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

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