‘Neoliberalism’? George Monbiot and Others Mean Capitalism.

A couple of years ago the Guardian writer, environmentalist and political activist George Monbiot (an independent school and Oxford University educated member of the Green left) wrote an article about the unadulterated evil that is capitalism. However, he never once used the word ‘capitalism’ in that piece. Instead, he used the words “neoliberal” and “neoliberalism”. (The article itself is called ‘If you think we’re done with neoliberalism, think again’.)

George Monbiot’s piece is full of suggestive statistics (not outright lies; just dissimulations) and ill-defined concepts (such as “recession”) which are simply used as subtle ways to fire-up his fellow “anti-capitalists”. In fact, the article is more or less a paean to communism; or, at the very least, a paean to greened-up socialism/collectivism. But, as with the word “capitalism” earlier, Monbiot never uses the word “socialism” either (not even “eco-socialism”).

Take the following lines:

“… [neoliberalism] brought the west to its knees…. The policies that made the global monarchs so rich… the neoliberals claimed, would be that economic efficiency and investment would rise, enriching everyone… The neoliberals also insisted that unrestrained inequality in incomes and flexible wages would reduce unemployment…I have no dog in this race, except a belief that no one…. should have to be poor.”

The above could have come straight out of the Communist Manifesto; except, of course, for the fact that the language has been updated with references to the environment and “sustainability”. Of course, the word “capitalism” is substituted with “neoliberalism”. And, yes, before the supposed recent rise in neoliberalism, Monbiot wasn’t exactly a fan of capitalism then either. In his political career, he never has been. So, in that sense, Monbiot is claiming that neoliberalism is a worse kind of — something which is already very bad — capitalism… That’s if these distinctions between capitalism and neoliberalism hold much water anyway.

Monbiot claims not to be a Marxist or communist. Indeed he rarely even uses the word “socialist”.

Monbiot stresses the democratic credentials of his Radical Leftism. But so too has almost every communist and Marxist who’s ever existed. Indeed Monbiot also argues against some of Marx’s own theories — but so too have many Marxists and communists since the 1880s. (Here’s the Socialist Workers Party tackling Monbiot on this; though mainly sympathizing with his Green brand of Radical Leftism.)

Despite all those qualifications, Monbiot wrote a “manifesto” for a “New World Order” — his own words. He wants a complete and utter transformation of the West and… well, the destruction of capitalism. (Of course, he’d never put it in that explicit and honest way himself - and he may even deny that this is his aim.)

Points about “progressive democracy” and “sustainability” don’t amount to much when virtually everything else Monbiot argues for is at one with Marxism or communism.

Basically, George Monbiot is just adding some slight variations to some very old Marxist themes; which other leftingers and even Marxists (as stated) have been doing long before he did. Thus, in each new generation, the same old Marxist package needs to be rebranded. That’s all Monbiot is doing with his new emphasis on the environment, global warming, democracy, etc; yet people are buying this repackaged stuff in fairly large numbers.

Only Words?

Part of the problem is that the word “neoliberalism” — or “neoliberal” — has become nothing more than a soundbite or a simple term of abuse. (Not unlike the word “neo-con” just before, during and after the 2003 Iraq war.) That’s not surprising. According to a study by Taylor C. Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse of 148 journal articles, the word ‘neoliberalism’ is hardly ever — if at all — defined. That’s partly because it would be hard to define: it has a fairly long history and has many variants. In addition, just as with the word “capitalism” itself, keeping the word “neoliberalism” vague and rhetorical is precisely how many anti-capitalists/leftwingers/socialists like their political words. If such words were specified or defined, then much of the radical/revolutionary fire would be dampened down. So it’s best to use the word “neoliberal” (as with “neo-con”) as a simple word-weapon with virtually no meaning. You see, if the word were to be defined in any way, then it would lose its bluntness and, therefore, its political power. We’d also then see that most Radical Leftists mean capitalism by the word “neoliberalism”.

Again, most Radical Leftists simply mean capitalism when they use the word “neoliberalism”. Or, more precisely and in the Marxist jargon, they’re really arguing against “the private ownership of the means of production”. Such “progressives” (as many Trotskyists and communists have also started calling themselves) are constantly trying to update old-fashioned Marxist ideas about capitalism, and they often do so with such neologisms. The same was true with the word “neo-cons” a few years back. Then, most Radical Leftists simply meant capitalists who have an interest in foreign policy; which of course ties in with the shopworn and ancient late 19th-century Marxist theories of neocolonialism or imperialism.

None of this isn’t to say that the word “neoliberalism” is a perfect synonym of the word “capitalism”. And, in non-semantic terms, it’s not to say that capitalism and neoliberalism are identical either. Of course, they aren’t. There are, for example, many differences between what Adam Smith believed and theorized about and what some of the people who’ve been classed as “neo-liberals” have believed and theorised about.

Despite that, when people say that neoliberalism is all about “the liberalization of the economy, free trade, open markets, privatization, and deregulation”, isn’t that precisely what many people previously said about capitalism in the 1980s (i.e., before the term “neoliberalism” became so fashionable)? Indeed didn’t the Radical Left describe capitalism is these ways in the 1930s and indeed in the 1880s?… Well, not entirely.

In the 1880s, capitalism (in large parts of the West) didn’t need to be liberalized: free trade was taken for granted; markets were expected to be open, and you couldn’t privatize or deregulate that which was already private or deregulated. So, as a consequence of that, the sin of neoliberalism (at least to unhistorical leftwingers) seems to be its desire to get back to a purer kind of capitalism.

So, as I said, in many Radical Leftists’ eyes neoliberalism is simply plain capitalism. Either that, or it’s what they take to be the capitalist’s desire to get back to a purer form of capitalism.

This simple fusion of capitalism and neoliberalism is true of some neoliberals too. For example, Alexander Rustow (the guy who coined the term “neoliberalism” in 1938) talked at that time about “the priority of the price mechanism, free enterprise, the system of competition”. That too simply sounds like a description of capitalism. Yet he was specifically talking about the new “neoliberalism” of the late 1930s (at the Colloque Walter Lippmann). Actually, it wasn’t a pure (or laissez-faire) capitalism he was talking about because the neoliberals of his day firmly believed in state intervention. That is, many brands of neoliberalism (at least from the 1930s onwards) actually accepted a large role for the state; as well as for what they called “political and social fairness”.

Capitalism, Neoliberalism & the State

And what about Professor Frances Fox Piven’s term “hyper-capitalism”? Here again, all Piven is essentially talking about is capitalism. Or, more accurately, a capitalism which is largely free of the state.

Now capitalism just is — at least in a theoretical sense — separate from the state. (This is not necessarily the same as saying that it should be separate.) So talking about “hyper-capitalism” is to talk, again, about capitalism which is largely free of the state. Piven’s hyper-capitalism, therefore, is simply capitalism. This is not an argument for “market fundamentalism” either. It’s just to say that capitalism (in theory at least), and the state (in theory at least), are autonomous entities. Whether or not that has ever actually been the historical reality is another question entirely.

So on that question: yes, there have always been many connections between the state and capitalism because of such things as property rights, the rule of law, legislation against fraud/deception, and the protection of private property. Nonetheless, even then there is no necessary connection between the state and capitalism. One reason for that — taking the last point about the protection of private property only — is that businessmen and landowners could quite easily protect their property and land by employing armed security men (or even militia) to do so. In fact, this has happened in history and it still occurs today.

And that brings us to yet another newish term: “market fundamentalism”. This has also come on the market fairly recently. (Though I don’t believe that it’s quite as fashionable and empty as the word “neoliberalism” itself.)

Of course, there are market fundamentalists and indeed neoliberal fundamentalists. But that’s simply because you can make fundamentalism out of anything: be that the fundamentalism of much anti-racism or even anti-neoliberalism fundamentalism. In other words, some of the people who use the term “fundamentalist” will be as fundamentalist as the people they criticize.

Back to neoliberalism and it’s own attitude towards the state.

Even a philosopher like Michel Foucault realized that neoliberalism was far from being a doctrine of hardcore laissez-faire capitalism. He said that “[n]eo-liberalism is not Adam Smith; neo-liberalism is not market society”. (Then again, some commentators have said that “Adam Smith wasn’t a capitalist fundamentalist” either.)

However, the neoliberals of the 1930s — and beyond — were wrong to claim “humanistic and social values” for themselves. They were also wrong to claim that such things were rejected by laissez-faire capitalists.

Capitalists (whether theorists or property owners) have no more or no less rejected social values and humanism than anyone else. However, what they have stated is that such values shouldn’t — or even couldn’t — be defined and imposed by the state or by any central authority. Allowing the state to take care of values — such as today’s many politically-correct values/diktats and even of morality itself — is a disastrous move; as we are seeing at present in the UK and US. We can also see it in Iran and Saudi Arabia and, before that, in the various communist/socialist states of the 20th century.

Take also the value that is equality. You will never simply have equality in the abstract. Firstly, the government will have to decide that equality is a primary goal of society. Secondly, the government will need to decide what an equalitarian society actually looks like. And thirdly, the government will have to sacrifice many other values — values which will, of necessity, conflict or clash with equalitarianism. That is values and freedoms which will clash (or conflict) with the massive state-controlled experiment which will be required in order to bring about an equal society.

Now even though many people may vote for an equalitarian party (as it were); once in power, that party will be in almost complete control of the equalitarian agenda for the next five or more years. Now that’s a lot of political power. That’s a lot of political control.

**************************************************************

Some Notes

1) As with so many Radical Leftists (even Green ones), George Monbiot (in the article linked above) sells his Radical Leftism with references to George Orwell and the Spanish Civil War. What he forgot to say is that this civil war made Orwell deeply suspicious of communists and Marxists. Primarily it was his experience of the lackeys of Stalin; but also of zealous and dogmatic Trotskyists and other Marxists. (Trotskyists try to claim Orwell for themselves, and they use Orwell’s criticisms of Stalinists to do so.)

The main thing about Orwell — even though he remained a socialist of sorts — was that he was an independent thinker. Now, in far too many cases, Marxists and Radicals are little more than ideological automatons. (Many literally memorize Chomsky/Marx or what their chosen political party, newspaper or journal said about x this morning.) Monbiot, like Orwell, is more independent than the average Radical Leftist.

2) I suppose one way in which anti-neoliberals stress the supposedly unique reality of neoliberalism is the relation between neoliberal policy/views and capitalist/Western investments and involvements in non-Western countries. Nonetheless, even here there’s nothing new.

The Marxist view of “imperialism” was first formulated by Lenin (in the very late 19th century) as a rationale to explain the gross failures of Marx’s own “scientific” (though unfalsifiable!) prophecies about the inevitable “pauperization of the working class” and the inevitable “revolution”. The theory of “capitalist imperialism” has been the staple diet of Marxist thought, then, since the early 20th century. So talk about “neoliberalism” and the abuse of the Third World, etc. offers us nothing new either. At least leftwingers should have the guts and honesty to admit that they’re singing exactly the same tune that’s been sung since Lenin first sang it in 1898.

3) I wouldn’t really try to define “capitalism” as such because it involves so many variables, so many players, so much history, so many experiments, so many countries, etc. Yet Radical Leftists make much of the state’s role in capitalism and thus they use phrases such as “so-called ‘capitalism’”.

Does this mean that such people are arguing that they’d prefer their capitalism to be entirely free from government? Or are they saying, ironically, that there’s no true capitalism because of the role of the state?

Thus do Radical Leftists want capitalism to stand on its own two feet? (Are they against capitalism when backed-up by the state?) Or are Radical Leftists also against capitalism when it’s not backed up by the state? In other words, these bogus arguments against state-backed capitalism are basically an argument against all forms of capitalism: both laissez-faire and state-backed. Yes, leftwingers (i.e., socialists and communists) are against capitalism — full stop. Now that’s not enlightening, is it? And thus it’s not surprising either that Radical Leftists are against neoliberalism. Yes, that’s because they’re against literally all forms of capitalism.