You could call it guilt by association, sure! But critically, the funders and speakers and membership that build a movement give life and shape to what that movement becomes. Not caring about 'means' only 'ends' or who profits strikes me as appallingly naive. You tell me, can these people build the houses you so desire?
From this page https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/who-is-behind-the-growin...: compare your words: "take away is a rejection of neoliberalism"
to the following descriptions: "Mercatus Center, but without the libertarian brand that limits that think tank’s outreach to the left." "The group is currently headed by Julius Krein, the founder of pro-Trump publications The Journal Of American Greatness and its successor, American Affairs"
"gone so far as to posit that AI is the only possible solution to climate change and that it should be powered even by fossil fuel sources." "PI is a subsidiary of the The Third Way Foundation, and it proudly proclaims itself as the “intellectual birthplace of the New Democrat and ‘Third Way’ movements.”
"Chamber of Progress also used to be funded by Sam Bankman-Fried’s notorious FTX, Blockchain.com, Zillow, Twitter, and the investment firm behind WeWork, SoftBank. The group has launched a “Abundance & Affordability” project, is listed among Inclusive Abundance’s “Abundance Landscape,” and its employees are vocal in their support of the agenda."
"Manhattan employs conservative provocateur and Ron DeSantis ally Chris Rufo—the progenitor of the debate over “Critical Race Theory”"
"Stand Together’s Chairman and CEO, Brian Hooks, is also the President of the Charles Koch Foundation and previously served as the executive director and COO of the Mercatus Center"
one of the most prominent groups opposing the Obama administration’s two key domestic policy goals: health care reform and cap and trade
The philanthropy has funded “pension reform” work by right wing groups, school privatization efforts, Bari Weiss’ anti-woke university, the Niskanen Center, and sponsored both the 2024 abundance conference and the 2025 conference.
Do I need to go on? These people will decide what "Abundance 'progressiveism'" actually looks like if it continues forward.
They are not hiding the fact they are actually conservatives with new labels. They will republican even more if they are given voting positions.
Do you think these people are on your side? Its all oil and techoncratic billionaires top to bottom.
"Do you think these people are on your side?"
Who is on your side? People who made it all but impossible to renew and improve basic civilizational infrastructure (housing, roads, railways, electric grid, power plants etc.) by introducing so many demands that the system slowly ground to a halt?
Nope. They may say that they are on your side, they may even think that they are on your side, but this is a classical case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. If someone makes it all but impossible to build new things by elevating chronic naysayers and various special interests into a vetocracy, they are not on your side.
You don't have to trust the abundance movement, but they still have a valid point. In the last 10-15 years, there is a growing awareness all across the West that we have painted ourselves into a corner by heaping too many regulations on further development of cities and land and introducing too many chokepoints where any project can be stalled in courts. This not only makes our living standards worse, but also increasingly leaves us vulnerable to various authoritarian regimes - not just in the sense of raw industrial power, but also propaganda.
If you are a progressive, try to swing your preferred politicians towards more permissiveness, too. This situation badly needs correction and if the progressive part of the spectrum gets stuck on its de facto preference of NIMBYism - for any reasons, be it "everything bagel" demands or the sort of visceral distrust towards other political players that you yourself exhibit quite nicely - they are done for.
Regular people don't want to spend several years fighting a paper war with fifty implacable stakeholders in order to build a block of flats. This is just madness. If someone imposed that system on another country by force, we would consider it an act of war comparable to a naval blockade. Why precisely are we doing this to ourselves?
Unfortunately we need less inclusivity in city planing, that much is clear. Too many people have interest in vetoing everything. It is time to learn this bitter lesson and move on. Maybe you could be the person who makes the change in the progressive circles - try talking to the people you trust about this.
I feel ya.
> Unfortunately we need less inclusivity in city planing, that much is clear.
I don't think we need to go that far. :)
It's been long known the NEPA, CEPA, and other safeguards, were fully captured by bad faith actors and in much need of reform. Like closing legal exploits used to thwart any and all development, as you well know.
It's been kind of amazing how quickly YIMBYism has spun up and matured into a scrappy effective advocacy group(s). And we're starting to see progress, payoff, real results.
The recent CEPA reforms are already yielding positive results. eg By short-circuiting environmental reviews for redeveloping properties that are already in built-up areas. Real common sense "well, duh" type reforms.
There's no shortage of needful common sense reforms. I'm now confident these reform efforts will now accelerate. State-by-state, since federal action is currently closed off.
The biggly "abundance"-esque type challenges I worry about are structural and financial. Reforming public utilities, tackling regulatory capture, investment, green banks, industrial policy, etc.
In a nutshell, I want everything promised in the Green New Deal, times at least 4. (Which does account for inclusion, empowerment, environmental justice, and so forth.)
No, I do not.
I also know that policy and legislation cannot be moved forward without them. Realpolitik.
Further, there may be an opportunity to mix-up the current coalitions. Checkout the "Montana Housing Miracle". NIMBY vs YIMBY is old vs young, not right vs left. With the reactionary nativists crashing the economy (again), the business members of the current ruling coalition are getting grumpy. Let's drive a wedge between the trogs and the merely greedy. Again, Realpolitik.
I also demand some kind of plan or strategy to address lack of housing and climate crisis. From experience, advocacy is easier than opposition. If not Abundance, then what's the plan?
Lastly, we are completely out of time. Land use and housing are the biggest (missing) components of any USA strategy for addressing climate crisis. I, the most left-wing person you're ever likely to meet, no longer have the luxury of partisanship. So I don't care how the things we need get built.
If we survive until 2050 (and beyond), our kids (and grandkids) can carry on the revolution.