RAJPAL ABEYNAYAKE
Are all the world’s citizens neoliberals? Or at least are they closet neoliberals? Seems it is a bizarre question, given that neoliberalism is said to be the cause of all modern ills, ranging from inequality to rampant exploitation of man by man.
What of the rightward lurch at every possible instance almost, in which nations pick new folk to run their Governments? Why Milei in Argentina, or a new lady right-wing champion in Costa Rica? Why do Left-leaning parties pivot rightward when elections approach? Is it because they want to win, of course, and they know where the voters stand?
Are countries such as China, fiercely non-Capitalist in political orientation, neoliberal in practice? There are many economists who assert that this is indeed the case.
Of course, there is widespread anger about what neoliberalism has caused in most countries. People have not had a chance against the big capitalists of the day, the massive conglomerates, the oligarchs et al.
But few have openly opposed these forces. Instead, they have adopted so-called populist policies that further impoverish the poor, and in a great many instances, criminalise them as undeserving and parasitical.
It seems then in essence, the world is in thrall to unbridled capitalism. People seem to have learnt that big Government does not work. In Sri Lanka, for instance, people learnt that the Leftists heralded economic policies that spawned shortages, and worse.
anathema
The last thing they want to do is to turn the clock back to the era of the NMs, Leslies and the Keunamans. This is the experience of most nations. Left-leaning Governments have become anathema in India, in Indonesia — you name it.
But by following this tendency of absolutely demonising Leftism and policies that seek to regulate the economy from the centre, are people shooting themselves in the foot?
It is not a great idea to go around asking people in countries such as the U.S. or China whether they are neoliberals at heart, or support neoliberalism. You could get certain looks that probably could kill if you’d persist in this line of questioning.
People don’t want to answer questions about personal political ideology, and moreover, a lot of them wouldn’t know what neoliberalism is, or what it entails. But while it is not a good idea to go around asking folk on the street if they are partial towards neoliberalism, there is nothing that precludes people from being asked general questions about their beliefs on certain social fundamentals.
For example, what is the harm in asking people whether they frown on folk who depend on others and generally are averse towards fending for themselves? What is the harm in asking people if they think Governments should allow business leaders to take their own decisions and not interfere in corporate decision making?
In France, some researchers did exactly this. They went around asking people, for instance, whether they’d like society to change itself, or for people to “work on themselves” rather than try to change society?
People were asked whether when they encounter difficulties, the first thing they should do is to question themselves rather than try to criticise society, and the prevailing system or laws.
To all of these queries, they got answers that put the onus on themselves and not on society. It seemed people sincerely believed they have to look at themselves in the mirror if things are going badly for them.
They also believed — the survey indicates — that they should cut off people who hold them back from their goals. Those who carried out the survey had also incorporated some interesting concluding remarks as they signed off on the survey report. They had noted that the study confirms that people — ordinary people —try to justify the circumstances that have been created due to the prevailing neoliberal economic order.
Perhaps then, most people — are at heart neoliberals. It is one thing to note that people acknowledge the power of the neoliberal economy, and the capacity it has to change the shape of their lives.
But when people seem to agree with everything that drives neoliberal tendencies, it means they seem to have made up their minds that neoliberalism helps them, or that it is the only prevailing path.
People may genuinely believe that they are better off with neoliberals at the helm than say one track socialists or communists at the top. But does that mean that they have to accept neoliberalism, warts and all?
Ordinary people seem to accept the point of view that if they are not doing well enough in life, in economic terms at least, it is due to their own fault or their own lack of effort in contrast to others.
Many modern day thinkers and authors have concluded that indeed neoliberalism has become a lifestyle more than an economic and ideological label. People, say the opinion makers, have convinced themselves that competition is the only way forward. In other words, they have more or less made themselves commodities in the market, that the neoliberal economy is all about.
If all people are neoliberals, can the high priests of the doctrine be pilloried? People are often told that the billionaires are filthy rich, and that they have enjoyed vast monopolies that make them absurdly wealthy.
billionaires
But it appears that most people admire these billionaires and want to become them rather than see that they are regulated or brought down a peg, or at least made to pay their taxes.
Historically, people have been comfortable with social pecking orders. There was an era in which they were comfortable with feudalism, even though it is said the revolutionaries finally upended that order. But until they did, subservience was the order of the day, and was accepted. Neoliberalism seems to spawn the same tendencies.
It is as if people feel that if the rich get richer, they will get something, and that if they are handed only the crumbs, the crumbs would at least keep getting bigger.
People also, rather sadly, may be electing neoliberals because they feel there is no alternative. Politicians too, seem to think that there is no alternative because Socialism failed anyway, and the Leftists moved to the so-called centre as well.
It is said that politicians — even those of a Left persuasion — sometimes hire the best PR firms from the U.S., for instance, to present the neoliberalism they peddle in palatable terms to the electorate. Neoliberalism thrives because everything and everyone serves the market. The market has become the central tenet of capitalism and, therefore, modern life itself revolves around the market, and is governed by so-called market forces.
It seems people tried to control the market forces over the ages, and found it is a fruitless exercise. They had created something they couldn’t influence or manage in any way shape or form. It is a colossal narrative of giving up — what in crude American jargon is called a cop out.
These days the market forces are valorised as the apex of the human motivation to create, and to value human effort. It is also accepted that market forces encourage a meritocracy, which is better than any other alternative.
But the market is really about competition and none of the above. Often there is nothing fair about competition because there is an excess of capital concentration in certain places and in certain contexts, which edges out the so-called competition.
But yet, people seem to opt for neoliberalism even when they are given the chance to democratically elect who will govern them. Is this because the neoliberals are good at ruling them?
Or is it because they think the worst of neoliberal excess is still better than socialism that does not deliver, and feudalism whose time was up?
Are people in thrall to what seems to harm them most — neoliberal excess? But is it that they don’t care, because what harms them most is still better than everything else they were used to?
previous post