1 FREE AND Neoliberalism Among the neo-liberal critics of the address, there seems to be particularly challenging than the famous U.S. semiologist Noam Chomski (not known to be a Bolshevik). As you know, the liberal economic doctrine born in the eighteenth century, and immediately takes on a revolutionary aspect, because it is irreconcilably opposed to those constraints that were a legacy of feudal 'regime old absolutist states. The more fierce and insidious neo-liberalism but that no such child of the Enlightenment liberal, but the economic and political stagnation of the eighties of the twentieth century. More or less liberalism as his father seeks to achieve: 1) The free market economy by the state. 2) privatization of public services. 3) the liberalization of all non-strategic sector. 4) the abolition of all customs seal . The State words should summarize the features of the nineteenth century gendarme (to use a metaphor dear to the liberal nineteenth century), patrolling the platform neutral, and only just to ensure the peaceful conduct of public order. There is a striking difference, however, to report. The eighteenth-century doctrine of a Smith, say, is cloaked also philanthropic ideals: free enterprise economic actors would be harmonized in order that would lead to greater progress and collective happiness. An order that Smith (theologian and moralist, besides economist) established even imagined by God has denied the story, but the genial Scot was in good faith, in contrast, as we shall see, the current theory of neoliberalism.
2 THE DOCUMENT Kennan So the contemporary neo-liberalism would proposed self-regulate the market economy, freeing it from state policies. Really? The "Policy Planning Study No. 23" is a document of the U.S. State Department kept secret for a long time (for obvious reasons, as we shall see). In summary, this document, George Kennan (government, mind you, and 'of 1948) outlined in the Second World War, the main features of the U.S. government: in essence, indicated the strategy to a policy of economic power , determined that rested on the banning of all ideologies "sentimental" (social justice, human rights, public welfare) that clouds this purpose. One aims to be pursued with weapons, as eloquently taught the Vietnam War. And, Chomski, just this document is the key to interpreting the U.S. policy over the last fifty years .
3 BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS fact, the Western economic system after the war was sparked at the behest of U.S. and British governments, so-called Bretton Woods (1944): regulated is so, Internationally, the flow of financial capital. Defeated fascism, it was obvious that in the West, sought to establish a fundamentally democratic world order. The common welfare of citizens (especially the working class) and social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic regime, could be and was indeed an effective antidote to the influence of communism, not only of the Soviet and Chinese. The welfare state (welfare) has its historical roots and its practical application in this financial setting. However, Kennedy filed dramatically the experience (with the assassination of the President), which, in its way, effectively opened up new spaces to the deepening of the social question, President Nixon, in 1971, decided to reverse the trend of the economy U.S.. It 'just that year, the abolition of convertibility of the dollar . Why this' act went against the government Bretton Woods? Why to preserve the welfare state (born from Bretton Woods) "necessary to monitor the movement of capital? If you let them go freely from one country to another , there comes a day when financial institutions are able to determine the policy of the States. Constitute what is called "virtual parliament" without having a real existence, are able to influence the policy of the states with the threat of withdraw funds and other financial manipulations .[...] The same Chomsky says that worldwide, there has since then a decline of public service, the stagnation or decline in wages, the deterioration of working conditions, increase in working hours.
4 GLOBALIZATION And we're to the point. On one hand, huge flows of financial capital between countries, which belong essentially to the American multinationals (the famous globalization), and secondly the impoverishment of the weaker. Why? Because the ability to move the flow of money without barriers has become one of the strongest weapons business, to be deployed against the demands of workers' associations to improve their pay conditions and work. The mere possibility of threaten to move production at will (see Marchionne Fiat in Italy), or you move it to places where labor costs and 'significantly lower has annihilated the demands of the working class now back in a situation of growing insecurity.
5 The joke FINAL The crucial point, he asks Chomski, is where these funds come as investors move from one country to another without too many scruples? The answer is simple: State . In fact, the multinational they have always been powerful and funding from the state (and see also here, in the past, the case FIAT). In short: profits are private, but the costs and risks imposed on society. To demonstrate this view, Chomsky points out how the two main standard bearers of neoliberalism 80 years' , USA and Great Britain, in the figures of Ronald Reagan and Thatcher, have always been "unreasonable protectionist measures to defend their domestic markets. And Reagan said that "he was the director of the biggest turn toward protectionism never occurred since the Thirties." So says Chomski, neoliberalism, is pure theory: the economy is not is relieved, but encouraged and financed by the states. The theoretical assumption, from which the neo-liberal theorists had left, it was completely reversed . But who cares, we add all this to investors, Marchionne, the governments of the right? The primary objective has been achieved. Give the working classes in nineteenth-century a situation of oppression.
Mario Bresci
0 comments:
Post a Comment