Skip to main content

What's In a Name?

By Saqib
Based on the reading of Neoliberalism, I think it would be useful if we get a better grasp of what terminology and practical concepts we are using when we engage in discussions in class. Neoliberalism and neoconservatism seem to be the same functional state ideology with a few narrow differences. They both serve as economic models that seek to remove any regulations or restraints on corporations who wish to penetrate into the public sphere and international markets. The government acts as a convenient tool for the corporations to get the agenda passed via lobbying, PAC contributions, etc. This seems to be an increasingly popular view nowadays, that the current political establishment is a sham, with the two US parties functioning as two wings of one corporate party. This is not to say there are not differences, but the fundamentals of the economy and foreign policy remain the same.

The idea of corporate dominance of the public sector (President Bush described it as the "ownership society") is masked under the banner of capitalism and free enterprise. However, I feel it is important for us in the class to understand that in reality neoliberalism has many differences with capitalism. In fact, neoliberalism is more of a political ideology that can be interchanged with corporatism or crony capitalism as its called. In case, a few of my fellow students seem to disregard communism under Stalin and Lenin as not reflective of true communist ideology, but by that token neoliberalism is not truly reflective of capitalism as has been understood by Americans for much of the nations history. 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.

Comments

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

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Is participation just a rhetoric?

By
Participation and participatory strategies are used in different spaces globally to involve communities and ensure their voices in the discursive space. The culture centered approach foregrounds active participation of community members in the construction of shared meanings and experience (Dutta, 2008). Basu and Dutta (2009) underline the importance of participation of community members in the enunciation of health problems as a step toward achieving meaningful change. My experience with participatory projects involving children and community members also bears testimony to the importance of participation in impacting society; effecting a sustainable social change. But at the same time, this question looms large in my reflexive spaces that "Is it all just a co-optive process as the structural issues have remain untouched?" Basu and Dutta (2009) discuss different approaches of participation, critique the top down participatory campaigns and provide an alternative theorizing o...
2 comments
Read more