onon owaay

Third Class Third Way/Third Wrong Way is:

The variants of Third Way which lead to this Neoliberal hot mess we are in now (see here) instead of going beyond it 

This type of Third Way includes:

Social Investment Statism , Neoprogressive hawkism, Regressive, proto denigrated Third Way, Social Liberalism 2.0

Neolib-Soclib synthesi (instead of the good type of synthesis between them that aligns with my political views in these blgos), latte statist neoliberalism, 

Left-wing opponents of this type of Third Way argue that it represents social democrats who responded to the New Right by accepting capitalism. 

This type of Third Way most commonly uses market mechanics and authoritarian ownership of the means of production and in that sense it is fundamentally liberal democrat capitalist.

In addition to opponents who have noticed this, other reviews have claimed that this type of Third Way social democrats adjusted to the political climate since the 1980s that favoured proto neoliberal subreddit capitalism by recognising that outspoken opposition to capitalism in these circumstances was politically a no go and radical and that accepting capitalism as the current status quo the way it did and seeking to administer its form of it to provide a challenge to laissez-faire liberals was a more pressing short term concern.

With the rise of neoliberalism in the late 1970s and early 1980s and this type of Third Way between the 1990s and 2000s, social democracy became synonymous with this bad form of Third Way

As a result, the section of social democracy that remained committed to the gradual abolition of capitalism and opposed this type ofThird Way merged into some sects of Democratic Socialism.[

Many social democrats opposed to the Third Way (this type of Third Way) overlap with Democratic Socialists in their commitment to an alternative to capitalism and a post-capitalist economy and have not only criticised this type of Third Way as anti-socialist and neoliberal, but also as anti-social-democratic in theory

Democratic and market socialists argue that the major reason for the economic shortcomings of command economies was their authoritarian nature rather than socialism or better forms of Third Way itself, that it was a failure of a specific model and that therefore socialists and leftish third wayers should support democratic models rather than abandon it. 

Economists Pranab Bardhan and John Roemer argue that Soviet-type economies and Marxist–Leninist states failed because they did not create rules and operational criteria for the efficient operation of state enterprises in their administrative, command allocation of resources and commodities and the lack of democracy in the political systems that the Soviet-type economies were combined with. According to them, a form of competitive socialism that rejects dictatorship and authoritarian allocation in favor of democracy could work and prove superior to the market economy.

Although close to New Labour and a key figure in the development of the Third Way, sociologist Anthony Giddens dissociated himself from many of the interpretations of the Third Way made in the sphere of day-to-day politics (like this type)

For him, it was not a succumbing to neoliberalism or the dominance of capitalist markets. The point was to get beyond both market fundamentalism and top-down socialism—to make the values of the left count in a globalising world. 

He argued that "the regulation of financial markets is the single most pressing issue in the world economy" and that "global commitment to free trade depends upon effective regulation rather than dispenses with the need for it".