends that academia romanticizes this group and omits the “new intellectual”).
iii) “New intellectual”: serving the “political party of the people” (distinctly lower classes; Gramsci was prominent in the Italian Communist Party after all), the “permanent persuader” first researches by engaging with people to draw out the “contradictory consciousness” between lived experiences (may be reflected by organic intellectuals) vs. false consciousness propagated by traditional intellectuals, then (crucially) “elaborates [the people’s] common sense into philosophy” (rather than merely imposing your views) and “presents it back” to them to “see if [it] resonates” with their struggles (i.e. an end goal of liberation).
…Otherwise, Western academia is so often funded by corporate foundations/military/intelligence so it can be abused for planning profit-seeking/surveillance/counter-intelligence against the people; this is so prevalent we don’t even have to dive into rabbit holes like Patriotic Betrayal: The Inside Story of the CIA’s Secret Campaign to Enroll American Students in the Crusade Against Communism…
-another Vijay/Gramsci video
--For foundational theories and alternatives, try:
-Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present
-Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World
-A People’s Green New Deal
…see comments below for rest of the review (reviewing Fraser’s academic article).
Preamble:
--My initial excuse to review this limited book-essay was to actually review a deeper academic article by the same author, which I’ll post in the comments below (Note: I wish Goodreads also catalogued academic articles, so they can be reviewed and popularized outside academic silos).
--However, this book’s limitations offered an opportunity to flesh out something that has plagued my mind and kept me with only one foot in academia.
Highlights:
--First, I’ll summarize Fraser’s book. In considering the battle for political “hegemony” (a little Antonio Gramsci, see later), Fraser starts with:
i) Distribution: how society should distribute resources (esp. economic class).
ii) Recognition: how society should recognize social status (social hierarchies/identities).
--Next, Fraser applies this to the pre-Trump Western hegemony of “Progressive Neoliberalism” (esp. US’s Bill Clinton/Obama, and their lapdog Britain’s Blair):
i) Distribution: the “Neoliberalism” part is a continuation of the prior Milton Friedman/Reagan “trickle-down economics” dismantling the welfare state to funnel more resources to the top. Bill Clinton further deregulated Finance Capitalism (Wall Street) with caused escalating speculation (ex. Silicon Valley’s Dot Com bubble).
ii) Recognition: the “Progressive” rhetoric (but not substance) allowed “Neoliberalism” to continue its hegemony by repackaging it as inclusive of various identities, coopting social movements (feminism/antiracism/multiculturalism/environmentalism/gender) into Hollywood fantasies while enabling further Financialization (ex. “inclusive” predatory lending, carbon trading, etc.). Equality was neutralized as meritocracy, to diversify the top of social hierarchies. This broke the New Deal alliance that paired (relatively) redistributive recognition with (relatively) redistributive distribution.
--Finally, Fraser proposes the “counter hegemonic” force as populism, coming in 2 forms:
1) Reactionary populism (i.e. Trump): volatile leader and ruse, still reliant on Republican Party.
i) Distribution: rhetoric of reviving US industries and infrastructure projects
ii) Recognition: inclusion via exclusion (“white working class”)
2) Progressive populism (i.e. Bernie, Corbyn): has the redistributive substance to challenge “Progressive Neoliberalism”, but still too close to the enemy risking sabotage (which the 2020 Biden election confirmed once again).
i) Distribution: redistributive
ii) Recognition: redistributive; how to evolve a New Deal alliance were race/social identities and economic class are not zero sum (i.e. not casting away “half” of Trump voters as “deplorables”)? How to prevent liberal cooptation (ex. Hillary Clinton's “lean in” feminism vs. Feminism for the 99%: A Manifesto).
Lowlights:
1) Target audience?:
i) General public? For a book so short and marketed as an intro, it’s not particularly accessible. It’s revealing that I’d recommend (for the US public) a politician over an academic, in this case Bernie’s 2023 It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism (despite being a full-length book, it flows easily as Bernie has set the foundations in his campaigns).
…and for a big picture intro on theory: Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails
ii) Academics? Is the theory foundational? Thankfully, Fraser does consider more material structures (unlike the meandering speculations of Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?), but this still pales in comparison to Fraser’s academic article (so see the end of this review if you feel I’m bashing Fraser too much!).
iii) Activists? After the academic deconstruction, how much space was given for constructive alternatives? Just further critiques that the Left needs a programmatic vision and cannot rely solely on social movements (need unions/parties etc.).
…Why the academic defeatism? Are the academic expectations so utopic and far-removed from material conditions? Here is Fraser throwing her hands in the air at the lack of constructive alternatives; one wonders what social science academics do with all their time… [emphases added]
We know the economy has to be de-financialized and de-carbonized, that there needs to be planning and a big rise in the share of income that goes to the working classes and so on.…The word “socialism” is avoided in the book (heck, Bernie the US presidential candidate uses the S-word more!), in favor of “postcapitalist society”.
What we don’t know yet is whether some new, yet-to-be invented form of capitalism could satisfy those imperatives—or whether the only possible solution is a postcapitalist society, whether we want to call it socialist or something else.
...Channeling Vijay Prashad, how the hell is “postcapitalist” a “programmatic vision”? How defeatist are leftists, to use such a vague word that literally covers anything and everything that can come after capitalism? “Socialism or barbarism”, as Rosa Luxemburg reminds us while resisting capitalism/imperialism’s first World War.
2) The West (and the rest?):
--A clue to the academic defeatism is its Western/Global North context. It’s one thing to start with US domestic politics when you are campaigning as a US politician like Bernie. It’s another when you’re an academic writing about “The Old is Dying” (surely this refers to US-led capitalism, which has a global context).
--If we take a geopolitical economy approach, Fraser’s foundations seem suspiciously like David Harvey’s A Brief History of Neoliberalism, centering the rise of Neoliberalism on US domestic affairs (for Harvey it was New York City budget crisis 1974-75) rather than on global geopolitics (The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South) and geopolitical economy (Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present).
--I had a good chuckle during the interview at the end of the book. The interviewer is Bhaskar Sunkara, who authored the similarly-tepid 2019 The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality; he should have just named it “The Postcapitalist Manifesto”, but I guess NATO-loving Paul Mason stole the thunder in his 2015 Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future.
…Anyways, Sunkara actually prompts the global context when asking [emphases added]:
Today neoliberal capitalism governs virtually the entire world. It’s constantly morphing and it has been able to absorb crises—even the ones that seem terminal, like the recession in 2008. Where or why do you identify a crisis of hegemony— especially since you also see continuities in certain aspects of the economic agenda of the Trumps and the Obamas and the Clintons of the world?…And Fraser’s response [bold emphasis added]:
Just consider the explosion of antineoliberal movements throughout the world. We are usually focused on the right-wing populist variants, such as the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom; the rise of racist, anti-immigrant parties in northern and east-central Europe, Latin America, and Asia; and of course the victory of Trump in the United States. But that is only part of the story. We should not overlook left-wing antineoliberal forces, including the Corbyn surge in Britain, which has moved the Labour Party well to the left, the forces that have coalesced around Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise, Podemos in Spain, the early days of Syriza in Greece, and the Bernie Sanders campaign in the United States. Whether right or left, these are all cases in which people are saying that they don’t believe the reigning neoliberal narratives anymore. They don’t have faith in the established political parties in the center-left or center-right that promoted them. They want to try something completely different.Ah, there we go… global “left-wing antineoliberal forces” have all congregated in Europe and the US. I mean, isn’t that where all the trendy leftist theory come from? Paraphrasing Vijay once again, globalization of theory is one-way, with theory coming from the Global North and the Global South only presumed to produce guerilla manuals.
…Since this book’s publication, COVID-19 has further revealed this prejudiced Western Left defeatism. Those Global South countries/states (Vietnam/Cuba/Laos/Kerala) that actually managed to better handle COVID-19 despite poorer economics (no thanks to imperialist terms of trade etc.: The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions) must just be “authoritarian” after all…?
-Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism.
3) Commodification of Academia?:
--I hear this from academics I respect, where they do not feel like they have the right to propose “their” alternatives, with the assumption that it’s up to “the people” (to “spontaneously” figure it out?).
…Let’s start with academia’s commodification of “intellectual property”: you didn’t just construct the alternative ideas all in your mind (and if you just sat in your ivory tower navel-gazing, then that would be the root problem), and now you somehow own the ideas…
…Part of social research surely involves engaging with “the people” in the real-world, and such engagements are never so sterile where both sides leave unaffected. That’s the nature of ideas: they flourish (and evolve) when they are shared (this is a messy social process, not an instantaneous market exchange between two strangers! Debt: The First 5,000 Years) and they wilt when they are not shared (like residing in the silos of academia).
...Haven’t these trendy Western-Left academics all read Pedagogy of the Oppressed? i.e. the distinction between:
i) “Banking model”: teacher depositing info into students, vs.
ii) “Problem-posing model”: dialogue between teacher-students and student-teachers (students as agents/co-creators, teacher as facilitator).
--A social researcher is privileged with the time/opportunities to engage with numerous groups, to facilitate/synthesize/play with the ideas that emerge, and then gift this back to the participants and the world.
…What is the point of “leftist intellectuals”, if they are not using their allotted time to extract/synthesize/amplify the alternatives being forged by those busy struggling on the front-lines? How do you have the right to critique those on the front-lines (as if this part is purely “empirical”/“objective”), yet there’s nothing constructive to synthesize and gift back?
4) The New Intellectual?:
--Of course there will always be the concern of intellectuals abusing their positions of privilege and imposing their views. But not actively using your positions of privilege only reinforces those who intentionally abuse their privileges. Real-world contradictions are not neatly resolved through crude avoidance.
--To unpack this further, Vijay presents his approach to social research (leaving academia proper to direct the Tricontinental Institutive for Social Research) in this lecture titled You Can’t Know the World Unless You’re Trying to Change It; this link is time-stamped to start at Vijay playing with the distinctions made by Gramsci (coming full circle):
i) “Traditional intellectual”: serving (and communicating the framing of) elite class interest (while universalizing it as “objective”), via the authority of established institutions.
ii) “Organic intellectual”: serving (and communicating the framing of) their own class interest, via their own skills/class recognition etc. However, every class has intellectuals organically rooted to their class (Vijay contends that academia romanticizes this group and omits the “new intellectual”).
iii) “New intellectual”: serving the “political party of the people” (distinctly lower classes; Gramsci was prominent in the Italian Communist Party after all), the “permanent persuader” first researches by engaging with people to draw out the “contradictory consciousness” between lived experiences (may be reflected by organic intellectuals) vs. false consciousness propagated by traditional intellectuals, then (crucially) “elaborates [the people’s] common sense into philosophy” (rather than merely imposing your views) and “presents it back” to them to “see if [it] resonates” with their struggles (i.e. an end goal of liberation).
…Otherwise, Western academia is so often funded by corporate foundations/military/intelligence so it can be abused for planning profit-seeking/surveillance/counter-intelligence against the people; this is so prevalent we don’t even have to dive into rabbit holes like Patriotic Betrayal: The Inside Story of the CIA’s Secret Campaign to Enroll American Students in the Crusade Against Communism…
-another Vijay/Gramsci video
--For foundational theories and alternatives, try:
-Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present
-Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World
-A People’s Green New Deal
…see comments below for rest of the review (reviewing Fraser’s academic article).
April 17, 2019
I love Nancy Fraser, but this is mostly a rehash of her previous work, particularly her essay on progressive neoliberalism in The Great Regression. This is only worth reading if you're unfamiliar with her work, or if you're doing exhaustive research into neoliberalism.
Fraser is bae though, and you should check out her other stuff (I also liked her essay in the New Left Review on Marx's hidden abode). I'm personally really looking forward to Capitalism: A Conversation in Critical Theory, which came out last summer.
Fraser is bae though, and you should check out her other stuff (I also liked her essay in the New Left Review on Marx's hidden abode). I'm personally really looking forward to Capitalism: A Conversation in Critical Theory, which came out last summer.
November 29, 2019
The evocative title of this essay cum booklet comes from the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, describing the awkward transition between the failure of one state and the rise of its successor; in this case, Fraser applies it – and Gramsci's concept of ideological hegemony to what she calls the "interregnum" in which we currently find ourselves – between the failure of the recent neoliberal hegemony and the as-yet-determined rise of a new consensus system uniting political, economic, cultural and ideological assumptions.
Fraser's contribution to this discussion is her analysis of what is exactly entailed what she calls "progressive neoliberalism." She describes two axes: distribution and recognition. Progressive neoliberalism, therefore, became hegemonic by uniting neoliberal distribution with egalitarian progressive recognition of women, people of color and sexual minorities. To do so, it defeated the previously existing New Deal coalition and reactionary neolibaeralism, which wedded the same neoliberal assumptions to racism, sexism and xenophobia.
Describing its rise and consolidation through the 1980s and '90s, followed by its decline and eventual collapse in the 2007-08 financial crisis, she identifies it not only as the rise of the finance economy, free trade and globalization – and the attendant rise of the precariat, low-wage service-sector jobs and attacks on unions – Fraser points out that its impending death is evidenced by the political upheavals taking place around the world; populists have assailed it from both right and left – and what will arise in its place is unclear. The old is dying, and the new cannot be born.
The question now, for those who value equality in both social and economic spheres, is whether a right-wing reactionary populism or a left-wing egalitarian populism will take its place. In 2016, she points out, Donald Trump won the presidency by promising a reactionary populism, and has since delivered reactionary neoliberalism, while the Democratic Party was split between the progressive populism of Bernie Sanders and the status quo progressive neoliberalism of Hillary Clinton.
She warns that attempts by the center-left or center-right to simply return to the status quo will merely prolong the awkward interregnum between the old and the new hegemonies – and the resulting uncertainty likely increases the potential for additional systemic shocks like Trump and Brexit.
My only complaint with this essay is that it's just an essay; several points could have used fleshing out. Further, Fraser relies on leftist shorthand, especially when critiquing the Clinton and Obama administrations, that elides the significant differences in economic policy between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. Her analysis is more nuanced in a Q&A with Jacobin founder Bhaskar Sunkara; I'd rather have ditched the interview and had twenty pages of more nuanced analysis.
But it's never a bad thing to wish you had more of a book. Fraser is a clear and incisive writer, avoiding the word soup and polemic style that afflicts so much of modern American leftism. There are much worse ways to spend an hour than reading an insightful essay into the crises of the modern West.
Fraser's contribution to this discussion is her analysis of what is exactly entailed what she calls "progressive neoliberalism." She describes two axes: distribution and recognition. Progressive neoliberalism, therefore, became hegemonic by uniting neoliberal distribution with egalitarian progressive recognition of women, people of color and sexual minorities. To do so, it defeated the previously existing New Deal coalition and reactionary neolibaeralism, which wedded the same neoliberal assumptions to racism, sexism and xenophobia.
Describing its rise and consolidation through the 1980s and '90s, followed by its decline and eventual collapse in the 2007-08 financial crisis, she identifies it not only as the rise of the finance economy, free trade and globalization – and the attendant rise of the precariat, low-wage service-sector jobs and attacks on unions – Fraser points out that its impending death is evidenced by the political upheavals taking place around the world; populists have assailed it from both right and left – and what will arise in its place is unclear. The old is dying, and the new cannot be born.
The question now, for those who value equality in both social and economic spheres, is whether a right-wing reactionary populism or a left-wing egalitarian populism will take its place. In 2016, she points out, Donald Trump won the presidency by promising a reactionary populism, and has since delivered reactionary neoliberalism, while the Democratic Party was split between the progressive populism of Bernie Sanders and the status quo progressive neoliberalism of Hillary Clinton.
She warns that attempts by the center-left or center-right to simply return to the status quo will merely prolong the awkward interregnum between the old and the new hegemonies – and the resulting uncertainty likely increases the potential for additional systemic shocks like Trump and Brexit.
My only complaint with this essay is that it's just an essay; several points could have used fleshing out. Further, Fraser relies on leftist shorthand, especially when critiquing the Clinton and Obama administrations, that elides the significant differences in economic policy between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. Her analysis is more nuanced in a Q&A with Jacobin founder Bhaskar Sunkara; I'd rather have ditched the interview and had twenty pages of more nuanced analysis.
But it's never a bad thing to wish you had more of a book. Fraser is a clear and incisive writer, avoiding the word soup and polemic style that afflicts so much of modern American leftism. There are much worse ways to spend an hour than reading an insightful essay into the crises of the modern West.
May 25, 2019
I really enjoyed this an antidote to the pluralist and identity politics camps, who are now rebranded as so many social movements, that are predominant today. Nancy Fraser said it well. It’s as if we’ve gone straight from the critique of the Leninist party to neo-anarchist spontaneism. I don’t think the latter is at all serious, if you really want to change the world in a fundamental way. So I’m very interested in exploring the huge middle ground between those extremes.
The real problem with identity politics has been the near total abrogation of the economic base, where Americans make their livings and is the only place to win over service sector, gig economy, and blue collar voters. Those identity politics camps have fundamentally ignored the realities of the economic base to focus on subjectivist elements and carving a role for themselves in the cultural superstructure. Unfortunately they have also done so at their own long-term political peril; and the chickens from the 1990s have come home to roost in the political realities manifested since 2016.
Particularly troublesome is the alliance and marriage of convenience between identity politics and neo-liberalism (including Third-Way Democrats). What is problematic is the dominant party in this relationship -- the neoliberal forces who have post-recession relaunched Wall Street speculation from the value created on Main Street and who have moved overseas production and formerly Main Street jobs -- who have co-opted that marriage for the sake of cultural cache and a culturally progressive message. Hilary Clinton's pandering to the various identity camps at the expense of an economic platform was the culmination of this. This just does not speak to the majority of Americans, foremost at the expense of answering how they are going to make their livings. Only an economic platform speaks to that.
And that's the rub. The economic base has been ignored by liberals and progressives since the end of the New Deal, ending with the programs of the Great Society. Fraser's short piece and interview frame this in a nice way that captures the challenges that come from the powers that be and ruling strata in American society - they are part of the difficulties and challenges to establishing a platform that returns with an emphasis on the economic base. A mature political strategy will have to do this by accounting for both the objective and the subjective aspects. Meaning, it is necessary to do this without selling the gains of the social movements down the river. What's needed, as anticipated in this work, is a political stance on the issue, doing so in a re-imagined working class bloc that includes the youth and large segments of the middle class and professional managerial class, and a plausible organizational policy for pursuing it. In borrowing Gramsci's turn of phrase, that is the new that cannot be born yet.
The real problem with identity politics has been the near total abrogation of the economic base, where Americans make their livings and is the only place to win over service sector, gig economy, and blue collar voters. Those identity politics camps have fundamentally ignored the realities of the economic base to focus on subjectivist elements and carving a role for themselves in the cultural superstructure. Unfortunately they have also done so at their own long-term political peril; and the chickens from the 1990s have come home to roost in the political realities manifested since 2016.
Particularly troublesome is the alliance and marriage of convenience between identity politics and neo-liberalism (including Third-Way Democrats). What is problematic is the dominant party in this relationship -- the neoliberal forces who have post-recession relaunched Wall Street speculation from the value created on Main Street and who have moved overseas production and formerly Main Street jobs -- who have co-opted that marriage for the sake of cultural cache and a culturally progressive message. Hilary Clinton's pandering to the various identity camps at the expense of an economic platform was the culmination of this. This just does not speak to the majority of Americans, foremost at the expense of answering how they are going to make their livings. Only an economic platform speaks to that.
And that's the rub. The economic base has been ignored by liberals and progressives since the end of the New Deal, ending with the programs of the Great Society. Fraser's short piece and interview frame this in a nice way that captures the challenges that come from the powers that be and ruling strata in American society - they are part of the difficulties and challenges to establishing a platform that returns with an emphasis on the economic base. A mature political strategy will have to do this by accounting for both the objective and the subjective aspects. Meaning, it is necessary to do this without selling the gains of the social movements down the river. What's needed, as anticipated in this work, is a political stance on the issue, doing so in a re-imagined working class bloc that includes the youth and large segments of the middle class and professional managerial class, and a plausible organizational policy for pursuing it. In borrowing Gramsci's turn of phrase, that is the new that cannot be born yet.
October 4, 2025
Cara achei muito bom!, não sei se sou muito leigo nessas leituras geopoliticas, mas achei genial a analise que a Fraser faz aqui pra explicar esse neoliberalismo "progressista", e como o vale do silício seduziu a esquerda tao bem nos EUA (e em alguma medida, aqui no BR também)
e também adiciona uma migalha de entendimento (apesar que nem de longe explica isoladamente) como o identitarismo do feminismo de segunda onda saiu tanto do eixo
uma leitura (introdutória) essencial pra qualquer pessoa de esquerda, bem complementar com a leitura do mark fisher da perda de poder dos sindicatos e tambem do entendimento de como a classe trabalhadora se alinhou, em partes, com o conservadorismo, e como essa organizacao pode ser recuperada
é uma explicacao bem leve pra começar a entender esses temas, o prefácio e a entrevista no fim do livro dao todo o contexto que precisa, bom demais!
e também adiciona uma migalha de entendimento (apesar que nem de longe explica isoladamente) como o identitarismo do feminismo de segunda onda saiu tanto do eixo
uma leitura (introdutória) essencial pra qualquer pessoa de esquerda, bem complementar com a leitura do mark fisher da perda de poder dos sindicatos e tambem do entendimento de como a classe trabalhadora se alinhou, em partes, com o conservadorismo, e como essa organizacao pode ser recuperada
é uma explicacao bem leve pra começar a entender esses temas, o prefácio e a entrevista no fim do livro dao todo o contexto que precisa, bom demais!
July 1, 2019
Highly recommended for the mandatory induction reading list for new boyfriends/ girlfriends!
I was hoping this was a new Nancy Fraser book but, turns out, this is ‘only’ a re-printed essay from 2017 plus a Nancy Fraser interview with Bhaskar Sunkera (Jacobin founder). I guess these ‘super star’ academics have to constantly recycle material into ‘new’ publications as part of their book deals. It’s like Zizek’s six-monthly books which even recycle his jokes. lol.
Anyway, Nancy Fraser is one of the most exciting contemporary political philosophers (who coined the term ‘progressive neoliberalism’) so there’s no harm in re-printing her essay (and part of a Gramsci quote) “The old is dying, and the new cannot be born”, in which he analyses the rise of the far right, Trump, Brexit and the essential decline of established parties, especially social democracy, as symptoms of a larger crisis of hegenony for neoliberalism.
Importantly, this is a crisis of neoliberal hegemony in both its versions the right-wing neoliberalism (conservatives) and its progressive kind (Obama, Clinton centrists/ social democracy).
Essentially, she says, politics has become an opposition between two versions of neoliberalism, distinguished on their axis of ‘recognition’, ie one could choose between multiculturalism and ethno-nationalism but one was stuck either way with financialization and de-industrialization. Like, Obama and Clinton would promote multiculturalism, LGBTQ rights, CEO feminism etc but still appointed their cabinet with the same Wall Street guys as would the conservative neoliberals. I heard this joke the other day that when a former Soviet leader was asked after the end of the Cold War what they should have done differently, he said that instead of the one-party state they should adopt the US ‘two party state’ where the powerful manage to rule for ever by agreeing on everything except abortion rights. So yeah, our choice has become one of two versions of financial capitalism, the ugly and the rainbow one (mind you, the rainbow one is militaristic and brutal too but that’s a story for another time). And this is then being sold as ‘the lesser evil’ lol.
Anyway, this has left a large part of the electorate without a political home, opening the door for right-wing, reactionary populism but also anti-neoliberal, if not anti-capitalist, progressive populism. And this is where Nancy Fraser fairly openly endorses Bernie Sanders <3 ☭
I was hoping this was a new Nancy Fraser book but, turns out, this is ‘only’ a re-printed essay from 2017 plus a Nancy Fraser interview with Bhaskar Sunkera (Jacobin founder). I guess these ‘super star’ academics have to constantly recycle material into ‘new’ publications as part of their book deals. It’s like Zizek’s six-monthly books which even recycle his jokes. lol.
Anyway, Nancy Fraser is one of the most exciting contemporary political philosophers (who coined the term ‘progressive neoliberalism’) so there’s no harm in re-printing her essay (and part of a Gramsci quote) “The old is dying, and the new cannot be born”, in which he analyses the rise of the far right, Trump, Brexit and the essential decline of established parties, especially social democracy, as symptoms of a larger crisis of hegenony for neoliberalism.
Importantly, this is a crisis of neoliberal hegemony in both its versions the right-wing neoliberalism (conservatives) and its progressive kind (Obama, Clinton centrists/ social democracy).
Essentially, she says, politics has become an opposition between two versions of neoliberalism, distinguished on their axis of ‘recognition’, ie one could choose between multiculturalism and ethno-nationalism but one was stuck either way with financialization and de-industrialization. Like, Obama and Clinton would promote multiculturalism, LGBTQ rights, CEO feminism etc but still appointed their cabinet with the same Wall Street guys as would the conservative neoliberals. I heard this joke the other day that when a former Soviet leader was asked after the end of the Cold War what they should have done differently, he said that instead of the one-party state they should adopt the US ‘two party state’ where the powerful manage to rule for ever by agreeing on everything except abortion rights. So yeah, our choice has become one of two versions of financial capitalism, the ugly and the rainbow one (mind you, the rainbow one is militaristic and brutal too but that’s a story for another time). And this is then being sold as ‘the lesser evil’ lol.
Anyway, this has left a large part of the electorate without a political home, opening the door for right-wing, reactionary populism but also anti-neoliberal, if not anti-capitalist, progressive populism. And this is where Nancy Fraser fairly openly endorses Bernie Sanders <3 ☭
May 11, 2019
This is a very short book that I believe is based on (or sounds like it's based on) a long lecture. It's a history of the demise of neoliberalism and the response in the age of Trump. She creates a roadmap for the insurgent left (i.e. the Bernie camp). I did not agree wholeheartedly with this, but it was a well-thought out critique, which I really appreciate.
June 26, 2020
fun introduction to gramsci's idea of hegemony and an interesting analysis of the 2016 american election.
January 6, 2022
Fraser poses a clear and accessible analysis of recent political tendencies, specifically examining the rise of progressive neoliberalism found within both Clinton and Blair. Her call for a progressive populism to take hold is one that is poignant and exciting, given the shift in politics since this book was published.
While this short read might not provide many actual solutions to the problems we face, Fraser lays bare the political framework that is necessary for any new left party to build themselves off of. Something I particularly like is her lack of interest in arguing for either a capitalist of post capitalist society, her vision is strictly focused on securing the future of workers in the present, with a much needed optimism that when the time comes we will deal with these larger organisational tasks.
While this short read might not provide many actual solutions to the problems we face, Fraser lays bare the political framework that is necessary for any new left party to build themselves off of. Something I particularly like is her lack of interest in arguing for either a capitalist of post capitalist society, her vision is strictly focused on securing the future of workers in the present, with a much needed optimism that when the time comes we will deal with these larger organisational tasks.
June 30, 2026
“The reduction of equality to meritocracy was especially fateful. The progressive-neoliberal program for a just status order did not aim to abolish social hierarchy but to “diversify” it, “empowering” “talented” women, people of color, and sexual minorities to rise to the top.”
September 12, 2024
دو سه تا کلمه ازش یاد گرفتم که قراره هی همه جا بگم.
June 2, 2020
WHO HAS THE ANSWERS???
November 18, 2019
"The indispensable ideas for this purpose come from Antonio Gramsci. Hegemony is his term for the process by which a ruling class makes its domination appear natural by installing the presuppositions of its own worldview as the common sense of society as a whole. Its organizational counterpart is the hegemonic bloc: a coalition of disparate social forces that the ruling class assembles and through which it asserts its leadership. If they hope to challenge these arrangements, the dominated classes must construct a new, more persuasive common sense, or counterhegemony, and a new, more powerful political alliance, or counterhegemonic bloc."
Nancy Fraser is a Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at The New School of New York city. This little book consists of an essay and an interview by Bhaskar Sunkara, founder of the magazine Jacobin. Through the content, the author expresses a form of narrative in the macro level movements of political crises happening around globally, its causes and effects through hegemonic perspective which is gradually forming as a mainstream conscious framework from many academicians and field workers of Sociologists, Political Anthropologists and Scientists.
She gives a historical evolution of today's scenario from the cold war's Era New Deal movements of Tony Blair and Clinton to Progressive Neoliberalism, then to Reactionary Populism which pretty much works as hyper-reactionary neoliberalism via Trump and Brexit Movements and with hopeful prospectus into Progressive Populism using Sanders and Corbyn as few examples.
As a Person living in the age of modernity, one ought to update oneself with the knowledge and perspectives for critical thinking to act freely as much as possible. If one doesn't have original understanding, clearly the individual becomes a part of someone else's understanding and worldview. In such a way, this work is highly recommended irrespective of one's political standpoint.
"The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” ~ Antonio Gramsci
Nancy Fraser is a Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at The New School of New York city. This little book consists of an essay and an interview by Bhaskar Sunkara, founder of the magazine Jacobin. Through the content, the author expresses a form of narrative in the macro level movements of political crises happening around globally, its causes and effects through hegemonic perspective which is gradually forming as a mainstream conscious framework from many academicians and field workers of Sociologists, Political Anthropologists and Scientists.
She gives a historical evolution of today's scenario from the cold war's Era New Deal movements of Tony Blair and Clinton to Progressive Neoliberalism, then to Reactionary Populism which pretty much works as hyper-reactionary neoliberalism via Trump and Brexit Movements and with hopeful prospectus into Progressive Populism using Sanders and Corbyn as few examples.
As a Person living in the age of modernity, one ought to update oneself with the knowledge and perspectives for critical thinking to act freely as much as possible. If one doesn't have original understanding, clearly the individual becomes a part of someone else's understanding and worldview. In such a way, this work is highly recommended irrespective of one's political standpoint.
"The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” ~ Antonio Gramsci
October 9, 2022
“The sort of change we require can only come from elsewhere, from a project that is at the very least antineoliberal, if not anticapitalist.”
Quase que invariavelmente, a crítica da esquerda aos problemas humanos é uma crítica ao capitalismo. Como se a mudança de um sistema econômico por outro fosse a resposta. Apesar de provas contrárias registradas na história.
Me parece que o recorte do neoliberalismo como a causa do problema não é o melhor. Eu sinto que o regime econômico é algo comparável a uma doença, numa metáfora bastante cínica. A melhor opção é “escolher” a que faz menos mal. Considerando, é claro, que escolher é uma opção.
Vivesse Fraser num regime comunista, imagino que ela estaria lutando da mesma forma contra o sistema. Por mais liberdade, mais oportunidades, etc. Daí penso que o problema não é o sistema em si, mas a impossibilidade de qualquer sistema entregar ordem, qualidade de vida e satisfação de forma ideal.
Quando ela analisa o governo Trump, diz:
“What his supporters voted for, in short, is not what they got”. Mas com Obama foi igual, como ela mesmo destaca. A depender da posição política do governante, as análises são mais ou menos elogiosas. Mas identifico um indício de que o desejo por melhoria independe do governo ou posição política. A intensidade e emoção é que fazem diferença na análise.
Isso não quer dizer que melhorias não devam ser feitas. A luta deve ser por isso mesmo. Acho que as propostas radicais acabam me incomodando mais. Inclusive, por serem genéricas e imprecisas. Entretanto, tento não culpar o analista social. Não é fácil mudar o mundo.
De qualquer forma, achei o título do livro ótimo.
Quase que invariavelmente, a crítica da esquerda aos problemas humanos é uma crítica ao capitalismo. Como se a mudança de um sistema econômico por outro fosse a resposta. Apesar de provas contrárias registradas na história.
Me parece que o recorte do neoliberalismo como a causa do problema não é o melhor. Eu sinto que o regime econômico é algo comparável a uma doença, numa metáfora bastante cínica. A melhor opção é “escolher” a que faz menos mal. Considerando, é claro, que escolher é uma opção.
Vivesse Fraser num regime comunista, imagino que ela estaria lutando da mesma forma contra o sistema. Por mais liberdade, mais oportunidades, etc. Daí penso que o problema não é o sistema em si, mas a impossibilidade de qualquer sistema entregar ordem, qualidade de vida e satisfação de forma ideal.
Quando ela analisa o governo Trump, diz:
“What his supporters voted for, in short, is not what they got”. Mas com Obama foi igual, como ela mesmo destaca. A depender da posição política do governante, as análises são mais ou menos elogiosas. Mas identifico um indício de que o desejo por melhoria independe do governo ou posição política. A intensidade e emoção é que fazem diferença na análise.
Isso não quer dizer que melhorias não devam ser feitas. A luta deve ser por isso mesmo. Acho que as propostas radicais acabam me incomodando mais. Inclusive, por serem genéricas e imprecisas. Entretanto, tento não culpar o analista social. Não é fácil mudar o mundo.
De qualquer forma, achei o título do livro ótimo.
July 28, 2025
guter essay von fraser über die globale hegemoniekrise. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
man merkt, dass es von 2019 ist - dementsprechend haben sich manche der beschriebenen problematiken schon weiter entwickelt. ihre beschreibung der genese des neoliberalismus hin zur hegemonialen lücke in den USA, die weder trump noch sanders wirklich füllen konnten, hat mir gut gefallen. die verbindung zu gramsci (der titel ist ein zitat von ihm) fand ich sehr toll, hat sehr gut reingepasst.
ihre analyse kommt auf den punkt, dass aus einer linken perspektive nur der progressive populismus einen realen, wirkmächtigen gegenhegemonialen block aufbauen könnte. auch wenn er keine direkten materiellen sicherheiten bringen würde, sondern nur den weg dahin bereiten könnte. was genau das bedeuten kann, bleibt eher offen.
und da bin ich auch bei meinem kritikpunkt. sie formuliert es zwar klar, aber mir sind ihre ansätze hier etwas zu idealistisch. auch wenn sie im interview, welches im kleinen büchlein nach dem essay abgedruckt wurde, schreibt, dass sich der erfolg des feminismus vor allem darin messen lässt, dass sich das bewusstsein der menschen verändert hat und nicht unbedingt die strukturellen veränderungen. da frage ich mich - was war denn zuerst? bringen nicht in dem fall die vorangestellten strukturellen, gesetzlichen veränderungen die ideelle veränderung in der gesellschaft? das fand ich einen nicht ganz so passenden take irgendwie. das interview endet damit, dass die breaking points der arbeitenden klasse unklar sind - also wann sie anfangen ihre ausbeutung in unzufriedenheit zu spüren und wann diese unzufriedenheit zum umbruch wird. dass man das ja aber auch nie vorher wissen könne. zuletzt schreibt fraser, die gesellschaftliche linke habe vor allem zwei große probleme: es fehlt an 1. einer programmatischen vision und 2. einer langfristigen perspektive auf organisierung. und daran gilt es ja nun anzusetzen, oder? 🌝
man merkt, dass es von 2019 ist - dementsprechend haben sich manche der beschriebenen problematiken schon weiter entwickelt. ihre beschreibung der genese des neoliberalismus hin zur hegemonialen lücke in den USA, die weder trump noch sanders wirklich füllen konnten, hat mir gut gefallen. die verbindung zu gramsci (der titel ist ein zitat von ihm) fand ich sehr toll, hat sehr gut reingepasst.
ihre analyse kommt auf den punkt, dass aus einer linken perspektive nur der progressive populismus einen realen, wirkmächtigen gegenhegemonialen block aufbauen könnte. auch wenn er keine direkten materiellen sicherheiten bringen würde, sondern nur den weg dahin bereiten könnte. was genau das bedeuten kann, bleibt eher offen.
und da bin ich auch bei meinem kritikpunkt. sie formuliert es zwar klar, aber mir sind ihre ansätze hier etwas zu idealistisch. auch wenn sie im interview, welches im kleinen büchlein nach dem essay abgedruckt wurde, schreibt, dass sich der erfolg des feminismus vor allem darin messen lässt, dass sich das bewusstsein der menschen verändert hat und nicht unbedingt die strukturellen veränderungen. da frage ich mich - was war denn zuerst? bringen nicht in dem fall die vorangestellten strukturellen, gesetzlichen veränderungen die ideelle veränderung in der gesellschaft? das fand ich einen nicht ganz so passenden take irgendwie. das interview endet damit, dass die breaking points der arbeitenden klasse unklar sind - also wann sie anfangen ihre ausbeutung in unzufriedenheit zu spüren und wann diese unzufriedenheit zum umbruch wird. dass man das ja aber auch nie vorher wissen könne. zuletzt schreibt fraser, die gesellschaftliche linke habe vor allem zwei große probleme: es fehlt an 1. einer programmatischen vision und 2. einer langfristigen perspektive auf organisierung. und daran gilt es ja nun anzusetzen, oder? 🌝
April 27, 2020
“Financialised capitalism is an inherently crisis-prone social formation. The crisis complex we encounter today is the increasingly acute expression of its in-built tendency to destabilise itself.”
This is a great short read on the situation we find ourselves in, and how neoliberalism’s success in stripping capitalism of the social, economic and moral constraints needed to make it workable has only hastened its own demise. It’s only become more accurate since the pandemic. Worth a read.
This is a great short read on the situation we find ourselves in, and how neoliberalism’s success in stripping capitalism of the social, economic and moral constraints needed to make it workable has only hastened its own demise. It’s only become more accurate since the pandemic. Worth a read.
March 26, 2026
Really great analysis of the economic and political forces that led to the current political moment in the US, with a good emphasis on how those dovetail with, and in some circumstances create and underpin, the matching social conditions. There wasn't much here that I hadn't heard before, but Fraser gives a very sharp and efficient articulation here. Not sure I needed the interview that makes up the second half of the book, didn't elaborate much and mostly just repeated points from the main text.
January 11, 2023
Nothing super new but def made me want to snuggle up to some Gramsci and other theory and do something! Enjoyed the interview at the end.
August 5, 2019
A short and readable assesment of the current crisis off neoliberalism and the possible path forward. I like how it used Gramsci.
August 25, 2021
A short brief of American politics (primarily the dominant neoliberal class) through a lens of hegemonic theory. Fraser describes the internal conflicts of both the Republican and democratic blocs and paves a way forward, putting the needs of the working class (in its perverse diversity) forward. There are gaps and questions left unanswered but it appears these questions are expanded in her larger works.
August 20, 2020
The center cannot hold.
The center is the distributive hegemony of unfettered globalized capitalism that benefits the plutocrats and hollows the middle-class. It matters not whichever party, Democrat or Republican, is in power, both follow this distributive model.
The only modifier of this neoliberal center is progressive or reactionary, ie whether the recognition is inclusive (respecting people of all colors, national origins, genders, and sexual orientations) or exclusionary (respecting whites, natives, mostly males, and heterosexuals).
Once one understands the dual approach (distribution and recognition) to the political system then the solution to the left - right divide is obvious. The ninety-nine percenters must unite because no matter who you are, whether you support Sanders or Trump, you all are poor, you all face structural obstacles to better your and your children's economic well-being. Your enemy is not each other. Your enemy is the capitalistic system that deliberately deprives you of economic tools and advancement, exploits your labor, and hoards opportunities (educational and managerial) for its elite. You have been woke to the false promise of capitalism. Now wake to the peril of social and cultural divide-and-conquer. Unite and rule.
How? This book does not say.
The center is the distributive hegemony of unfettered globalized capitalism that benefits the plutocrats and hollows the middle-class. It matters not whichever party, Democrat or Republican, is in power, both follow this distributive model.
The only modifier of this neoliberal center is progressive or reactionary, ie whether the recognition is inclusive (respecting people of all colors, national origins, genders, and sexual orientations) or exclusionary (respecting whites, natives, mostly males, and heterosexuals).
Once one understands the dual approach (distribution and recognition) to the political system then the solution to the left - right divide is obvious. The ninety-nine percenters must unite because no matter who you are, whether you support Sanders or Trump, you all are poor, you all face structural obstacles to better your and your children's economic well-being. Your enemy is not each other. Your enemy is the capitalistic system that deliberately deprives you of economic tools and advancement, exploits your labor, and hoards opportunities (educational and managerial) for its elite. You have been woke to the false promise of capitalism. Now wake to the peril of social and cultural divide-and-conquer. Unite and rule.
How? This book does not say.
July 30, 2020
Nancy Fraser writes with the confidence of someone who harbors no doubt, brooks no compromise, speaking on behalf of some singular and objective assessment of the World Historical Moment. Sometimes that can be annoying, but in the case of this pamphlet it seems to be a hardened way of sorting and naming some inchoate, complex phenomena in a way that renders them choate and distinct: progressive neoliberalism (Clinton) vs reactionary neoliberalism (GOP). Trump mouthed anti-neoliberal sentiments, but turns out to be “hyper-reactionary neoliberal”—bad on economics AND on questions of social equality. Not complex, but neat. This confidence breaks a bit in the attached interview, as she seems uncertain about the details that might conjure the alternative (anti-neoliberalism?) via a coalition between reactionary the white working class, immigrants and people of color. No models have legs. Though her account is too pat and predictably Marxist, this pamphlet would make a good discussion piece.
November 25, 2024
i think this was a necessary, and insightful text on electoral politricks. Fraser's notion of hegemony, counterhegemony, and the sorts of neoliberal politics that are prevalent in today's political landscape still hold (heading into a new trump term), and provide a valuable prescriptive in how to move forward!
great read, especially now when coalition and community building are of the utmost importance!
great read, especially now when coalition and community building are of the utmost importance!
March 23, 2020
Super clear and informative account of the co-optation of progressive politics by the neoliberal corporate-managerial classes. Doesn't do much in the way of proposing an alternative, but still a really engaging, helpful read. Free ebook from Verso! :)
January 10, 2021
Points out all the stuff about the crisis of neoliberalism etc and calls for developing the sort of 'progressive populism' shown by the likes of Sanders and Corbyn, but structuring it with a reorganised, redefined working-class.
August 3, 2019
Very good attempt to understand and overcome the Política struggles of the first two decades of the XXIth century
Read
August 25, 2020Around a 7
January 15, 2023
Nothing groundbreaking, then again this was published in 2019 so maybe I would have felt differently if I read this 4 years ago
September 1, 2024
آ خیلی صورتبندی جالبی بود از یه پدیدهای به اسم نولیبرالیسم پروگرسیو و این که چطور کمکم داره جایگاه هژمونیکش رو از دست میده. متین گفت بخونیم فقط کاش میگفت اول اون مصاحبهی بعدش رو بخونیم، احساس میکنم اگر اول اون رو میخوندم و بعد خود جستار رو بیشتر و بهتر میفهمیدم چی میخواد بگه.
January 24, 2025
Quick read. As usual, insightful and super relevant. At the forefront of new Marxist critical theory.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 140 reviews