[KurtFF8]

By KurtFF8

Naomi Klein claimed that this financial crisis should be the Fall of the Berlin Wall of Neoliberalism but will it be the end of Neoliberalism as the dominant ideology? Or will the ruling classes instead engage in numerous tweaks of the system, leaving the dominant ideology itself in place?

In the speech above that took place a few months ago, Klein argued that Neoliberalism had succeeded for quite some time as the "liberation of capital from government intervention." It doesn't take much of an historical investigation to find that this has been all too true over the past 30 years or so. The problem with Klein's speech, however, is that she seems to place too much faith in reforms and regulation, as many dealing with the current crisis have been doing.

This seems to be a major problem with the framework of the discussion of the current system and the current crisis. While many are calling the potential for new regulations as the end of Neoliberalism, it doesn't take much to realize that the Obama administration will continue to place much faith in the market and capitalism, and thus in protecting the ruling class. The entire reason for the current US government's actions is to "save capitalism" from itself: intervene to make intervention later unnecessary.

While there certainly has been, and continues to be a move away from "market fundamentalism" or the idea that all government regulation or interference with the market is "bad," there still remains, amongst the dominant discourse the acceptance of capitalism and also continues to be the "no alternative" thesis being thrown around.

This is why it is important for leftists to argue that there is and alternative. We cannot accept the typical liberal framework of "more or less regulation" and instead need to help people call the system of property itself into question. If we fail at this, Neoliberalism has the possibility of remaining in the background: the ruling elite will continue to only let the idea of a government working for the people go so far and Neoliberalism and "market fundamentalism" will survive until another crisis arises.

[HoniSoit]

Great article, Kurt.

I think it's definitely pertinent to discuss this. A few thoughts after reading your article:

"liberation of capital from government intervention"

To be more exact, it is liberation of capital from the kind of government intervention that hinders the maxmisation of private profit; government intervenetion to help raise private profit has always been there.

The entire reason for the current US government's actions is to "save capitalism" from itself

This is no doubt very true.

I think there is a crisis of legitimacy concerning the more extreme form of neoliberalism, and as an ideology I think it is being chanllenged from below and you may see growing criticism and even abandonment of neoliberalism as an ideological justification by the state and capitalist class (these two are increasingly difficult to distinguish now that the Obama has gathered so many former bankers and CEOs in its administration); but neoliberailism as a practice (which could often be diametrically opposed to neoliberalism as an ideology) would likely continue to exist, abeit not in so blunt a form at least temporarily. American Capitalism itself is not really declining and is actually reconstituting itself, to eliminate its less heathy and less viable elements, and to move to greater degree of concentration and centralisation of capital through merger and acquisition with the help of government.

This is why it is important for leftists to argue that there is and alternative.

This is both true and false. True because neoliberalism/capitalism as a historical sociopolitical cannot and will not exist indefinitely, but we are not really providing an viable alternative in the first world.

It's perhaps useful to make the distinction betweenproposal and advocacy. As a proposal, we can say let's have socialism or more specifically let's have social/collective control of means of production etc. etc.. But it only becomes advocacy, when we point out a realistic path as to what we can do to get there. So I'm hesitant to criticise someone like Naomi Klein because at least she's advocating something (we can debate whether extensive regulations would be tolerated by Capital and whether regulations would work at all); but on the other hand, we are not advocating anything except some empty phrases like 'there is an alternative', or 'another world is possible (tho this is a little more realistic in the third world than in first world)', but the question is 'what'.

[Average Voter]

The entire reason for the current US government's actions is to "save capitalism" from itself: intervene to make intervention later unnecessary.

Their priority is the quickest way to give people and income, and the other projects they put money in such as protecting the environment and funding research in energy efficiency. I don't think the latter two would help save capitalism from anything, and I'd say that, at most, you can say that the the governments actions will have an effect of saving capitalism, rather than saying capitalism is their main incentive. This is because I'd say most politicians don't know anything about any alternatives to capitalism.

there still remains, amongst the dominant discourse the acceptance of capitalism and also continues to be the "no alternative" thesis being thrown around.

Two comments:
1) People don't know anything about any alternatives
2) When people do think they have found an alternative, it is apparently is still considered capitalism according to leftist blog members.
So call it ignorance.

[KurtFF8]

To be more exact, it is liberation of capital from the kind of government intervention that hinders the maxmisation of private profit; government intervenetion to help raise private profit has always been there.

Of course, I was quoting Klein however.

It's perhaps useful to make the distinction betweenproposal and advocacy. As a proposal, we can say let's have socialism or more specifically let's have social/collective control of means of production etc. etc.. But it only becomes advocacy, when we point out a realistic path as to what we can do to get there. So I'm hesitant to criticise someone like Naomi Klein because at least she's advocating something (we can debate whether extensive regulations would be tolerated by Capital and whether regulations would work at all); but on the other hand, we are not advocating anything except some empty phrases like 'there is an alternative', or 'another world is possible (tho this is a little more realistic in the third world than in first world)', but the question is 'what'.

This has certainly been a problem for the left: being too vague. We need to propose real measures, like ParEcon, or at least outline some specific changes that need to occur instead of nice phrases.