real existing capitalism – neo liberalism

https://openhouselondon.open-city.org.uk/listings/8739 NEO LIBERALISM – AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL, WASHINGTON CONSENSUS, END OF HISTORY, POLITICS, US, ECONOMICS, MACRO, MONETARISM
Neo-Lib Gallery

real existing capitalism > NEO LIBERALISM – GLOBALISATION – HISTORY – POLITICS – US – BUSINESS – ECONOMICS – WASHINGTON CONSENSUS – Mark-FisherJohn N.Gray

neo-liberalism – articles & updates4-2022


academia.edu gm/pdf 2020 Surviving Democracy–Mitigating Climate Change in A Neoliberalized World – by 倩儀 盧

Is democracy, in its neoliberalized form, responsible in part for bringing us to the brink of self-destruction and the policy inertia that is doing away with our chances of survival? Surviving Democracy probes the way that democracy became neoliberalized and the role that neoliberalized democracy plays in our dealings with—causing, understanding, denying, and hopefully, mitigating—climate change. Defining neoliberalism as the art of exclusion through inclusion, Chien-Yi Lu treats climate change as collateral damage of the neoliberal order established to ensure upward power and wealth redistribution. Highlighting the role that money played in the “free” competition of ideas between John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek, she investigates the resulting global structure, wherein the wealthy and powerful sit above the market and democracy, and the way that this structure fundamentally contradicts honest climate mitigation. Central to the structure is neoliberal elites’ leveraging of the fluid relationship between the market and the state. Merging citizen power with consumer and investor powers is therefore imperative to the success of climate action. While expediting the bursting of the carbon bubble is an obvious answer, it is the discussion of the meat bubble that brings the book full circle, linking our survival to neoliberalism, inclusion, and democracy. …

>Climate Change, Neoliberalism, Animal Rights/Liberation, Democracy, European Union Politics


OUP.com amazon.co.uk goodreads.com 4-2022 THE RISE AND FALL OF THE NEOLIBERAL ORDER – AMERICA AND THE WORLD IN THE FREE MARKET ERA – by GARY GERSTLE

gm/post presentations, interviews & reviews here

revdem.ceu.edu 19-4-2022 GARY GERSTLE ON THE NEOLIBERAL POLITICAL ORDER: AN ELITE PROMISE OF A WORLD OF FREEDOM AND EMANCIPATION (PART I) – with Ferenc Laczó


amazon.co.uk 11-2021 Post-Neoliberal Economics by Edward Fullbrook, Jamie Morgan, Richard Parker, Richard B. Norgaard, James K. Galbraith, Lukas Bäuerle, William E. Rees, Jayati Ghosh, Richard C. Koo, Neva Goodwin, Max Koch, Jayeon Lindellee, Johanna Alkan Olsson, Katharine N. Farrell, John Komlos, Clive L. Spash, Adrien O.T. Guisan, Andri W. Stahel

Kindle $8.00 US UK DE FR ES IT NL JP BR CA MX AU IN Paperback $22.00 US UK DE FR ES IT JP CA

If you feel that there is nothing new or liberal about neoliberal economics, and that neoliberal economics is to understanding capitalism what astrology is to understanding the Cosmos, read this book! –Yanis Varoufakis, Professor of Economics – University of Athens

Fullbrook and Morgan in this excellent anthology continue to act as trust-busters in breaking up the suffocating neoliberal monopoly on academic economics by giving a venue to clearer thinking. – Herman Daly, Emeritus Professor, University of Maryland, USA

Post-Neoliberal Economics is a triumph. It comes when the long-established neoliberal binary between “natural market” and “artificial state” has substantially lost credibility, thanks to the North Atlantic financial crisis, China, and Covid. Anyone who enjoys the company of articulate, provocative, offbeat intelligences will want to read it. Some will want to pick a fight with it. – Robert H. Wade, Professor of global political economy, London School of Economics and Political Science

As a project, neoliberalism remade the world; as an ideology, it became inconsistent with the very world it made. This rich heterodox volume examines the theoretical, societal, and environmental failings of neoliberalism – as well as what might and should replace it. – Jonathan Nitzan, Professor of Political Economy at York University, Toronto

Fullbrook and Morgan have assembled an interesting collection of essays from some of the world’s leading heterodox economists. It is a valuable cross-section of thinking outside of the mainstream of the profession. – Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington D. C.

The world has become more unequal, the economy more fragile, and our existence on Earth more tenuous, because we followed the advice of Neoclassical economists who think they are capitalism’s best friends, when in fact they are the greatest threat to its continued existence. We desperately need a Post-Neoliberal Economics. – Steve Keen

This book is a must-read not only because it shows neoclassical economics’ fundamental inadequacy for understanding today’s world, but also because it outlines a new economics that can lead us to living in harmony with our ecosystem. – Norbert Haering, Handelsblatt

In times where good news tend to be scarce, let me celebrate the publication of Post-Neoliberal Economics; a timely collection of essays authored by key critical thinkers of the discipline, with the purpose to design a new, inspiring future for Economics as a science useful to solve the real problems of society today. This work, meticulously edited by Fullbrook and Morgan, puts forward a substantive, solid and passionately argued call to transform Economics as it currently stands in order to make it relevant to meet the crucial challenges faced by our peoples, urbi et orbi. Of utmost important to lecturers at undergraduate and graduate levels, the book puts forward a practical blueprint to change its curricula, teaching and research practice so that students of Economics, on the one hand, keep alive enthusiastically their aspirations to make this a better world and, on the other hand, acquire the analytical and technical abilities to make such dreams come true. – Juan Carlos Moreno-Brid, UNAM, México


opendemocracy.net/ 9-2021 Neoliberalism is dying – now we must replace it – From taming Big Tech to competing with China, Western governments are abandoning free-market policies. But what does a post-neoliberal future look like? by James Meadway


theguardian.com   6-2021  The age of neoliberalism is ending in America. What will replace it? Gary Gerstle

Can Biden nevertheless pull off a New Deal for the 21st century, appropriately festooned in 50 shades of climate-friendly green? The odds are against him. Gary Gerstle teaches at the University of Cambridge. He is writing The Rise and Fall of America’s Neoliberal Order (2022)

cambridge.org 2018 THE RISE AND FALL(?) OF AMERICA’S NEOLIBERAL ORDER by Gary Gerstle

Abstract : This paper argues that the last eighty years of American politics can be understood in terms of the rise and fall of two political orders. The first political order grew out of the New Deal, dominating political life from the 1930s to the 1970s. The history of this order (the New Deal Order) is now well known. The other order, best understood as ‘neoliberal’ in its politics, emerged from the economic and political crises of the 1970s. This paper is one of the first to elucidate the political relationships, ideological character and moral perspective that were central to this neoliberal order’s rise and triumph. The paper’s narrative unfolds in three acts: the first chronicles the 1980s rise of Ronald Reagan and the laissez-faire Republican party he forced into being; the second shows how the collapse of communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s accelerated the globalization of capitalism and elevated neoliberalism’s prestige; and the third reveals how a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, facilitated his party’s capitulation to neoliberal imperatives. Political orders encourage such capitulation, the paper argues, by universalizing their own ideological principles and making alternative ideologies seem marginal and unworkable. A coda shows how the Great Recession of 2008 fractured America’s neoliberal order, diminishing its authority and creating a space in which different kinds of politics, including the right-wing populism of Donald Trump and the left-wing populism of Bernie Sanders, could flourish.


project-syndicate.org   5-2021   Beware Economists Bearing Policy Paradigms   by Dani Rodrik

US President Joe Biden’s administration has embarked on a bold and long-overdue departure from the economic policy orthodoxy that has prevailed in the US and much of the West since the 1980s. But those who are seeking a new economic paradigm should be careful what they wish for. Neoliberalism is dead. Or perhaps it remains very much alive. Pundits have been calling it both ways these days. But either way, it is hard to deny that something new is afoot in the world of economic policy.


ft.com exbulletin.com  5/2021  Why the US is becoming more European   Simon Kuper

NEOLIBERAL - Biden US 3rd way FT Kuper 5 2021

A new cultural shift is emerging. For decades America was seen as the ultimate society and the biggest influence on international culture. In recent times, however, something entirely unexpected has happened: Americans are starting to look to Europe as a reference. From abandoning religion to voting for socialists, Simon Kuper explores the defining factors behind the USA’s ‘Europeanising’.

For decades influential Americans watching other countries wondered, “When will they become like us?” When would the Japanese grow up and realize they needed to open up their economy? When would Southeast Asians abandon crony capitalism? When would the French cut vacations? One unspoken idea behind the post-1945 “modernization theory” was that the ultimate society was the United States. Some foreign leaders bought into the idea: Margaret Thatcher did her best to Americanize the UK.

That ideal died some time ago, and now something unexpected is happening: Instead of other countries becoming like the United States, the United States is more like other countries. Much of American society is Europeanizing. Joe Biden is taking small steps to transform the United States into something like a European social democracy. Far from separating, as many Europeans have assumed, the two shores of the Atlantic are developing together.

Others before me have noted the progressive Europeanization of American life. With birth rates and immigration falling towards European levels, the United States’ population growth is the slowest since the 1930s, according to new census data. Many Americans follow Europeans by giving up religion, move home less often, and some even give up driving.

A big transatlantic differentiator has always been the higher level of violence in the United States, both at home and abroad. Political thinker Robert Kagan captured it almost 20 years ago with his observation: “Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus.” But now the Americans are abandoning the god of war. Their violent crime rates fell for nearly 30 years before soaring during the pandemic; the death penalty is falling into disuse; the incarceration rate reached its lowest level since 1995 even before Covid-19 even pushed for the release of prisoners; and with American anti-war sentiment reaching European heights, Biden withdrew from Afghanistan.

Seven in ten American millennials now say they would vote for a “socialist,” which most likely means a Nordic social democratic type rather than a Venezuelan expropriator. Biden heard them. He is pushing for affordable child care, paid medical leave, two years of free community college and child tax credits, funded in part by European-style taxes on the rich. No wonder, because today’s Democratic Party is swayed by European economists such as Keynes, Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman.

Almost nothing of what is happening in the United States today is a conscious emulation of Europe. Rather, it stems from widespread disillusionment with American exceptionalism. If you are the only person driving on the freeway in oncoming traffic, you can either assume that you are exceptional and everyone is wrong, or you may eventually conclude that you need to change.

It is true that the Republican Party opposes this change, although many of its voters like Social Democratic policies. But even Republicans are partly Europeanizing, moving from a militarist party with an American-only runoff economy to a European-style nativist movement, albeit with American characteristics such as the cult of billionaires. The American political confrontation has gone from liberal versus conservative to a more European social democrat versus nativist.

In the United States as in Europe, anti-immigrant nativist parties are fighting to win the elections. Plus, the demographics are against Republicans. “Those who embrace the political agenda of Millennials and Zoomers will live a very long time,” writes Amit Gupta of Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama. In 2065, he notes, today’s Democratic stars such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pete Buttigieg could still be active, when Donald Trump would be 119 and Senator Lindsey Graham 110 (and Biden, admittedly , 123).

The Republican solution is to pass state laws aimed at depriving Democratic voters of their rights. The United States of the future may have a Trumpist Republican regime or a democracy, but it probably cannot have both.

Some object that a more European United States would cease to be innovative. They argue that you can either have French taxes and inertia subsidies or have Silicon Valley. Maybe there is something there: since the industrial revolution, British and then American innovators have invented the future of continental Europe. On the other hand, the United States in its previous social democratic phase from around 1933 to 1980 remained innovative: it became the world’s first motorized society, built the atomic bomb, and landed men on it. Moon. In any case, it is doubtful that recent American innovations such as Facebook and Amazon increase the sum of human happiness.

One prediction is more certain: even if a more social-democratic US feels almost European, it will not want to spend blood and treasures to defend Europe. Social democracies prioritize improving the lives of their own people. Barack Obama and Trump pushed the Europeans, without much success, to increase their defense spending to American levels. Instead, over the past decade, the reverse has happened: US defense spending is declining as a percentage of GDP towards European levels. The United States and Europe are becoming the community of values ​​that they have always claimed.


read here

economist.com  5-2021  Biden’s end of neolib – 3rd way all over?

… “What a difference 25 years can make. In 1996, then-Senator Joe Biden was gushing about the vote he would soon cast in support of sharp reductions in cash payments for single mothers. “The culture of welfare must be replaced with the culture of work,” he said on the floor of the Senate. “The culture of dependence must be replaced with the culture of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.”…”

3rd way all over?

guardian.com   5/2021  Focus on individual wellbeing doesn’t helpAngela Smith
As the powerful feather their own nests, for many daily life is a horror story of precarity and anxiety


ft.com/ 5/2021 Amazon Unbound by Brad Stone – the prime of life FT review 


FTmag   5/2021  How the middle class became downwardly mobile   Simon Kuper

NeoLiberal collateral damage Middle Class downward mobility Simon Kuper FT 4/2021
what goes up must come down?


mh.com 1-2021 The rentier resurgence and takeover: Finance Capitalism vs. Industrial Capitalism – by Michael Hudson

Today’s neo-rentier economies obtain wealth mainly by rent seeking, while financialization capitalizes real estate and monopoly rent into bank loans, stocks and bonds. Debt leveraging to bid up prices and create capital gains on credit for this “virtual wealth” has been fueled by central bank Quantitative Easing since 2009. Financial engineering is replacing industrial engineering. Over 90 percent of recent U.S. corporate income has been earmarked to raise the companies’ stock prices by being paid out as dividends to stockholders or spent on stock buyback programs. Many companies even borrow to buy up their own shares, raising their debt/equity ratios.

jwmason.org/pdf 4-2021 Making Capitalism Great Again? A Critique of the “Rentier Takeover” Thesis J. W. Mason
Abstract : Michael Hudson argues that a new form of financial capitalism has displaced the industrial capitalism of Marx’s day. Unlike earlier capitalists, whose pursuit of lower costs led to improvements in the organization of production, the typical wealth owner today is a passive rentier who, like a feudal landlord, merely claims the surplus from existing production processes. Some form of this vision of financialization is widely held, but, I argue, misleading. It exaggerates the differences between historical and present-day capitalism, and misses the ways in which “finance” and “industry” form complementary parts of a single process. Keywords: financialization, circuit of capital, corporate governance, rent


ft.com/content/ 10-2020 Why Europeans no longer dream of America by Simon Kuper

In Franz Kafka’s first novel, Amerika (1927), a teenage boy from central Europe is sent to the US in disgrace, having “seduced” the family maid. (It later emerges that she — a giant, terrifying, Kafkaesque ogre — did the seducing.) In New York harbour, the boy is welcomed by a wealthy stranger: his uncle, who turns out to be a US senator. The ship’s captain offers congratulations: “A shining career awaits you now.”

Kafka was poking fun at the European dream of America, which had infected his own family. His cousin Otto, who had emigrated to the US speaking no English, ended up founding the brilliantly named Kafka Export Company. Like countless Europeans, I also grew up dreaming of America. The slow death of that dream has altered the European imagination.

When I was 10, in 1980, my father, an academic, took a sabbatical at Stanford, so we moved to Palo Alto, California, for a year. Palo Alto in those pre-tech-billionaire days was a delightful university town where an academic salary got us a big clapboard house on a tree-lined avenue.

One sunny morning soon after we arrived, we watched an old house being moved on a flatbed truck to a better location. This, I thought, was America: if anything in your life was imperfect, you fixed it.

Even many anti-Americans wanted a part of this. The writer PJ O’Rourke recounts being held up at gunpoint in Lebanon in 1984 “by this Hezbollah kid . . . at one of those checkpoints, screaming at me about America, Great Satan, etc” When the kid was done screaming, he told O’Rourke his ambition: to study dentistry in Dearborn, Michigan.

In 1993, I returned to the US for a glorious year at university. One night at a party I ran into a Briton with a working-class London accent who had found happiness in Boston, a city where nobody cared to locate him on the class ladder. The US was a place where Europeans could reinvent themselves. I began applying for jobs there but my plans were derailed when the FT made me an offer. I decided to give it a go, thinking the US would still be there later.

In 2004, I married an American. For all her wondrous qualities, I’m sure I was also transferring my love of her country on to her. Every time we visited, her grandfather greeted me with “Welcome to America!” as if he was personally bestowing the country’s bounty upon me.

At first, my wife and I assumed we’d end up in the US. Occasionally she’d badger me to apply for a green card. Gradually we stopped having that conversation. American life was losing appeal. In 2009, I met a Palestinian in the Gulf, who — flying in the face of history — was sending money to a relative in California bankrupted by the financial crisis.

Today, average US hourly earnings are about the same as when I moved to Palo Alto. I see American friends spend their lives worrying about paying for their healthcare, their college debts, their children’s university education and their own hoped-for retirements. They remind me of the character in Amerika who works as an errand-boy by day and studies at night. Asked when he sleeps, he replies: “I will sleep when I’m done with my studies. For now I drink black coffee.”

European attitudes to Americans are shifting from envy to compassion. This spring, Irish donors raised millions of dollars for the Native American Choctaw people devastated by coronavirus. The gift was a thank-you: in 1847, the Choctaw had sent money to Irish people devastated by the Potato Famine.

The obvious retort to all this is that the people living in our old Palo Alto house (now valued at $5.4m) are rich beyond my imagining and work for companies that shape my existence. It’s true — though there’s more chance of becoming a billionaire, if that’s your thing, in Scandinavia than in the US. Famously, too, northern European social mobility is now higher. Then there are the catastrophic California wildfires that lit Palo Alto’s skies orange this summer.

The US today reminds me of Argentina. When I was in Buenos Aires in 2002, interviewing descendants of Italians, Spaniards, Britons and Poles during yet another financial crisis, I thought: their grandparents went to the wrong country. They should have emigrated to the US instead.

An Argentine historian set me right: early last century, those people were making the correct decision. They couldn’t have known that the most valuable thing they would leave behind would be their European birth certificates. By 2002, their grandchildren were queueing for passports at the Spanish and Italian consulates.

Similarly, the poor Scandinavian farmers who populated the American Midwest made a sensible choice. But their relatives who stayed home have ended up living better. Donald Trump wants fewer immigrants from “shithole countries” and more “from places like Norway”.

The question is why Norwegians would want to come to America today, except as aid workers. On the contrary, I suspect many Scandinavian-, German- and Irish-Americans are now rootling in the attic for grandpa’s birth certificate.


eprints.lse.ac.uk.pdf 2020 The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich – by David Hope, Julian Limberg


unherd 4-2020 Could Covid-19 vanquish neoliberalism? This crisis is exposing the folly of applying market-based logic to every domain of human life BY THOMAS FAZI

unherd.com/post 2019 Will Covid kill neoliberalism? Freddie Sayers speaks to Thomas Fazi and Julian Jessop


https://renegadeinc.com   2019  Neoliberalism – An Idea Swallowing The World      Economist Mary Wrenn and the economist and writer, Frances Coppola recently met up with Renegade Inc. to discuss what 40 years of neoliberal economics has done to us and our political landscape.


bostonreview 2019 Economics After Neoliberalism -Contemporary economics is finally breaking free from its market fetishism, offering plenty of tools we can use to make society more inclusive. Dani Rodrik Suresh Naidu Gabriel Zucman


brookings.edu/pdf 2019 Beyond neoliberalism – Insights from emerging markets – by Geoffrey Gertz, Homi Kharas


>real existing capitalism Mark Fisher

goodreads.com blogs.lse.ac.uk/ 2019 Long Read Review: k-punk: From Capitalist Realism to Acid Communism: The Collected and Unpublished Writings of Mark Fisher (2004-2016) by Mark Fisher, edited by Darren Ambrose with Simon Reynolds

K-punk: The Collected and Unpublished Writings of Mark Fisher: Fisher, Mark

“k-punk gathers together work written by the influential British cultural theorist and political activist Mark Fisher between 2004 and 2016, the year before his death. Despite the circumstances of the book’s publication and its sustained emphasis on the worst aspects of life under late capitalism, Sean Seeger explores how the overall impression of the volume is not despondency but rather an awareness of new possibilities, including a revitalised feeling for the utopian potential of art and music.


theguardian.com 2019 Democracy doesn’t matter to the defenders of ‘economic freedom’ – by
Quinn Slobodian


nytimes.com/ 2019 Bursting the Billionaire Bubble – No, America isn’t waiting for a tycoon savior. By Paul Krugman

…”…Put it this way: These days, many political factions are accused, with varying degrees of justice, of living in some kind of bubble, out of touch with American reality. But few live as thoroughly in a bubble as the billionaire class and its hangers-on. And now the billionaires in the bubble find themselves in an environment in which concerns about soaring inequality, about the extraordinary concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, finally seem to be getting political traction. And they’re not handling it well. …”…


warwick.ac.uk/   2018 ‘Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism’ (2018) Quinn Slobodian

…”It has almost seemed necessary for discussions of neoliberalism to start with a preamble on the uncertain status of neoliberalism as an object of inquiry. This tradition looks to be challenged by an increasingly broad and confident body of literature which has emerged over the past five to ten years, and to which Quinn Slobodian’s Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism (2018) firmly belongs. This body of literature aims to peer through the scholarly haze obscuring the nebulous concept of ‘neoliberalism’ and attempts to define precisely what neoliberalism might be. Slobodian is the co-editor, with Dieter Plehew and Philip Mirowski, of the forthcoming book Nine Lives of Neoliberalism(January 2020) which looks to be something of a follow-up of Mirowski and Plehew’s seminal edited volume The Road from Mont Pèlerin: the Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective (2009) – the authoritative volume for the historical study of neoliberalism. Slobodian frequently cites, and is very much part of, this historical project. The project has been particularly successful in dissipating what Mirowski has delightfully described as the ‘remarkable and dumbfounding […] nominalism when encountering neoliberalism.’ [1] The general thrust of this group’s argument understands neoliberalism as a distinct system of political thought with a number of prevalent features which differentiate it from other systems of thought, particularly classical liberalism. …”


blogs.lse.ac.uk 2018 Disciplinary neoliberalism: coercive commodification and the post-crisis welfare stateFiona Dukelow and Patricia Kennett examine the post-2008 welfare states in Ireland, Britain, and the US. They explain how each of these countries experienced an acceleration in the operation of disciplinary neoliberalism – through punitive regimes of surveillance and sanctions – and consider the implications of these contemporary welfare policies.

The Great Recession saw the unravelling of a financialised growth model into a full-blown crisis by 2008. In the aftermath, what is apparent is that financialised capitalism in unison with neoliberalism not only survived but thrived. The current configuration and integration of neoliberalism and financialisation, and their penetration into every aspect of everyday life, is contributing to a transformation of prevailing societal norms within Anglo-liberal capitalism. In our research we suggest that coercive commodification is a social policy tool that is becoming increasingly embedded in how the instabilities of the Anglo-liberal model are governed and in how disciplinary neoliberalism evolves. Focusing on Ireland, the UK, and the US, we highlight the ways in which these processes are playing out in these three countries.

Disciplinary Neoliberalism, coercive commodification, and financialisation: making the connections

A key starting point for explaining the reconfiguration of contemporary norms is Stephen Gill’s notion of disciplinary neoliberalism which distinguishes between two specific but interrelated and reinforcing faces of power.


springer.com   2018   Contemporary Neoliberalism  Financing the Apocalypse pp 113-143   Joel Magnuson

This chapter and the next are devoted to exploring this neoliberal canon as part of the superstructure that provides normative justification for the corporate hegemony, and to see how it is bound up in the collective nerve cells of the American mentality. So deeply entrenched this ideology that it is nearly invisible, as Mirowski echoes Gruchy, “neoliberalism as a worldview has sunk its roots deep into everyday life, almost to the point of passing as the ‘ideology as no ideology.’”   Whether invisible or not, a central point to be made is that neoliberal ideology is inseparable from the institutions that it supports. They are a package deal.

To keep themselves intact, all powerful institutions throughout history have developed their own version systems of ideological justification. As we explore the relationship between institutions and their supporting ideologies, there arises a chicken-and-egg question on which has primacy, the institution or the ideology? This question is overshadowed by the debate in the sociology of knowledge between idealism and materialism and weighing in on this debate is beyond the scope of our project here. If pressed, however, the materialist view seems to carry more weight.

In the institutionalist view, the emphasis is not on trying to solve this debate, but rather to see that institutions and ideologies are two aspects of a broader cultural whole that evolves with time. There is a dynamic interplay between the structure of institutions that determine how we do things and the structure of beliefs that determine how we think about things. How we think about the world affects how we act in the world, which affects how we think about the world and so on. The men and women who advocate neoliberal doctrines have the privilege of orthodoxy because they are supported by the vast financial resources of the corporation and by the social classes that reside in its citadels. At the same time, corporate institutions evolved into a hegemony in part because they are supported by the coevolution of neoliberal economic doctrine. It is not a coincidence that as corporate institutions orchestrated their capture of other institutions in media, government, and academia, these institutions became the home base for neoliberal intellectuals. In other words, corporate hegemony and neoliberalism are coevolving in such a way that they mutually strengthen each other. We cannot fully understand one without the other. To that end, we will flesh out some of the cornerstone elements of neoliberalism:

  • The sanctity of economic individualism
  • Greed is necessary for well-being
  • The sanctity of the market system
  • The “Janus Face” of government
  • What is good for corporations is good for everyone
  • Capitalism equals democracy
  • Economic and Financial Innovation are Unassailable

factmyth.com/ 2017 Neoliberalism Explained Thomas DeMichele

A basic definition of Neoliberalism: Neoliberalism is an economic ideology that fuses classical liberal deregulation, with social liberal Keynesian economics, and a globalist mentality. Its not classically liberal, its not social liberal, its not conservative, its not social policy, its not economic policy, it is parallel a mash-up of all these things at once. It favors a global, integrated, capitalist economy in either a left-wing form or right-wing “neocon” form.


newleftreview.org  2017  THE RETURN OF THE REPRESSED  Wolfgang-Streeck

“…. An interregnum in Gramsci’s sense is a period of tremendous insecurity in which the accustomed chains of cause and effect are no longer in force, and unexpected, dangerous and grotesquely abnormal events may occur at any moment. This is in part because disparate lines of development run unreconciled, parallel to one another, resulting in unstable configurations of many kinds, and chains of surprising events take the place of predictable structures. Among the causes of the new unpredictability is the fact that, following the populist revolution, the political classes of neoliberal capitalism are forced to listen rather more closely to their national populations. …”

Die Wiederkehr der Verdrängten : Streeck zur Politik des Neoliberalismus   Artikel in Suhrkamp Buch


cis.org/pdf 2017 IN DEFENCE OF NEOLIBERALISM – Those who prefer growth to stagnation must make defending and extending the global liberal order their top priority, argues Sam Bowman


theoryculturesociety.org/blog 2016 Review: Wendy Brown, ‘Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution’

“At its worst, the resilience imperative is an offensive, exclusionary narrative that blames individuals for their predicament. Encouraging us to internalise, rather than question, the dominant logic of neoliberal values and the structural inequalities and social determinants that contribute to poor mental health, it undermines our impulses to solidarity. And at its best? Perhaps when it emerges from resistance and solidarity – not compliance and individuality.

The self-help industry’s moralising frame of reference offers the psychological comfort of consolatory distractions, encouraging conformity rather than criticality. Changing the status quo requires resistance, not resignation and compliance with the sanitised dictates of self-help gurus, and their market-friendly humbuggery that promises individual transformation and human flourishing without altering the structural conditions that contribute to distress.

Anxiety is symptomatic of the radical contingency of our era. Normalised precarity has normalised anxiety. To feel anxious, vulnerable and unhappy in a system that masquerades as freedom and demands that workers be resilient while leaving them unprotected is an understandable outcome”

source griffithreview.com


researchgate.net   2016  Primacy of the Economy, Primacy of the Political: Critical Theory of Neoliberalism   Bob Jessop

“Neoliberalization is a distinctive economic, political, and social project that promotes profit-oriented, market-mediated accumulation as the primary axis of societalization. This might suggest that neoliberalism promotes the primacy of the economic but, since its extension and reproduction require continuing state support and, indeed, involve what Weber called political capitalism, one might also argue that it entails a primacy of the political. To address this paradox, my article offers a baseline definition of neoliberalism and identifies four ideal-typical historical forms thereof; relates neoliberalism to the world market, geopolitics and global governance; disambiguates the primacy of the economic; and addresses the role of the political in promoting neoliberalism and handling its contradictions and crisis-tendencies. It illustrates this exercise in critical theory from the North Atlantic Financial Crisis and how its (mis)management has strengthened the neoliberal project, enabled its main promoters and beneficiaries to escape the need to learn from their mistakes, and even enabled them to further enrich themselves.

While often identified with right-wing parties, neoliberal regime shifts have also been initiated, maintained, or supported by centre-left parties, often under a ‘Third Way’ label (e.g., New Labour, the Clinton Administration, ‘die neue Mitte’ in Germany).”    more here


academia.edu/PDF  2013 The Neoliberal Resurgence and the Threat of Austerity Boris Frankel

The enormity of the current crisis (known superficially as the GFC), prompts one to ask why is it that neoliberalism still dominates both government policy practice and university economics theory and, moreover, why has it actually gained a new and possibly stronger lease of life?


 cover palgrave.com   2012    Neoliberalism in Crisis    ed by Henk Overbeek + Bastiaan van Apeldoorn,    The authors interrogate the condition of the neoliberal project in the wake of the global crisis and neoliberalism’s predicted death in 2007, both in terms of the regulatory structures of finance-led capitalism in Europe and North America, and the impact of new centres of capitalist power on global order.

academioa.edu (GM PDF)  2012 The_life_course_of_the_neoliberal project and the global crisis  by Henk Overbeek + Bastiaan van Apeldoorn


goodreads.com 2007 A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey

Neoliberalism – the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action – has become dominant in both thought and practice throughout much of the world since 1970 or so. Writing for a wide audience, David Harvey, author of The New Imperialism and The Condition of Postmodernity, here tells the political-economic story of where neoliberalization came from and how it proliferated on the world stage. Through critical engagement with this history, he constructs a framework, not only for analyzing the political and economic dangers that now surround us, but also for assessing the prospects for the more socially just alternatives being advocated by many oppositional movements.


Global Capitalism John N. Gray

goodreads.com 1998 False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism by John N. Gray

Hailed by Kirkus Reviews as both “a convincing analysis of an international economy headed for disaster” and a “powerful challenge to economic orthodoxy,” False Dawn shows that the attempt to impose the Anglo-American-style free market on the world will create a disaster, possibly on the scale of Soviet communism. Even America, the supposed flagship of the new civilization, risks moral and social disintegration as it loses ground to other cultures that have never forgotten that the market works best when it is embedded in society. John Gray, well known in the 1980s as an important conservative political thinker, whose writings were relied upon by Margaret Thatcher and the New Right in Britain, has concluded that the conservative agenda is no longer viable. In his examination of the ripple effects of the economic turmoil in Russia and Asia on our collective future, Gray provides one of the most passionate polemics against the utopia of the free market since Carlyle and Marx.


https://english.elpais.com/opinion/2021-01-25/nostalgia-in-economics.html

https://blog.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/the-nostalgic/

http://theconversation.com/can-capitalism-solve-capitalisms-problems-130427 Can capitalism solve capitalism’s problems?

https://theconversation.com/investors-consumers-and-workers-are-changing-capitalism-for-the-better-by-demanding-companies-behave-more-responsibly-119281


see also


Is the neoliberal era finally over?

As free-market globalisation recedes, countries from the US to the UK to China are embracing national capitalism.   By George Eaton

(Photo By boris semaniako / ikon images)

In 2007 Alan Greenspan, the former chair of the US Federal Reserve, was asked which candidate he was supporting in the forthcoming presidential election. “We are fortunate that, thanks to globalisation, policy decisions in the US have been largely replaced by global market forces,” he replied of the contest between Barack Obama and John McCain. “National security aside, it hardly makes any difference who will be the next president. The world is governed by market forces.”

The complacency of Greenspan represented the apex of neoliberalism, a term often misunderstood and overused, but which remains the best shorthand for the policies that have shaped the global economy as we know it: privatisation, tax cuts, inflation targeting and anti-trade union laws. Rather than being subject to democratic pressures – such as elections – these measures were portrayed as irreversible. “I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation,” Tony Blair declared in his speech to the 2005 Labour Party conference. “You might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer.”

But this proved a false dawn. “I’ve found a flaw [in my ideology],” Greenspan told a Congressional hearing during the 2008 financial crisis. “I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

In the years that followed numerous obituaries were written for neoliberalism but the coffin remained empty. Like a reanimated corpse, the neoliberal order staggered on with the aid of ultra-low interest rates and trillions of dollars of quantitative easing (new money created by central banks). Meanwhile, centre-left parties, misreading the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath as a “social democratic moment”, were routed as anti-immigration populist movements rose. French president François Hollande – the only socialist to be elected in a G7 country after the crash – supplied the farce to match François Mitterand’s tragedy.

Now, as we emerge from the Covid recession, obituaries for neoliberalism are once again being written – but this time they are more plausible. In the US, Joe Biden’s administration has passed a $1.9trn economic relief bill, a stimulus more than twice as large as that enacted by Obama in 2009. The bill included payments of $1,400 for Americans earning up to $75,000, the extension of federal unemployment support ($300 a week), $350bn of financial aid to state and local governments, and a more generous child tax credit for some families.

Combined with Donald Trump’s emergency coronavirus relief packages last year, this amounts to a stimulus of $5trn, or around 25 per cent of annual US GDP – the largest-ever fiscal expansion in peacetime. The decades-old presumption in favour of inflation control has given way to one in favour of growth and employment (even the traditionally austere European Union has agreed a recovery fund of €750bn or 4.7 per cent of annual EU GDP).

Government fiscal stimulus and budget deficits are hardly incompatible with neoliberalism (as Ronald Reagan could testify). But the Biden administration represents a more significant challenge to the established order. “Trickle-down economics has never worked,” Biden declared in his first address to Congress in April. For decades, the labour share of GDP has been in decline, falling from 63.3 per cent in 2000 to 56.7 per cent in 2016. Biden’s explicit aim is to reverse the falling wage share by redistributing wealth from business owners to workers through a more progressive tax system and re-empowered trade unions. His administration was the chief architect of the minimum global corporation tax rate of 15 per cent agreed by the G7’s finance ministers on 5 June – a policy that until recently was deemed utopian. Crucially, the move was framed by the US Treasury secretary Janet Yellen as a repudiation of neoliberalism and an end to the “30-year race to the bottom”.

The ascendant superpower, meanwhile, is China, a state once regarded as an obedient neoliberal pupil, but which has since proved far more recalcitrant. Rather than becoming ever more Westernised, or succumbing to internal contradictions as the Soviet Union ultimately did, Xi Jinping’s China is pursuing an alternative model of growth: authoritarian state capitalism. (China’s state-owned enterprises are estimated to account for a larger share of global GDP than Japan.) As the Economist observed in a leader last August: “One thing is clear: the hope for confrontation followed by capitulation is misguided… The strength of China’s $14trn state-capitalist economy cannot be wished away. Time to shed that illusion.”

In 2000, in a different economic age, New Labour privatised UK air-traffic control, territory where even Margaret Thatcher’s government feared to tread. Today, the Conservative mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, boasts of having nationalised Teesside International Airport. Whatever we call this strange new political era, “neoliberal” is no longer adequate.

In the 1982 preface to Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman observed: “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.” One can imagine what an orthodox neoliberal response to the Covid-19 recession would have looked like: tax cuts and radical labour market deregulation designed to stimulate job creation. These ideas are still lying around, but they now resemble embarrassing outfits from a different era. Others have moved to the front of the store: state investment, industrial strategy, progressive tax rises, higher wages. The zeitgeist has changed. As the Atlantic magazine recently reported, Boris Johnson has “ordered civil servants to reject conservative orthodoxies about government intervention being bad and to be ‘more creative and more confident around who we [the UK] choose to back’”.

“As a sort of ebullient, aggressive ideology, as a doctrine that felt cocky and confident and all-conquering, neoliberalism is clearly dead, right?” Adam Tooze, the author of Crashed, the definitive book on the 2008 financial crisis, said when we spoke. “There’s just not any juice in there, it’s a bad brand at this point.”

He cited the fate of David Cameron’s government – so wedded to neoliberalism that it contemplated the privatisation of England’s forests – as an exemplar. “There was a Cameroon project and it consisted of resolving the Brexit problem by holding a referendum and then buddying up with China. And that was the plan: to insert a Conservative hegemonised Britain as the link between Europe and China – and every single piece of that plan blew up.”

Dani Rodrik, the influential Harvard University economist, agrees that neoliberalism is effectively dead. “The intellectual dissolution of the concept goes back to the 2008 crisis, where the damage that financial liberalisation can do became better understood… Even the IMF reversed its earlier stand in favour of free capital flows.”

Earlier this year, the Financial Times reported that the UK government was planning a bonfire of workers’ rights, including the abolition of the 48-hour maximum working week and changes to rules over breaks at work. The policies could have been drawn from Britannia Unchained, a book of essays published in 2012 featuring five recently elected Conservative MPs, which derided British workers as “among the worst idlers in the world”. But though four of its co-authors now sit in Johnson’s cabinet, they are gradually disowning ideas they once championed.

In January one of the gang, Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, announced the abandonment of the promised review into workers’ rights. “I made it very, very clear to officials in the department that we’re not interested in watering down workers’ rights… I’ve said repeatedly that Brexit gives us the opportunity to have higher standards,” he said.

Rather than the 15 per cent rate of corporation tax that the former British chancellor George Osborne once aspired to introduce, the Conservatives have pledged to increase the UK rate from 19 per cent to 25 per cent (which would take the overall tax burden to its highest level since 1968-69, when Harold Wilson’s Labour government were in power). Infrastructure investment, meanwhile, has risen to its highest level as a share of GDP since the 1970s.

In his speech to the 1976 Labour Party conference, James Callaghan, the then prime minister, prefigured the ascent of the new Hayekian right by telling delegates: “We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession, and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists.” Today, Conservative MPs are being forced to accept that the era of severe public spending cuts, tax cuts and deregulation is coming to an end.

If there was a hinge year it might not be 2008, as often suggested, but 2016: the year of Donald Trump’s election and of the Brexit vote. Though neither project was radically anti-neoliberal, both prioritised national control over market forces and shattered economic taboos in areas such as trade.

“I don’t think that Trump set out to destroy the neoliberal order, but he opened up a space that others have now walked into,” Quinn Slobodian, the author of Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism, told me. “It was Bernie Sanders who first broke these taboos around free-trade globalisation in his presidential campaign… the savvy political talent of someone like [Trump’s ex-chief strategist] Steve Bannon was simply to realise what was working in the Sanders message, which had now been abandoned by the Democrats.”

Trumpism opened the way for Biden’s radicalism in at least three senses. First, his $1.9trn tax cuts exposed the illusion of limits on US borrowing. Second, his trade war with China established a new pretext for state intervention, a cause that can unite liberals and conservatives. On 8 June, 19 Republican Senators joined the Democrats in voting for a $250bn bill to boost government investment in American technology and manufacturing (though this is hardly a sum to make Beijing, which has pledged to invest $1.4trn in tech, tremble). Third, Trump’s presidency persuaded Biden that the defence of liberal democracy depends upon a less unequal economic order and the restoration of “shared prosperity”.

In 1981, in one of the iconic acts of the neoliberal counter-revolution, Reagan fired more than 11,000 air-traffic controllers who maintained a strike in defiance of his order to return to work. Forty years later, Biden is championing a bill – Protecting the Right to Organise – that could enact the biggest expansion of workers’ rights since Franklin D Roosevelt’s presidency. The act would ban employers from permanently replacing strikers, legalise secondary strikes (currently banned in the UK) and end employer interference in union elections.

If neoliberalism has stalled it is partly because, like Alexander the Great, it had no worlds left to conquer. By the 1990s the Soviet Union and its satellite states had been defeated and social-democratic parties had been forced to pay homage (Thatcher described the creation of New Labour as her greatest achievement).

The legacy of the neoliberal era remains. On an economic level, the life-support machine of the state helped prevent more radical ruptures after the 2008 financial crisis and, many years later, the Covid recession. On a political level, Sanders and Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn – who could have embarked upon Mitterrand-style socialist confrontations with capital – were comfortably defeated.

Biden’s programme appears negligible when set against Sanders’ original ambitions, which were: a Green New Deal (to achieve 100 per cent renewable energy and create 20 million jobs); a rise in US public spending of up to $60trn across the next decade; universal healthcare; worker ownership funds (allowing employees to acquire up to 20 per cent of public corporations); the abolition of university tuition fees; and the cancellation of $1.6trn of student debt.

“As a practice of government, neoliberalism is a far harder beast to kill,” Tooze said, noting how pivotal private finance remains to Biden’s infrastructure and climate ambitions. “And then if you think about neoliberalism as a structure of social interests, as a class project, it marches on unambiguously.”

The austerity of the past decade in the UK and the EU has led commentators to present the size of the state as the defining ideological question. But the partial return of big government – which is compatible with German Christian democracy and French Gaullism – hardly amounts to a full-scale confrontation with neoliberalism.

It is nevertheless a profound shift. In different ways, Joe Biden’s US, Xi Jinping’s China, Vladimir Putin’s Russia and even Boris Johnson’s UK have all embraced forms of nationalist Keynesianism: public spending in the service of great national causes. A comparable project has been embraced by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, who increasingly speaks of Europe as a civilisation-state and who championed the EU’s €750bn economic stimulus.

“Policy decisions in the US have been largely replaced by global market forces,” Alan Greenspan said in 2007. In the Covid era, however, global market forces are being subverted by domestic policy decisions. The age of neoliberalism is giving way to a new one: the age of national capitalism.