Skip to main content

In Response (or in addition?) to Saqib's post

By RK
In his post Saqib said that "Capitalism is connected with more competition, business free from state meddling and free trade while neoliberalism suggests protectionist trade policies, corporations in bed with government, monopolies, and bailouts for the biggest businesses. So there seems be much difference."

Reading Harvey, these were definitely some of the thoughts that crossed my mind..especially the one about the difference between capitalism and neoliberalism, wherever that thin line is. However, as the reading progressed and Harvey demonstrated how certain changes in policy were brought about by neoliberalism and how they functioned in reality (which seemed quite different from what the theory of neoliberalism promised), it left me wondering if capitalism was in fact another rhetorical instrument being used to further the legitimation of the neoliberalist agenda?

What further springs to mind are the words of Milton Friedman, the economist who noted that the whole point of analysis was to confuse. I wonder if that is what the difference between the theory of neoliberalism and the practice of capitalism is about.

Comments

Saqib said…
That is my point exactly. "Capitalism" simply is a rhetorical device used to justify what are essentially state administered practices/policies that are inherently contrary to capitalism as it is socially understood. In my mind, the state will do what it needs to do and all it needs is an effective PR tool to keep the masses at bay. Capitalism works as a convenient excuse.
February 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
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 &
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t
2 comments
Read more