Skip to main content

@ Neoliberalism:

By Anonymous


With hopes that I would be forgiven for resuming a slightly out of vein topic, I would like to draw attention to a topic that was touched upon in the last class. I talk here of Neoliberalism and its structure/ operationalization. While often times we seem to criticize the neoliberal project with confidence as castigate it for most of the evils that the planet is witnessing – in so doing this we cast the neoliberal project as a singular, monolithic, overarching influence that has its impact in practically every sphere of international activities. This being said, I want to refer specifically, to the taking of a similar stance in the American neoliberal interventions in the middle –east. While castigating the new empire we take for granted its absolute power and the control it exerts thereby in the region. I however happened to listen to talks by Tariq Ali and Arundhati Roy (both names were mentioned in the Schueller piece) where both maintained a line of thought that translated into saying that the US does not have any idea of what it is doing in the region and how to control it, both stressed the latter point. This leads me to reiterate the doubt that u had in mind in the last class. Is it safe/ right on our part to attribute the authority that we attribute to the US forces that we do? If the forces are not in total control of the geopolitical scape, how are they expected to enforce single point neoliberal agendas? By no means do I doubt the validity of the preceding claim; my concern is with the understanding and theorizing of the neoliberal enterprise. I raise doubts to buttress our understanding of neoliberalism so that we do not fail to capture any aspect of the vicious force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFDcGnupj8E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Vhs8ulNZQ

Labels:

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

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more