Thread by @paologerbaudo

History and ideology come in waves. After the socialdemocratic era (1940s-70) and the neoliberal era (1980s-2010s) we seem to be entering a new phase in the evolution of capitalism, in which the “protectivist” state takes centre stage.

(The Great Recoil, Ch. 1)

This is key to the overall approach/method of the book. What matters to politics is not just ideology (in the sense of specific left/right positions), but "master ideology" at any given historical time, broad social consensus on key issues.

When people referred to neoliberalism as "unique thought" they alerted to broad consensus cutting across centre-left/centre-right on benefits of free market, with disagreements on how it should be handled. Even anti-neoliberals ended up accepting some of neoliberalism's premises.

Master ideology imbues political common sense. At any point in time the range of acceptable positions is restricted by perception of "spirit of the times" defining which things are speakable/unspeakable. Even dissent/contestation internalise such dominant frames in inverted form.

This is a bit structuralist and perhaps dispiriting. But as Arab proverb puts it "people resemble more their times than their parents". There is such a thing as "the spirit of the times", broad popular perception of what the challenges of a generation are.

This "spirit of the times" manifests itself in dominant "social demands" to which different "political responses" can be issued. Dominant social demands under neoliberalism revolved around freedom, opportunity, flexibility. Dominant demands these days focus more on "security".

Security is good example of how different "political responses" can be issued to specific "social demands" as it's highly polysemic
• Right: security against migrants, crime, identity crisis
• Left: social security, safety nets, environment protection, safe spaces, minorities

All in all, to quote Touraine there are "central conflicts" in society at any point in time around which antagonisms are organised. We live in the same "world" as our most hated opponents and have to deal w the same social dilemmas. Simply our "responses" are different.

Example Touraine makes is that both workers and capitalists shared something: they thought industry/modernity was a good thing. They vociferously disagreed on what industry was for: to make the rich richer or to improve the condition of workers.

We could say that today the same logic applies to "security".
• Trump wanted to "secure borders"
• AOC wants to "safeguard citizens" and "protect people" threatened by eviction
These are radically different "political responses" to the "social demand" for security.

As frequently happens the Right has been been quicker to react to this than the Left. The Left is more anchored to the past and has problems renouncing to some of its familiar enemies. Yet this makes for serious strategic problems. Hopefully we shall all soon smell the coffee.

/end