I'm not sure neoliberalism is a useful term at all. It's too unspecific in that we mostly talk about its effects, which are wildly different across the world. Financialization on Wall Street, manufacturing in China, what are we really talking about here?
Also, Trump's election is anything but a "revolt against global finance." What a ridiculous thing to say. It's the culmination of it! It's global finance's (or neoliberalism, or "financialization", or whatever you want to call it) ultimate dream, to control the world without having to actually live in it. Wealth is not tied to land, it is not the provision of the landowner, but rather, the landlord, the one who collects the cash. Money is not the instrument for exchange, it is the means to power, it is the very definition of wealth, where once it may have simply been the primary tool used to acquire it.
Industrial workers weren't left behind, that's also pure nonsense. They were never ahead to begin with, and they never really wanted to have to work at all. Progressive neoliberalism wasn't defeated, progressivism was put on hold and neoliberalism triumphed.
Honestly, Fraser must actually be blind, none of it makes any sense to me at all. How can you say neoliberalism (in any form at all) lost when it's primary beneficiaries are now openly in the highest positions of government, where fossil fuels and finance rule the day, and where ignorance and fear generate wealth beyond measure.
Bunch of nonsense. I really hate any idea that relies on "moments" in history to make it's case. I could work up a sound rationale for why my teapot cracking could cause WWIII, it's just chaos theory dressed up in fancy words.
