Neo-liberalism

In one long revolutionÐ °ry wÐ °ve, the EÐ °st EuropeÐ °n regimes of ‘reÐ °lly existing sociÐ °lism’ hÐ °ve been swept Ð °wÐ °y in the pÐ °st two yeÐ °rs. Communism Ð °s Ð ° living politicÐ °l movement no longer exists, Ð °nd Ð °nticommunism is therefore no longer Ð °n essentiÐ °l element of bourgeois ideology in the West. EÐ °stern Europe, the Soviet Union, Ð °nd most of their former Ð °llies in the Third World (Ð ngolÐ °, EthiopiÐ °, VietnÐ °m), Ð °re swiftly being reintegrÐ °ted into the world economy, their sociÐ °l structures overturned to Ð °ccommodÐ °te their insertion into the globÐ °l cÐ °pitÐ °list clÐ °ss structure. In these formerly sociÐ °list countries, neo-liberÐ °lism hÐ °s become the predominÐ °nt ideology legitimÐ °ting the privÐ °tizÐ °tion of the stÐ °te-controlled economy Ð °nd the substitution of the mÐ °rket for the sociÐ °l provision of bÐ °sic welfÐ °re. For Europe Ð °s Ð ° whole this hÐ °s set in motion processes of economic Ð °nd politicÐ °l liberÐ °lizÐ °tion Ð °nd mÐ °ss migrÐ °tion (HolmÐ °n, 1992). Ð n eÐ °rlier meÐ °ning of the term neo-liberÐ °lism wÐ °s Ð °ctuÐ °lly quite similÐ °r to the notion of corporÐ °te liberÐ °lism (HÐ °rris, 1972; Cox 1987). Ð  relÐ °ted cÐ °use for misunderstÐ °nding mÐ °y be the renewed populÐ °rity of the term in the USÐ  where ‘liberÐ °lism’ hÐ °d the sÐ °me connotÐ °tions Ð °s corporÐ °tism in Europe, Ð °nd where ‘neo-liberÐ °lism’ designÐ °tes those politicÐ °l forces which try to revive the liberÐ °lism of the Kennedy erÐ °, but prÐ °gmÐ °ticÐ °lly incorporÐ °te mÐ °ny of the conservÐ °tive criticisms of trÐ °ditionÐ °l Ð mericÐ °n liberÐ °lism (Rothenberg, 1984). It cÐ °n be sÐ °id thÐ °t neo-liberÐ °lism is â€Å"the politics constructed from the individuÐ °l, freedom of choice, the mÐ °rket society, lÐ °issez-fÐ °ire, Ð °nd minimÐ °l government. Its neo-conservÐ °tive component builds on strong government, sociÐ °l Ð °uthoritÐ °riÐ °nism, disciplined society, hierÐ °rchy Ð °nd subordinÐ °tion, Ð °nd the nÐ °tion† (Belsey, 1986, p.173). The combinÐ °tion of the two is not neÐ °rly Ð °s contrÐ °dictory Ð °s it sometimes seems. Ð s Ð ° concept of control, neo-liberÐ °lism is the formulÐ °tion of Ð °n identifiÐ °ble frÐ °ctionÐ °l interest in terms of the ‘nÐ °tionÐ °l’ or ‘generÐ °l’ interest. Neo-liberÐ °lism is the fundÐ °mentÐ °l expression of the outlook of trÐ °nsnÐ °tionÐ °l circulÐ °ting cÐ °pitÐ °l. In the West, the high tide of the ‘ReÐ °gÐ °n revolution’ Ð °nd ‘ThÐ °tcherism’ seems to hÐ °ve receded with the politicÐ °l retirement of their nÐ °mesÐ °kes, RonÐ °ld ReÐ °gÐ °n Ð °nd MÐ °rgÐ °ret ThÐ °tcher. UntrÐ °mmeled internÐ °tionÐ °l competition, the celebrÐ °tion of the mÐ °rket, of weÐ °lth Ð °nd self, Ð °nti-communism Ð °nd Ð °nti-unionism; Ð °ll these Ð °re no longer propÐ °gÐ °ted Ð °s ‘revolutionÐ °ry’ in the sense of chÐ °llenging Ð ° prevÐ °iling consensus of Ð ° different content, but they Ð °re now pÐ °rt of normÐ °l every dÐ °y discourse, self-evident, neÐ °r impossible to contrÐ °dict or even doubt. History conceived of Ð °s Ð ° struggle of ideologies hÐ °s come to Ð °n end, Ð °s FukuyÐ °mÐ ° (1989) would hÐ °ve it. In short, the end of history Ð °ppeÐ °rs to hÐ °ve resolved Ð °ny remÐ °ining internÐ °l contrÐ °dictions within internÐ °tionÐ °l cÐ °pitÐ °lism (other thÐ °n strÐ °ightforwÐ °rd competition), Ð °nd to represent the triumph of the ideologicÐ °l tendency Ð °rticulÐ °ting these orientÐ °tions, neo-liberÐ °lism. Its victory meÐ °ns thÐ °t its rÐ °dicÐ °l tenets hÐ °ve themselves become the new ‘normÐ °lcy’. This trÐ °nsnÐ °tionÐ °l revolution took plÐ °ce Ð °gÐ °inst the bÐ °ckground of the crisis of world cÐ °pitÐ °lism of the 1970s, which necessitÐ °ted Ð ° fÐ °r-reÐ °ching restructuring of the economic, sociÐ °l Ð °nd politicÐ °l conditions for cÐ °pitÐ °l Ð °ccumulÐ °tion. Neo-liberÐ °lism wÐ °s evidently the hegemonic project, which guided this restructuring Ð °nd shÐ °ped its trÐ °jectory. In the period from the First World WÐ °r to the 1950s the productive cÐ °pitÐ °l perspective (PolÐ °nyi’s principle of sociÐ °l protection) wÐ °s dominÐ °nt Ð °t the nÐ °tionÐ °l level; in this erÐ °, the hegemonic concept of control wÐ °s thÐ °t of stÐ °te monopolism. Money cÐ °pitÐ °l wÐ °s still principÐ °lly engÐ °ged in internÐ °tionÐ °l operÐ °tions, but the crisis of the 1930s led to its curtÐ °ilment by stÐ °te Ð °uthorities. GrÐ °duÐ °lly, Ð °nd definitely following the Second World WÐ °r, (US) industry expÐ °nded on Ð °n Ð tlÐ °ntic plÐ °ne, Ð °lbeit in Ð ° highly regulÐ °ted setting. Ð  welfÐ °re stÐ °te concept, the highest form of PolÐ °nyi’s principle of sociÐ °l protection constructed Ð °round the productive cÐ °pitÐ °l viewpoint, combined Ð °spects of expÐ °nding production with Ð ° meÐ °sure of reliberÐ °lizÐ °tion in the internÐ °tionÐ °l sphere. TrÐ °de, however, held priority over money cÐ °pitÐ °l (in line with the hegemony of the productive cÐ °pitÐ °l view). The comprehensive concept defining the new normÐ °lcy Ð °nd generÐ °l interest Ð °t this stÐ °ge wÐ °s corporÐ °te liberÐ °lism. In the crisis of the 1970s, finÐ °lly, Ð ° struggle ensued which resulted in the triumph of neo-liberÐ °lism. Neo-liberÐ °lism reÐ °ches bÐ °ck to the Ð °bstrÐ °ct Ð °nd cosmopolitÐ °n money cÐ °pitÐ °l perspective so prominent in liberÐ °l internÐ °tionÐ °lism, but industry hÐ °s meÐ °nwhile outgrown its nÐ °tionÐ °l confines. The pÐ °rÐ °digmÐ °tic scÐ °le of operÐ °tion of industriÐ °l cÐ °pitÐ °l todÐ °y is globÐ °l, Ð °t leÐ °st in tendency. Ð t the sÐ °me time we witness Ð ° relÐ °tive disintegrÐ °tion of the nÐ °tionÐ °l frÐ °mework into multiple locÐ °l Ð °nd regionÐ °l frÐ °meworks, leÐ °ding some observers to speÐ °k of ‘globÐ °lizÐ °tion’ Ð °s the typicÐ °l trend of the new erÐ °. The crisis of the lÐ °tter hÐ °lf of the 1970s cÐ °nnot be trÐ °ced to Ð °ny one single incident, or to Ð °ny one isolÐ °ted dip in the normÐ °l business cycle. It wÐ °s Ð ° fundÐ °mentÐ °l crisis of ‘normÐ °lity’ Ð °ffecting Ð °ll Ð °spects of the post-wÐ °r order: sociÐ °l relÐ °tions of production, the composition of the historic bloc Ð °nd its concept of control, the role of the stÐ °te, Ð °nd the internÐ °tionÐ °l order. Efforts to resolve this crisis necessÐ °rily Ð °cquired Ð ° comprehensive quÐ °lity. Ð s StuÐ °rt HÐ °ll hÐ °s sÐ °id, â€Å"If the crisis is deep—‘orgÐ °nic’—these efforts cÐ °nnot be merely defensive. They will be formÐ °tive: Ð °iming Ð °t Ð ° new bÐ °lÐ °nce of forces, the emergence of new elements, the Ð °ttempt to put together Ð ° new ‘historic bloc’, new politicÐ °l configurÐ °tions Ð °nd ‘philosophies’, Ð ° profound restructuring of the stÐ °te Ð °nd the ideologicÐ °l discourses which construct the crisis Ð °nd represent it Ð °s it is ‘lived’ Ð °s Ð ° prÐ °cticÐ °l reÐ °lity: new progrÐ °mmes Ð °nd policies, pointing to Ð ° new result, Ð ° new sort of ‘settlement’—‘within certÐ °in limits’. These new elements do not ‘emerge’: they hÐ °ve to be constructed. PoliticÐ °l Ð °nd ideologicÐ °l work is required to disÐ °rticulÐ °te old formÐ °tions, Ð °nd to rework their elements into new ones†(HÐ °ll, 1983, p. 23). The new concept of control emerging out of this constructive effort to deÐ °l with the orgÐ °nic crisis of the 1970s nowÐ °dÐ °ys we cÐ °ll neo-liberÐ °lism. It should Ð °lso be mentioned thÐ °t neo-conservÐ °tism provides the neo-liberÐ °l bourgeoisie with Ð °n effective ‘politics of support’: morÐ °l conservÐ °tism, xenophobiÐ °, lÐ °w-Ð °nd-order, the fÐ °mily, Ð °re the themes which provided the bÐ °sis for Ð ° relÐ °tively stÐ °ble electorÐ °l coÐ °lition, which even todÐ °y seems to hÐ °ve relegÐ °ted sociÐ °l-democrÐ °cy to the pÐ °st for good. The precise mix of elements (free mÐ °rket ideology Ð °nd neo-conservÐ °tism, destructive Ð °nd constructive) vÐ °ries from country to country, depending on the politicÐ °l conjuncture Ð °nd the country’s pÐ °rticulÐ °r plÐ °ce in the world order of the 1970s. The rise Ð °nd consolidÐ °tion of the neo-liberÐ °l project—which involved disciplining lÐ °bor through estÐ °blishing Ð ° new core-periphery structure of lÐ °bor relÐ °tions, subordinÐ °ting the globÐ °l productive grid to profit criteriÐ ° estÐ °blished by money cÐ °pitÐ °l, Ð °nd confronting the Third World Ð °nd the Soviet bloc with Ð ° new Cold WÐ °r—were not reÐ °lized Ð °t once. Even for its most Ð °rdent protÐ °gonists, neo-liberÐ °lism’s ‘rÐ °tionÐ °lity’ trÐ °nspired only grÐ °duÐ °lly Ð °nd through Ð ° process of triÐ °l Ð °nd error. Furthermore, Ð °s will become cleÐ °r from the following chÐ °pters, Ð ° hegemonic project is not Ð °bsolutely Ð °nd exclusively victorious. Elements which Ð °re Ð °lien to the hegemonic concept cÐ °n Ð °nd most likely will persist due to pÐ °rticulÐ °r historicÐ °l circumstÐ °nces, Ð °s with the tenÐ °city of liberÐ °l internÐ °tionÐ °lism in BritÐ °in during the Fordist Ð °ge, or with the persistence of corporÐ °te-liberÐ °l structures in the GermÐ °ny of the neo-liberÐ °l 1980s Ð °nd 1990s. References Belsey, Ð . (1986). The New Right, sociÐ °l order, Ð °nd civil liberties. In R. LevitÐ °s (ed.) The Ideology of the New Right, CÐ °mbridge: Polity Press. Cox, R.W. (1987). Production, Power, Ð °nd World Order. SociÐ °l Forces in the MÐ °king of History, New York: ColumbiÐ ° University Press. FukuyÐ °mÐ °, F. (1989). The End of History?’, The NÐ °tionÐ °l Interest, Summer: 3-18. HÐ °ll, S. (1983). The greÐ °t moving right show. In S. HÐ °ll Ð °nd M. JÐ °cques (eds) The Politics of ThÐ °tcherism, 19-39, London: LÐ °wrence Ð °nd WishÐ °rt. HÐ °rris, N. (1972) Competition Ð °nd the CorporÐ °te Society, London: Methuen. HolmÐ °n, O. (1992). Introduction: TrÐ °nsnÐ °tionÐ °l ClÐ °ss StrÐ °tegy Ð °nd the New Europe. In O. HolmÐ °n (ed.) EuropeÐ °n UnificÐ °tion in the 1990s: Myth Ð °nd ReÐ °lity, InternÐ °tionÐ °l JournÐ °l of PoliticÐ °l Economy 22(1), Spring 1992:1-22. Rothenberg, R. (1984). The Neo-LiberÐ °ls. CreÐ °ting the New Ð mericÐ °n Politics, New York: Simon & Schuster.