The common denominator of these institutions is their lack of transparency
and democratic accountability. This is the essence of neo-liberalism. It
claims that the economy should dictate its rules to society, not the other
way around. Democracy is an encumbrance, neo-liberalism is designed for
winners, not for voters who, necessarily encompass the categories of both
winners and losers.
I'd like to conclude by asking you to take very seriously indeed the
neo-liberal definition of the loser, to whom nothing in particular is
owed. Anyone can be ejected from the system at any time--because of
illness, age, pregnancy, perceived failure, or simply because economic
circumstances and the relentless transfer of wealth from top to bottom
demand it. Shareholder value is all. Recently the International Herald
Tribune reported that foreign investors are "snapping up" Thai and Korean
companies and Banks. Not surprisingly, these purchases are expected to
result in "heavy layoffs".
In other words, the results of years of work by thousands of Thais and
Koreans is being transferred into foreign corporate hands. Many of those
who laboured to create that wealth have already been, or soon will be left
on the pavement. Under the principles of competition and maximising
shareholder value, such behaviour is seen not as criminally unjust but as
normal and indeed virtuous.
I submit that neo-liberalism has changed the fundamental nature of
politics. Politics used to be primarily about who ruled whom and who got
what share of the pie. Aspects of both these central questions remain, of
course, but the great new central question of politics is, in my view,
"Who has a right to live and who does not". Radical exclusion is now the
order of the day, I mean this deadly seriously.
I've given you rather a lot of bad news because the history of the past 20
years is full of it. But I don't want to end on such a depressing and
pessimistic note. A lot is already happening to counter these
life-threatening trends and there is enormous scope for further action.
This conference is going to help define much of that action which I
believe must include an ideological offensive. It's time we set the agenda
instead of letting the Masters of the Universe set it at Davos. I hope
funders may also understand that they should not be funding just projects
but also ideas. We can't count on the neo-liberals to do it, so we need to
design workable and equitable international taxation systems, including a
Tobin Tax on all monetary and financial market transactions and taxes on
Transnational Corporation sales on a pro-rata basis. I expect we will go
into detail on such questions in the workshops here. The proceeds of an
international tax system should go to closing the North-South gap and to
redistribution to all the people who have been robbed over the past twenty
years.
Let me repeat what I said earlier: neo-liberalism is not the natural human
condition, it is not supernatural, it can be challenged and replaced
because its own failures will require this. We have to be ready with
replacement policies which restore power to communities and democratic
States while working to institute democracy, the rule of law and fair
distribution at the international level. Business and the market have
their place, but this place cannot occupy the entire sphere of human
existence.
Further good news is that there is plenty of money sloshing around out
there and a tiny fraction, a ridiculous, infinitesimal proportion of it
would be enough to provide a decent life to every person on earth, to
supply universal health and education, to clean up the environment and
prevent further destruction to the planet, to close the North-South
gap--at least according to the UNDP which calls for a paltry $40 billion a
year. That, frankly, is peanuts.
Finally, please remember that neo-liberalism may be insatiable but it is
not invulnerable. A coalition of international activists only yesterday
obliged them to abandon, at least temporarily, their project to liberalise
all investment through the MAI. The surprise victory of its opponents
infuriated the supporters of corporate rule and demonstrates that well
organised network guerillas can win battles. Now we have to regroup our
forces and keep at them so that they cannot transfer the MAI to the WTO.
Look at it this way. We have the numbers on our side, because there are
far more losers than winners in the neo-liberal game. We have the ideas,
whereas theirs are finally coming into question because of repeated
crisis. What we lack, so far, is the organisation and the unity which in
this age of advanced technology we can overcome. The threat is clearly
transnational so the response must also be transnational. Solidarity no
longer means aid, or not just aid, but finding the hidden synergies in
each other's struggles so that our numerical force and the power of our
ideas become overwhelming. I'm convinced this conference will contribute
mightily to this goal and I thank you all for your kind attention.
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. ***
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:44:14 +0200
From: Andreas Rockstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Bob Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Susan George
Susan George, originally from the US, is one of the most active 'MAI-nots'
in the scope of european NGOs struggeling against economic globalization
and corporate take over.
As the chair of Transnational Institute Amsterdam and member of
"L'Observatoire de la Mondialisation" Paris, she was one of the first
Europeans which campaigned against MAI realizing that our single reaction
can be to reject this treaty entirely. Now she is leading the
"Coordination Contre les Clones de l'AMI" (coordination against clones of
MAI) and in face of the WTO Millennium Round she is supporting our
rejection of a "new round" and a proponent of a general assessment of
existing GATT/ WTO agreements.
You can reach her via email:
Susan George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
or land address:
Susan George
L'Observatoire de la Mondialisation
40, rue de Malte
75011 Paris, France
........................................
How to Win the War of Ideas
How to Win the War of Ideas
How to Win the War of Ideas
Susan George: Associate Director of The Transnational Institute in Amsterdam
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: MichaelP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "unlikely.suspects": ;
Subject: Susan George- How to Win the War of Ideas:
---------------------------------------------------------
DISSENT / SUMMER 1997 / VOLUME 44, NUMBER 3
---------------------------------------------------------
How to Win the War of Ideas: Lessons from the Gramscian Right
How to Win the War of Ideas: Lessons from the Gramscian Right
http://www.mail-archive.com/futurework%40dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca/msg04579.html
Susan George, 1997
In Greek the hegemon is the leader, and from there it's just a
linguistic hop, skip, and jump to the notion of rule, authority,
and dominance expressed by the word "hegemony." Traditionally, the
term was reserved for states. In the 1920s and 1930s, the great
Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci took the concept further,
using it to explain how one class could establish its leadership
over others through ideological dominance. Whereas orthodox Marxism
explained nearly everything by economic forces, Gramsci added the
crucial cultural dimension. He showed how, once ideological
authority -- or "cultural hegemony" -- is established, the use
of violence to impose change can become superfluous.
Today, few would deny that we live under the virtually undisputed
rule of the market-dominated, ultracompetitive, globalized society
with its cortSge of manifold iniquities and everyday violence. Have
we got the hegemony we deserve? I think we have, and by "we" I mean
the progressive movement, or what's left of it. Obviously I don't
deny the impact of economic forces or of political events like the
end of the cold war in shaping our lives and our societies, but
here I intend to concentrate on the war of ideas that has been
tragically neglected by the "side of the angels." Many public and
private institutions that genuinely believe they are working for
a more equitable world have contributed to the triumph of
neoliberalism or have passively allowed this triumph to occur.
If this judgment sounds harsh, positive conclusions may still be
drawn from it. The Rule of the Right is the result of a concerted,
long-term ideological effort on the part of identifiable actors.
If we recognize that a market-dominated, iniquitous world is neither
natural nor inevitable, then it should be possible to build a
counter-project for a different kind of world.
EXCLUSION AND IDEOLOGY:
The late twentieth century could be dubbed the Age of Exclusion.
It's now clear that the "free market," which increasingly
determines political and social as well as economic priorities,
cannot embrace everyone. The market's job is not to provide jobs,
much less social cohesion. It has no place for the growing numbers
of people who contribute little or nothing to production or
consumption. The market operates for the benefit of a minority.
The Age of Exclusion engenders myriad social ills with which various
humanitarian and charitable agencies, established in an earlier era,
vainly attempt to cope. Vainly, because they have failed to
understand that their projects and programs exist in an ideological
context that systematically frustrates their aims.
The now-dominant economic doctrine, of which widespread exclusion
is a necessary element, did not descend from heaven. It has, rather,
been carefully nurtured over decades, through thought, action, and
propaganda; bought and paid for by a closely knit fraternity (they
mostly are men) who stand to gain from its rule.
An earlier version of this doctrine was called "laissez-faire";
today Americans speak of neoconservatism, Europeans of
neoliberalism, and the French of "la pensee unique" (the dominant
or single mindset). I shall use "neoliberalism," bearing in mind
that the modern version of the doctrine is far removed from that
of such great "liberal" political economists as Adam Smith or David
Ricardo. Neoliberals pretend to follow these illustrious
predecessors, but in fact betray their spirit and ignore their
moral and social teachings.
A HALF CENTURY OF HISTORY:
The victory of neoliberalism is the result of fifty years of
intellectual work, now widely reflected in the media, politics,
and the programs of international organizations. Reaganism,
Thatcherism, and the Fall of the Wall are often credited (or
blamed) for this state of affairs and they have, indeed, made
neoliberals more arrogant, but there is much more to the story
than that.
Fifty years ago, in the wake of World War II, neoliberalism had no
place in the mainstream political debate. Its few champions preached
to each other or in the desert -- everyone else was a Keynesian, a
social/Christian democrat or some shade of Marxist. Overturning that
context required intellectual tenacity and political planning -- but
it also took the passivity of a self-satisfied majority. If there
are three kinds of people -- those who make things happen, those who
watch things happen, and those who never knew what hit them -
- neoliberals belong to the first category and most progressives to
the latter two. The left remained complacent until, suddenly, it was
too late.
The American founding fathers of neoliberalism thus held few cards
at the outset, but they believed in a crucial principle: Ideas Have
Consequences -- the title of a 1948 book by Richard Weaver that was
to have a long and fruitful career.
Weaver's conservative writings were published by the University of
Chicago Press, as were the works of exiled Austrian philosopher-
economist Friedrich von Hayek and the brilliant young economist
Milton Friedman. Today the "Chicago School" is famous: its economic,
social, and political views have spread throughout the world. In
General Pinochet's Chile, Chicago-trained economists were the first
to apply el tratamiento de chock (shock treatment) based on freedom
for business but repression for labor.
Clearly, ideas have consequences -- after all, Margaret Thatcher
proudly proclaimed her allegiance to the ideas of Hayek, and most
economics students who go on to occupy policy positions have been
trained in the neoliberal curricula. One conservative scholar sums
up the doctrine thus: "Individual freedom is the ultimate social
ideal; governmental power, while necessary, must be limited and
decentralized. Interventionism is baneful and dangerous. Economic
freedom, that is, capitalism, is an indispensable condition for
political liberty."
Neoliberals reject the notion that individual freedom might depend
on democracy and the rule of law, guaranteed by the state. For them,
such "guarantees" are nothing but chains. To be free is to be free
from the state. The individual is entirely responsible for his
economic and social fate; this implies that disparities will
necessarily exist. But this is good. As Thatcher put it, "It is our
job to glory in inequality and see that talents and abilities are
given vent and expression for the benefit of us all."
In the early days of the neoliberal renaissance, such ideas may
have seemed utopian, since they were antagonistic to the spirit of
the New Deal and the welfare state. Neoliberals understood,
however, that to transform the economic, political, and social
landscape they first had to change the intellectual and
psychological one. For ideas to become part of the daily life of
people and society, they must be propagated through books,
magazines, journals, conferences, professional associations, and
so on. If some ideas are to become more fashionable than others,
they must be financed: it takes money to build intellectual
infrastructures and to promote a worldview.
When these foundations have been carefully laid and built upon,
views that once seemed minoritarian, elitist, even morally
repugnant will gradually become predominant, especially among
decision makers. Press, radio, and television can be guided to
follow the lead of the more specialized or erudite media.
Imperceptibly, nearly everyone will come to feel that certain
ideas are normal, natural, part of the air we breathe.
MANUFACTURING IDEOLOGY:
The neoliberals thus conceived their strategy, recruiting and
rewarding thinkers and writers, raising funds to found and to
sustain a broad range of institutions at the forefront of the
"conservative revolution." This revolution began in the United
States but, like the rest of American culture, has spread across
the world. The doctrines of the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank, and the World Trade Organization are indistinguishable
from those of the neoliberal credo. Here are some capsule profiles
of some of the most influential intellectual institutions or think
tanks.
* The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was founded in 1943
by a group of anti-New Deal businessmen. It pioneered intellectual
public relations in the 1950s and 1960s, working directly with
members of Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and the media. In the
1980s, AEI's average budget was $14 million; it employed some 150
people. One of its most successful fund-raising campaigns was
launched by the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon dining room.
In the 1990s, the annual budget has dropped to around $8 to $10
million, but AEI still produces a steady stream of books, pamphlets,
and legislative recommendations, and its pundits are frequently
heard from in the mass media.
* The Heritage Foundation is the best known think tank because
of its close association with Ronald Reagan. A week after his
electoral victory, Heritage's director handed Reagan's staff a
thousand-page document of policy advice, called Mandate for
Leadership, the fruit of the labors of 250 neoliberal experts.
Their recommendations were duly distributed throughout the new
administration; most became law.
Heritage, the collective brain behind Reagan and George Bush,
was founded in 1973, spends a third of its $18 million annual
budget on marketing, and produces some two hundred documents a
year. Its Annual Guide lists fifteen hundred neoliberal public
policy experts in seventy different areas-the harried journalist
need only telephone to get a quote. President Reagan himself
launched a major Heritage fund-raising drive, telling the audience,
"Ideas do have consequences: rhetoric is politics and words are
action."
Heritage's success has inspired the creation of thirty-seven
mini-Heritages across the United States, creating synergy, an
illusion of diversity, and the impression that experts quoted
actually represent a broad spectrum of views.
* Smaller think tanks include the venerable Hoover Institution
on War, Revolution and Peace, founded at Stanford University in
California in 1919 to study communism. In 1960, it added an
economic program to its cold war vocation. The Cato Institute in
Washington is libertarian, advocating minimalist government and
specializing in studies on privatization; the Manhattan Institute
for Policy Research, founded in 1978 by William Casey, who later
became director of the Central Intelligence Agency, specializes
in the critique of government income-redistribution programs.
A revolving door between government and conservative think
tanks allowed former Nixon or Reagan/Bush staffers to find homes
outside of government during the Carter and Clinton presidencies
(although one wonders why they needed to move: Clinton's position
on welfare is virtually indistinguishable from that of the
neoliberal think tanks, constituting another victory for them).
* Outside the United States, the neoliberal network is less
formal but no less effective. London houses the Centre for Policy
Studies; the anti-statist Institute of Economic Affairs; and the
Adam Smith Institute, which has probably done more to promote
privatization than any other institution anywhere. The Adam Smith
Institute brags that over two hundred measures developed in its
"Omega Project" were put into practice by Thatcher. Its experts
have also advised the World Bank extensively on privatization
programs in the bank's client countries.
* One ofthe most important think tanks has no fixed address.
The Mount Pelerin Society. founded in 1947 by Friedrich von Hayek,
first brought American and European conservatives together in a
village near Lausanne. It has remained an international club for
neoliberal thinkers ever since; its four-hundred strong membership
met most recently in Vienna in 1996. Milton Friedman says that
"Mount Pelerin showed us that we were not alone" and served as a
"rallying point," inspiring friendships, networks, and joint
projects. Membership in the society is by invitation and members'
names are not disclosed; it is, however, known that Czech prime
minister, Vaclav Klaus, the former French finance minister Alain
Madelin, Boris Yeltsin's chief advisers, and Margaret Thatcher
belong.
