Since I’m doing quotes, here is one from the great Nancy Fraser:
In its U.S. form, progressive neoliberalism is an alliance of mainstream currents of new social movements (feminism, anti-racism, multiculturalism, and LGBTQ rights), on the one side, and high-end “symbolic” and service-based business sectors (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood), on the other. In this alliance, progressive forces are effectively joined with the forces of cognitive capitalism, especially financialization. . . The former lend their charisma to the latter. Ideals like diversity and empowerment. . . gloss policies that have devastated manufacturing and what were once middle-class lives.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/progressive-neoliberalism-reactionary-populism-nancy-fraser
Clarissa's Blog 
Ah, yes, I’ve seen this before.
“New social movements” being the term given to the invaders and occupiers of the organisations that they’ve infiltrated. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the term “fellow travellers” was used to describe these people.
But now they supposedly work toward different ends, with the unstated goal that they are working to take power from governments so that they may become a government that answers to itself.
Thus in terms of what they really represent, the union of government and business interests has been properly termed “fascism” ever since Il Duce told the world it was so.
Just because it’s “emergent neoliberal fascism” doesn’t make it any less of a type of fascism.
What it really represents is the shift of power away from industrial society to the financialisation of society with its attendant “hypernormalisation”, which means to make this seem like that most illusory of historical things, the “historical inevitability”.
“… policies that have devastated manufacturing and what were once middle-class lives …”
The would-be revolutionaries don’t care because this is the desired result: they can’t game a system in which the better industrialist wins, but they can game systems that allow for self-awarded points based on symbolic manipulations of “social materialism”.
Because the truth is that most of Wall Street exists for financialisation games, with the occasional making of products somewhere else, this all looks like people they can leverage and control on the basis that they possess no real talents.
This all works splendidly for both groups as Fraser described them because they hold each other hostage while working together to strip value from whatever they’ve infiltrated.
Until, of course, the entire thing collapses under its own nothingness.
Naturally they’ll say they had the best of intentions, even in the ultimate form as the invading army that sacks the treasury.
Pack your suitcases and store them accordingly, it’ll be 1933 all over again.
Go look at executive orders 6102 and 6184 sometime, that should clarify some parts of the repeating history of which a part is now called “neoliberalism”.
LikeLike