> today weren't vasly different from the 1930s. The nostalgia behind
> that call is testament to the fact that we don't really know what we
> want.
That is certainly part of the problem. Harvey argues that the key element of the success of the neo-liberal project was the ability of its spinmeisters to connect it to the concerns of the mainstream voters (personal freedom, anti-government attitude, cultural issues). Following that logic, the left would need to follow a similar path and have its spinmeisters connect its program to the concerns of the mainstream voters. But that can be a problem if the left does not know what it wants.
The arguments that you and Dwayne posted are logically and factually valid - but they suffer from two problems. First they try to convince people with our arguments rather than those of their own (like in that old Sufi saying a fool tries to convince me with his arguments, a wise man - with my own). That is to say, most people take it for granted that we (i.e. generalized 'we') live in unprecedented prosperity, and those who do not take advantage of that prosperity either have a bad luck or there is something wrong with them altogether. This is taken as a given, even if people's own experiences is far from being a success story. But rather than questioning the perception of general prosperity, people explain away their own experiences (it is the fault of foreigners who take 'our' jobs). So if they explain away their own experience that contradicts the neoliberal propaganda of success, how do you expect them to accept arguments of other people that contradict that propaganda?
The second problem is that these arguments, and the left mode of thought in general, tends to be negative rather than positive. That is to say, it offers a laundry list of complaints what is wrong with the capitalist/neoliberal model without offering an alternative. Such criticism, even if valid, can easily be dismissed by Churchill's canard "it may have problems, but that is the best thing we've got" or Thatcher's canard "there is no alternative." In fact, Thatcher was right because the left has not offered an alternative.
I think that advancing a coherent economic program that is a realistic (rather than utopian) alternative to neo-liberalism is within the reach. I think economic theories of John Kenneth Galbraith and transaction cost economics (especially Oliver Williamson) can provide sufficient theoretical grounds for the existence of strong regulatory and self-regulatory mechanisms to boost rationality and efficiency. In fact, those theories have been around for a while and attracted considerable attention from institutional economists and sociologists of organizations.
The problem, however, is not the theoretical background, but the ability of connecting that background to the "common sense" and "stock knowledge" of the mainstream voters. Selling regulations and administrative hierarchies as an anti-dote to neo-liberal chaos is practically DOA, not just for the mainstream voter, but most of the left. Individualism, me-centrism, and the feeling 'I'm unique and special' are too entrenched in popular consciousness to be receptive to ideas of regulation and administrative hierarchy.
I think appeals to common purpose, cooperation, shared goals, getting involved, democratic governance of the economy (cf. the European notion of social economy http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/coop/ has a better prospect, but it needs to be constantly hammered into popular consciousness to take any hold (just like the neo-liberal propaganda is right now). And that requires organization.
George Lakoff's complaint against liberal organizations is that they are trying to solve social problems themselves by funding direct service delivery, whereas the right wing organizations are concerned mainly by popularizing their own ideology by funding scholars, think tanks, media outlets, etc. I think there is something to be said about that. Another problem is that most of left wing popularization effort is registering complaints rather than offering an alternative vision i.e. advocating against rather than advocating for.
I think it is time to change that, and start offering a positive alternative. Some of it has already been done in the field on nonprofit research or environmentalism - but that is usually pooh-pooh'd by the counterculturalist left as insufficiently "radical" and "shocking" I think that needs to change as well. Lefties of various stripes need to speak in one voice - the voice of mainstream economics rather than that of counterculture - and someone has to coordinate that.
The idea that I have here is a semi-institutional body, say, a consortium representing nonprofits, foundations, educational institutions, think tanks, media, political organizations, and friendly businesses that would provide a forum to coordinate common intellectual agenda and common voice. I believe the right used a similar model and it worked.
Any suggestions how to put such a consortium together?
Wojtek