When reading through Harvey's book I kept thinking...wow, a lot of neoliberal goals seem to be mirror opposites as those we have been reading about thus far. Whereas we've spent this part of the semester reading and discussing an ideology whose goal is to end class division, we've stumbled upon an ideology which strives to mark the class lines as clearly as possible. "Neoliberalization was from the very beginning a project to achieve the restoration of class power" (p. 16). So interesting. It's so interesting that having the priviledge to read not only history, but about these theories and political ideologies from such an disconnected, unreachable places puts things into perspective. Sometimes when reading about some of these ideologies and efforts, one can predict in the early pages what's going to happen. However, if this is so, why are political rulings and ideologies so cyclical? Why do we always look for something so different, closing in on opposite, only to realize it's gone too far again? When do we, in our class standing, stop reading the books and the histories and put our two cents in to veer the cycle in a different direction? If neoliberalism's goal is antithetical to communisms, what comes next?
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &
Comments
The fact is that centers of concentrated power will inevitably try and take a majority of resources, hence the cycles in breakdowns of the system.
When you say "we", in reality it refers to the sectors of power trying to control the masses. The only change is how receptive those in control are to the needs of the masses.
On a larger level, I just think human beings are incredibly shortsighted. We don't see where we are going until it's too late.