Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Devastating neoliberalism
Neoliberalism, core concepts
Advantages and disadvantages of neoliberalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Devastating neoliberalism
As the current dominant form of economic theory in the world, neoliberalism which advocates free trade with minimal government regulation, has been praised by its supporters as the surest means to generate prosperity and freedom for all. Yet, as the gap between the rich and poor continues expanding at a staggering rate at both national and international levels, economic theorists who dispute the benefits of neoliberalism are gaining attention. One such theorist, David Harvey, claims that neoliberalism is “redistributive rather than generative” (2007, p.34), and the redistribution is that of wealth from the lower class to the upper elites as a means for them to remain at the peak of the social strata. Harvey’s theory suggests that the driving …show more content…
He posits that the main safeguard of the ruling class is their ability to transfer wealth from the lower strata of society to the upper through use of redistribution strategies. Drawing from a list of accumulation practices identified by Karl Marx, Harvey (2007) isolates four principles that he believes are inherent in neoliberalism. (1.) The privatization of what once were publicly held assets, such as public utilities, social welfare, public education, warfare, even the land itself (p.35). (2.) Financialization, describes the rise of massive banks and predatory lending practices which keeps the lower class in debt and beholden to them, while the stock system allows the elites to participate in risky investment and speculative endeavors at the expense of shareholders and corporate dependents. (3.) Through crisis management and manipulation of interest rates the ruling elites are able to acquire capital (land, resources both natural and human, real estate) at bottom price. (4.) State redistribution of both publicly held assets and of policy focus into the hands of the elite. The governing body provides favorable treatment for neoliberal aspirations in all three branches; judicial (arbitration), legislative (deregulation laws), and executive (oppression of the lower …show more content…
Marks in his narrative The Origins of the Modern World, and Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker’s The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors slaves, commoners, and the hidden history of the revolutionary Atlantic. These histories both include length discussion on the factors behind the rise of the British Empire and the massive redistributions of wealth and power that occurred during that time. In order to compare the events with the theory of accumulation by dispossession this paper will use the four above mentioned neoliberalist principles that Harvey
The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic by Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker is an excellent source for a broad view of maritime Atlantic history. Linebaugh and Rediker cover a large area in their attempt to tie the rise of capitalism over a span of two hundred years in approximately 355 pages. The Many-Headed Hydra is broken down into nine chapters along with an introduction and conclusion. The overarching theme of this book truly is the development of the Atlantic proletariat attitudes, and the reason for it. This book contextualized numerous issues the maritime world had during these two hundred years. The beginning of the book describes a shipwreck of the Sea-Venture on the
J.A. Hobson, a wealthy liberal who sought to initiate economic and social reform, was strongly averse to the British imperial system because he viewed it as a corrupt scheme meant to deplete Britain’s national resources and secure more profits for the individual benefit of British elite classes. Hobson saw that imperialism facilitated conservative capitalism by “securing private material benefits [for entrepreneurs]...at the public cost,” consequently allowing business owners to advance to higher social positions (Hobson 2). By promoting entrepreneurs further up the social hierarchy ladder, imperialism widened the social division between elite business holders and proletariat workers As a liberal, Hobson was naturally opposed to such divisions between social classes: he protected the working class and sought to promote equality among the various classes. Since imperialism promotes divisions between social classes, Hobson was instinctively opposed to Britain’s imperial system.
Robinson (1984) affirms that there exists a close relationship between the growth of capitalism and slavery. Slaves were the property of slave owners; slaves were dehumanised because they were commodities that were sold and they represented unfree labour (Robinson, 1984). According to Marx (1984, 45), the profits made by the slaves were prime to the primitive accumulation which then led to the growth of manufacturing and industrial capitalism. The value created by slave labour was appropriated by the metropole, and this created immeasurable disparities of wealthy between the colonies and the metropole, both historical wealth and contemporary wealth (Robinson, 1984). For example, the raw material used in production of textiles, which led the Industrial Revolution in Britain, was slave-produced. Robinson (1984:46) argues that the economic footing of slave labour and slavery formed the economic basis of the political ideologies that emerged from the French Revolution, i.e. liberty, equality and fraternity – thus the economy and politics are inseparable. One may thus argue that when colonialism (politics) was established, then capitalism (economy) was expanded, for example, the more colonies Britain had, the more capitalism grew. Slavery, says W.E.B du Bois, was a significant subsystem of capitalism and that at the centre of the economics of slavery was the idea of the racial superiority of non-black people (Robinson, 1984: 61). The underlying principle for the development of capitalism was slavery and it was thus not coincidental (Robinson, 1984: 47).
Coined by Marx, the bourgeois are “the exploiting and ruling class…”, and the proletariats are “the exploited and oppressed class” (Marx, 207). These two classes are separated because of the machine we call capitalism. Capitalism arises from private property, specialization of labor, wage labor, and inevitably causes competition. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products (…) chases the bourgeois over the whole surface of the globe” (Marx, 212) and creates a world that cannot exist without the separation of workers and owners and competition for the lowest price. The struggle between the
Although this manifesto is small, it emanates one of the most recognized and well thought out political arguments in history. The basis of Marx’s reasoning for the use of this type of gov-ernment is seemingly straightforward. He believed all resources in a nation should be distributed equally to all citizens, so that the division of social classes would cease to exist and to make sure there was no exploitation of any citizens. Marx also wanted the abolition of owning private prop-erty, which is the main contributor to the bourgeoisie’s source of wealth. Marx broke this manifes-t...
They were able to take advantage of the growing technology and exploration to advance out of the middle class and become extremely rich. Through their wealth, the bourgeois were able to gain an enormous amount of influence in society. For example, they have “exclusive political sway” (Marx 18). In other words, the state exists entirely to serve the needs of the bourgeois. However, even more importantly so, their existence is bringing about a gradual disintegration of sentiment and true relations. People are now measured by the amount of material goods they own. Therefore, doctors, lawyers, and other originally honest occupations have become based entirely on wages and familial relationships no longer exist. They have instead been replaced by purely money relations. The bourgeois are also constantly exploiting the lower classes, otherwise known as the proletarians. (Marx
In an article entitled “Resisting and reshaping destructive development: social movements and globalizing networks”, P. Routledge describes neoliberal development, “Contemporary economic development is guided by the economic principles of neoliberalism and popularly termed ‘globalization’. The fundamental principal of this doctrine is ‘economic liberty’ for the powerful, that is that an economy must be free from the social and political ‘impediments,’ ‘fetters’, and ‘restrictions’ placed upon it by states trying to regulate in the name of the public interest. These ‘impediments’ - which include national economic regulations, social programs, and class compromises (i.e. national bargaining agreements between employers and trade unions, assuming these are allowed) - are considered barriers to the free flow of trade and capital, and the freedom of transnational corporations to exploit labor and the environment in their best interests. Hence, the doctrine argues that national economies should be deregulated (e.g. through the privatization of state enterprises) in order to promote the allocation of resources by “the market” which, in practice, means by the most powerful.” (Routledge)
Throughout history, the British have been a nation of sailors and businessmen. With the dawn of the imperial era, money began to equal power, and the wealth of the British elevated them to the top of the world. As Sir Walter Raleigh said,
Neoliberalism, also called free market economy, is a set of economic policies that became widespread in the last 25 years. The concept neoliberalism, have been imposed by financial institutions that fall under the Bretton Woods such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank (Martinez & Garcia, 1996). One of the famous economists published a book called “The Wealth of Nations” in which he said in it that free trade is the best way to develop nations economies (Martinez & Garcia, 1996). He and other economists also encouraged the removal of government intervention in economic matters, no restrictions on manufacturing, removing borders and barriers between nations, and no taxes (Martinez & Garcia, 1996). The main goal of the economic globalization was to reduce poverty and inequality in the poorest regions. However, the effects of the neoliberal policies on people all over the world has been devastating (MIT, 2000).
Marx is able to demonstrate the consequences that result from transforming values into productions suited for profit, as he writes, “This boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase after exchange-value is common to the capitalist and the miser; but while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser” (Marx 63). There is no sense of abhorrence for a particular individual in Marx’s interpretation of capitalism and instead focuses on the capitalistic economic structure. However, it is through this quote that a sense of inequality starts to emerge. As a result, a hierarchy is produced, creating an enduring structure of capitalism, where those who control the circulation of money are granted unlimited power. This has become evident in recent years, as in 2008, a social power analysis by Dr. John S. Atlee and Tom Atlee was published. In “Democracy: A Social Power Analysis” Altlee describes the power of money and status as he states, “People with lots of money, muscle, status, intelligence, etc., can usually successfully influence other people. In most (but, significantly, not all) circumstances, they have more social power” (Atlee). Economic power is proven to be pivotal in attaining another individual’s attention and status of capability. Thus, the capitalist is free to develop their own sense of
The poor gets poorer, and the rich gets richer. Economically speaking, this is the truth about Capitalism. Numerous people agree that this inequality shows the greedy nature of humankind. The author of the source displays a capitalist perspective that encompasses an individualist approach towards an “un-ideal” economic system. The source articulates a prominent idea that capitalism is far from perfect. The reality is, as long as capitalism exists, there are always those people who are too poor or too rich in the system. We do not need elitists in our society but that is exactly what capitalists are. In this society, people are in clash with those who “have” and those who “have not”, which creates conflict and competition. Throughout
Rosenbaum, E. (2013, August 8). A new species? The elusive nature of the global middle class. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/id/100949800
Karl Marx, in the Capital, developed his critique of capitalism by analyzing its characteristics and its development throughout history. The critique contains Marx’s most developed economic analysis and philosophical insight. Although it was written in 1850s, its values still serve an important purpose in the globalized world and maintains extremely relevant in the twenty-first century.
For further consideration we turn to one of the major works of neo-Marxist school - Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order.
Adam Smith in 1776 said capitalism was a model that was originally driven by peoples self interest for personal gain (ultimately economic). The prices in the market, Smith said “are determined by the supply of, and demand for, the factors of production” (Smith 18). The notion of benevolent colonialism was often cited as the primary reason for the expansion of the British Empire. By using Eric Williams’ Capitalism and Slavery as primary source material, this essay examines the ideas first put forth by Williams and will illustrate that economic imperatives to slavery took precedence over moral ones, and that the African slave trade was central to the economic development of the New World, as well as Europe.