from: http://www.geocities.com/postneoliberal_review/Gray1.htm

Post-Neoliberal Review

Significant Post-Neoliberalism Texts
 
from the IWM NEWSLETTER 77 Summer 2002/No.3

 

The End of the End of History

by John Gray

POLITICAL COMMENTARY

 

THROUGHOUT MODERN TIMES liberal states have always co-existed 
alongside

many kinds of tyranny. Similarly, the modern world has always 
contained numerous

economic systems – many varieties of capitalism, planned and guided 
economies,

and a host of hybrid economic systems not easily classified.

 

Diplomacy and international law developed to cope with the fact of 
diverse

regimes. Yet throughout the 20th century global politics was shaped 
by the project

of unifying the world within a single regime. Insofar as it remained 
committed to

Marxist ideology, the long-term goal of the Soviet regime was world 
communism.

The whole world was to be a single socialist economy, administered 
by forms of

governance that were to be everywhere the same.

 

This Marxist project is now widely and rightly viewed as utopian. 
Even so, its

disappearance as a force in world politics has not been accompanied 
by an acceptance

of a diversity of political systems. With communism's fall we were, 
in Francis 

Fukuyama's famous phrase, at the `end of history,' a time when 
western governments

could dedicate themselves to unifying the international system into 
a 

single regime based on free markets and democratic government. But 
this project

is as utopian as Marxism once was, and promises to be considerably 
more shortlived

than the Soviet Union.

 

Many reasons exist for why the Soviet bloc collapsed, but – contrary 
to conventional

opinion – economic inefficiencies were not central among them. The 
Soviet

bloc disintegrated because it could not cope with nationalist 
dissent in Poland

and the Baltic states and more generally because a single economic 
and political

system could not meet the needs of vastly different societies and 
peoples.

 

Marxism is a version of economic determinism. It predicts that 
differences between

societies and peoples narrow as they achieve similar levels of 
economic development.

Nationalism and religion have no enduring political importance, 
Marxists

believed. In the short run, they can be used to fuel anti-
imperialist movements.

Ultimately, they are obstacles to the construction of socialism. 
Guided by these

beliefs, the Soviet state waged an incessant war on the national and 
religious traditions

of the peoples they governed. 

 

In practice, Soviet rulers were compelled to compromise in order to 
remain in 

power. Few could be described as wholehearted ideologues. Even so, 
the Soviet

system's rigidity was largely the result of the fact that it was 
established on a false

premise.

 

The basis of the Soviet system was the Marxian interpretation of 
history in

which every society is destined to adopt the same economic system 
and the same

form of government. The USSR fell apart because its monolithic 
institutions could

not accommodate nations – Czechs and Uzbeks, Hungarians and 
Siberians, Poles

and Mongols – whose histories, circumstances and aspirations were 
radically divergent.

 

Today, the global free market constructed in the aftermath of the 
Soviet collapse

is also falling apart – and for similar reasons. Like Marxists, neo-
liberals are economic

determinists. They believe that countries everywhere are destined to

adopt the same economic system and therefore the same political 
institutions.

Nothing can prevent the world from becoming one vast free market; 
but the inevitable

process of convergence can be accelerated. Western governments and 
transnational

institutions can act as midwives for the new world.

 

Implausible as it sounds, this ideology underlies institutions such 
as the International

Monetary Fund (IMF). Argentina and Indonesia have very different

problems, but for the IMF the solution is the same: they must both 
become free-market

economies. Russia at the time of communism's fall was a militarized 
rustbelt,

but the IMF was convinced that it could be transformed into a 
western-style

market economy. An idealized model of Anglo-Saxon capitalism was 
promoted everywhere.

 

Unsurprisingly, this highly ideological approach to economic policy 
has not

succeeded. Indonesia is in ruins, while Argentina is rapidly ceasing 
to be a first-world

country. Russia has put the neo-liberal period behind it and is now 
developing

on a path better suited to its history and circumstances.

 

Countries that have best weathered the economic storms of the past 
few years

are those – like India, China and Japan which took the IMF model 
with a large

grain of salt. To be sure, like the few remaining Marxists who 
defend central economic

planning, the ideologues of the IMF claim that their policies did 
not fail;

they were not fully implemented. But this response is disingenuous. 
In both cases,

the policies were tried – and failed at great human cost.

 

If the global free market is unraveling, it is not because of the 
human costs of its

policies in countries such as Argentina, Indonesia and Russia. It is 
because it no

longer suits the countries that most actively promote it. Under the 
pressure of a

stock market downturn, the US is abandoning policies of global free 
trade in favor

of more traditional policies of protectionism. This turn of events 
is not surprising.

Throughout its history, America has always tried to insulate its 
markets from foreign

competition. So history has once more triumphed over ideology.

 

With America's loss of interest the chief prop of neo-liberal 
policies has been

pulled away. Mainstream politicians may still nod reverently when 
the global free

market is invoked, but in practice the world is reverting to an 
older and more

durable model. It is being tacitly accepted that in the future, as 
in the past, the world

will contain a variety of economic systems and regimes. The global 
free market is

about to join communism in history's museum of discarded utopias.

 

John Gray is Professor of European Thought

at the London School of Economics. His

latest book, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on

Humans and Other Animals, is to be

published by Granta Books (London) this

September.

 







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for
anyone who cares about public education!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/O.5XsA/8WnJAA/E2hLAA/BRUplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg 
Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. www.ppi-india.org
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:

1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Lihat arsip sebelumnya, www.ppi-india.da.ru; 
4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Kirim email ke