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

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