They seem to have given up on the idea of presenting an argumewnt capable of competing with the neo-liberal alternative for the "hearts and minds" of themaionstream population, but instead resigned themselves to appeals to pity - and for that they need victims.
=====================
RIGHT now, the war of ideas exists almost entirely at the level of competing simplicities although of course, the consequences are all too 3-dimensional. I doubt this is an entirely new development (though the technology of persuasion is, of course, both more pervasive and sophisticated).
Arguments against neo-liberalism tend to be very detailed and technical - while certainly not beyond the grasp of most people these analyses are not quick attention grabbers so victim tales are the fall back position for making ones point.
On the opposite side of the aisle, neo-liberal boosters use promises of endless growth and boundless modernity to sell their programs of financialization and privatization (e.g. 'Municipal Water, a government agency, is an aged bureaucracy, WaterCo - a high tech, market savvy wonder, will do much better').
If lefties depend upon "victim stories", their adversaries use "winner stories". The battle is between competing archetypes - the unsmiling, downtrodden villager vs. the high rise office worker busily writing Java code while listening to Gwen Stefani on her iPod (the sorts of images deployed in advertisements for poverty focused NGOs on the one hand and multinationals on the other).
Neoliberal boosters have a powerful weapon at their disposal: the desire of people around the world to enjoy the techno sphere's benefits. It's no surprise, for example, that Microsoft's Bill Gates is very popular in some segments of Indian society - he represents, and seems to deliver, the total modernity package.
Regarding our response...we may have to wait for promises to be broken, one by one, nation by nation because in the end, neo-lib wishes only come true for a relatively small percentage of a population. Note how sectors of Latin America - the original test site for many neo-lib ideas - appears to be slowly turning their back on glittering promises and seeking new solutions.
Neo-lib promises had to be made, and then repeatedly broken, for people to grow fed up enough to not only cease to listen, but engineer alternatives.
In China, it's my understanding that of the more than 1 billion people within her borders only 300 million are currently inside the super growth envelope we're fixated on.
300 million is a lot of people - certainly a remarkable achievement. Still, having 700 million outsiders to a process all want to share in is not a good situation. Unless a solution is found (that is, a way to extend growth and its benefits to the majority of the population) the backlash will come on like an earthquake.
Beijing has demonstrated great skill thus far - perhaps the scale and inevitability of the problem will inspire creativity.
Which, I think, is the key point: the thing must run its course - triage can be performed here and there (efforts to prevent Social Security privatization here in the US is an example of this sort of rearguard action) but the overall trend is towards this beast mostly having its way for a time - partly because of the power of its advocates and partly because the promises made are very appealing to billions.
At some point, the tension between the broken promises and the continued demands - from elites - for greater sacrifice, restriction and control (financialization means you must be charged for an ever growing list of transactions, which requires monitoring and control on an unprecedented scale) will cause a crisis.
No, not a collapse, but a crisis of belief and loss of confidence that will compel the creation of new ideas and proposals.
I wouldn't be too hard on the left for not having new ideas; at this point, no one really does.
.d.