A good example, IMO, of a critique that has no consequence, except to illustrate how dogma traps analysis in a cul-de-sac. The writer has TWO largely dogmatic notions: 1) "class struggle politics", and 2) "neoliberal capitalism". Among a community of shared dogma, it's assumed there is no need to define these well-worn phrases with even a hat tip toward a scientific or critical consensus on what they might really mean. Indeed, scratch even a millimeter beneath these phrases of ANY TWO purveyors of them, and deep confusion, not consensus, will be revealed..
As is typically the case with dogma that has left earth's clay feet for the clouds of metaphor, the author flies to a Trotskyist ideal of revolutionary internationalist socialism, a thing that does not exist, never has, and there is no evidence it ever will exist. Of course. "neoliberal capitalism" is unacceptable. "social democracy" is obviously "compromised" (which life is not?). Time to start singing Dylan's "Mr Jones", paint yr teeth orange, and turn Left, left left....
Social Democracy, the "Third Way," and the Crisis of Europe, Part 1
-- via my feedly newsfeed