‘Neoliberalism’ and Political Crisis: A Postulate of the Causal Dialectics Behind the Unfolding Trumpian Crisis

A. Lodhi
{"title":"‘Neoliberalism’ and Political Crisis: A Postulate of the Causal Dialectics Behind the Unfolding Trumpian Crisis","authors":"A. Lodhi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3003662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Neoliberalism is theorized by Marxist Polymath David Harvey as a set of political economic practices—predicated upon the teological restoration of economic elite class power through policies of financial deregulation, capital liberalization, and privatization—entailing the intellectual de-legitimization of Keynesian economics, the axiomatization of neoclassical ontological and epistemological precepts regarding the primacy of the self-regulating market, and the retrenchment of the embedded welfare state (Harvey 2005). Neoliberalism has failed dramatically in its purported goal of reviving global capital accumulation since its inception in the late 20th century. Rather, its main substantive economic achievement has been to redistribute, rather than to generate, wealth and income (Stiglitz 2016). Furthermore, within academia, the neoliberal political-economic meta-structure is considered to have eroded the Western socio-cultural ethos writ large, thus irrevocably producing a combustible political environment in which an emergent proto-fascist insurgency—reified currently throughout the contemporary Western polity by the likes of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen—may unfold (Hedges 2015). These conditions were effectuated by a myriad mechanisms, however, most prominently by those which fall under the prescript of ‘accumulation by dispossession’. This pertains to the continuation and proliferation of capital accumulation practices which Marx had deemed as ‘primitive’ or ‘primal’ during the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. Broadly, these entail the commodification and privatization of land; transmutation of various forms of property rights (common, collective, state etc.) into exclusive property rights (and the subsequent extraction of rents in the case of patents and intellectual property rights); erasure of many common property rights (ex. state pensions, paid vacations, and access to education and health care); commodification of labor power and suppression of indigenous forms of production and consumerism; imperial procedures of appropriation of assets; liquidation of exchange and taxation; and usury, the national debt and the use of the credit system as a means for accumulation by dispossession (Marx 1887). The neoliberal state assumes the central role of both supporting and promulgating these practices, by way of its possessing a monopoly over violence and definitions of legality (Piketty 2014). The purpose of this paper lies in the task of further elucidating these mechanisms within the context of the contemporary Western political crisis.","PeriodicalId":305946,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Economic Systems (Sub-Topic)","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AARN: Economic Systems (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3003662","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Neoliberalism is theorized by Marxist Polymath David Harvey as a set of political economic practices—predicated upon the teological restoration of economic elite class power through policies of financial deregulation, capital liberalization, and privatization—entailing the intellectual de-legitimization of Keynesian economics, the axiomatization of neoclassical ontological and epistemological precepts regarding the primacy of the self-regulating market, and the retrenchment of the embedded welfare state (Harvey 2005). Neoliberalism has failed dramatically in its purported goal of reviving global capital accumulation since its inception in the late 20th century. Rather, its main substantive economic achievement has been to redistribute, rather than to generate, wealth and income (Stiglitz 2016). Furthermore, within academia, the neoliberal political-economic meta-structure is considered to have eroded the Western socio-cultural ethos writ large, thus irrevocably producing a combustible political environment in which an emergent proto-fascist insurgency—reified currently throughout the contemporary Western polity by the likes of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen—may unfold (Hedges 2015). These conditions were effectuated by a myriad mechanisms, however, most prominently by those which fall under the prescript of ‘accumulation by dispossession’. This pertains to the continuation and proliferation of capital accumulation practices which Marx had deemed as ‘primitive’ or ‘primal’ during the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. Broadly, these entail the commodification and privatization of land; transmutation of various forms of property rights (common, collective, state etc.) into exclusive property rights (and the subsequent extraction of rents in the case of patents and intellectual property rights); erasure of many common property rights (ex. state pensions, paid vacations, and access to education and health care); commodification of labor power and suppression of indigenous forms of production and consumerism; imperial procedures of appropriation of assets; liquidation of exchange and taxation; and usury, the national debt and the use of the credit system as a means for accumulation by dispossession (Marx 1887). The neoliberal state assumes the central role of both supporting and promulgating these practices, by way of its possessing a monopoly over violence and definitions of legality (Piketty 2014). The purpose of this paper lies in the task of further elucidating these mechanisms within the context of the contemporary Western political crisis.
“新自由主义”与政治危机:特朗普危机背后因果辩证法的假设
马克思主义通才大卫·哈维将新自由主义理论化为一套政治经济实践——通过金融放松管制、资本自由化和私有化等政策,在理论上恢复经济精英阶级的权力——这涉及到凯恩斯主义经济学在思想上的非合法化,以及新古典主义本体论和认识论上关于自我调节市场的首要地位的公理化。以及根深蒂固的福利国家的紧缩(Harvey 2005)。新自由主义自20世纪后期创立以来,其所谓的恢复全球资本积累的目标已经严重失败。相反,其主要的实质性经济成就是重新分配,而不是创造财富和收入(Stiglitz 2016)。此外,在学术界,新自由主义的政治经济元结构被认为已经侵蚀了西方社会文化精神,因此不可逆转地产生了一个可燃的政治环境,在这个环境中,一种新兴的原始法西斯叛乱——目前由唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)和马琳·勒庞(Marine Le pen)等人在当代西方政体中体现出来——可能会展开(Hedges 2015)。这些条件是由无数机制实现的,然而,最突出的是那些属于“剥夺积累”的规定。这与资本积累实践的延续和扩散有关,马克思在资本主义生产方式出现期间将其视为“原始的”或“原始的”。从广义上讲,这包括土地的商品化和私有化;将各种形式的产权(公共的、集体的、国家的等)转化为专有的产权(以及随后在专利和知识产权的情况下抽取租金);取消许多共同财产权利(如国家养老金、带薪假期以及获得教育和医疗保健的权利);劳动力商品化和对本土生产形式和消费主义的压制;帝国的资产征用程序;外汇和税收清算;高利贷、国债和利用信用体系作为剥夺积累的手段(马克思1887)。新自由主义国家通过其对暴力和合法性定义的垄断,承担了支持和颁布这些实践的核心角色(Piketty 2014)。本文的目的在于在当代西方政治危机的背景下进一步阐明这些机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信