Neoliberalism: Context For A New Workers Struggle

[blindpig]

"What do flight attendants, auto workers, college professors, clerical workers, and public employees have in common? We – and most of our counterparts in the U.S., Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, indeed, all over the world – are under the gun, the gun of "neoliberalism." More than 150 years ago, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels ended their Communist Manifesto with the call: "Workers of the World Unite. You Have Nothing to Lose But Your Chains." But for the next century and a half, rather than unite on a global basis, workers competed with each other for privileges, advantages, and jobs, falling prey to nationalism and racism, even to the point of fighting wars to the death against each other. Now, perhaps for the first time in the history of the capitalist system, capital is attacking labor all over the world, in all industries, with the same techniques, demands, and pressures. As grim as the recent past, present, and immediate future might appear, with wage and benefit cuts, economic insecurity, draconian reorganizations of work rules and job descriptions, declining rates of unionization and declining effectiveness of conventional strikes, the prospects for the emergence of a global labor movement have never been better"

snip

"Why is it called "neoliberalism"? This name harkens back to the philosophical and economic "liberalism" that accompanied the emergence of free market capitalism out of the government-controlled eras of feudalism, mercantilism, and colonialism. This initial "liberalism," championed by the likes of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and John Locke, celebrated the market, unencumbered by government interference, as a "rational" and "efficient" institution, in which providers of inputs would be rewarded in proportion to the value of their contributions. As capitalists – bankers and corporate execs, their lawyers, political agents, and media flaks – responded to what they saw in the 1970s as the crisis of Keynesianism, particularly its government-provided social benefits, its willingness to constrain corporate behavior, and its implicit "social contract" between employers and their unionized workers, they sought to restore a "market" environment, on a global as well as a national basis, in which they would have a free hand to invest where they wanted, employ whom they wanted for whatever wages and benefits they wanted to pay, and buy and sell wherever they wanted. This is their "neoliberalism."

snip

"Here in the United States, the spread and deepening of neoliberalism has had widespread consequences. Barbara Bowen, president of the Professional Staff Congress, the 35,000-plus member faculty union at the City University of New York, presented a paper to the "How Class Works" conference at SUNY-Stony Brook in June which pointed out that 70% of the new college-level teaching jobs created throughout the United States are casual, temporary, part-time, adjunct. When 10,000 mechanics responded to management demands for a 50% reduction in jobs and a 26% reduction in wages and benefits by striking, Northwest Airlines implemented a strategy that combined outsourcing to non-union facilities in the U.S. and outside the U.S. altogether, the employment of permanent replacements through inside contracting, the filing of bankruptcy to gain leverage over not only the mechanics but all of the unions at the airline, and the threat of walking away from their already underfunded pensions. From Northwest to Delta, from Delco to GM, so-called "legacy" employers (that is, those with retirees to whom they have financial obligations) have announced that they can no longer "compete" if they are forced to live up to those obligations. When the state of Minnesota announced that it was running a budget deficit, the Republican governor unilaterally decided to drop 30,000 adults from "MinnesotaCare," the state-subsidized healthcare program. And so it goes."

http://www.centerforlaborrenewal.org/?P=A&Category_ID=1&Article=147&PHPSESSID=0f8d

[madrchsod]

1. neo liberal/neo conservative

they both, in their own way. find a way to fuck over the great unwashed...

[Peace Patriot]

2. Good point! What Clintonites don't steal from you in wages and benefits, and access

to good jobs, the Bushites will steal from you in profligate spending on war and tax cuts for the rich. And neo-liberalism COMBINES WITH neo-conservatism to produce neo-nazism--a poor, demoralized, and disenfranchised slave labor populace that cannot stop police state loss of civil rights, use of its military for corporate resource wars and use of its children as cannon fodder.

The Latin Americans, particularly in South America, have figured this one out, as country after country elects leftist (majorityist) governments, with platforms of rejecting or curtailing "neo-liberalism" (U.S. dominated "free trade"), the World Bank/IMF loan sharks of neo-liberalism, and the neo-nazi U.S. "war on drugs," and promoting social justice, the use of resources to benefit the people who live there, and Latin American self-determination and regional cooperation toward these ends. In order (more or less) of their strength on anti-neoliberal policies, leftist governments have been elected in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile. Paraguay will likely join this group next year, and soon after that Peru. Mexico came within a hairsbreadth--0.05%--of electing an anti-neoliberal government last year (and probably did--an election rife with election fraud). The uprising in Oaxaca was/is a social justice uprising (led by the teachers union). Guatemala also has a strong leftist movement, poised to win elections.

The three major keys to this astonishing revolution that is sweeping Latin America seem to be:

1. Transparent elections (U.S. voters, take note!)
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

That's what the South Americans are doing--thinking big, but with the electoral strength and grass roots organization to turn their visionary ideas into policy--for instance, with the Bank of the South (easy term loans that favor social justice--to push out the World Bank/IMF which specifically target social justice programs for destruction), and South American trade groups--both of these things aimed at a South American "Common Market" and common currency (regional strength to balance, counter or evict U.S. corporations and "first world" financiers).

THIS is one of the main reasons why Hugo Chavez is demonized by the Bushites (neo-conservative) and their Democratic colluders (neo-liberals), and their lapdog corporate press--with their outrageous disinformation campaign that Chavez is a "dictator"--because he is one of the main leaders of the anti-neoliberal, pro-democracy movement. It's not just Venezuela's oil that makes Chavez a target--it's Venezuela's leadership of the Bolivarian Revolution, which opposes U.S. labor, environmental and land/resource use policy involving billions and billions and billions of dollars; not just the oil resource, but also human resources, other natural resources--gas, minerals, fresh water, forests--AND one of the biggest fascist boondoggles (and drain on U.S. taxpayers), the "war on drugs."

And not just in South America. Chavez is pro-worker, and an advocate of the poor of worldwide renown. He is an inspiration to workers and the poor everywhere. And so he must be smeared as a "dictator" in order to explain why the stupid voters of Venezuela keep electing him, by ever bigger margins, and why he is so popular throughout Latin America and the world.

The irony is that Chavez could not be more beholden to the people of Venezuela, who turned back a Bush/U.S.-supported violent military coup against him in 2002, by tens of thousands of them pouring into the streets and surrounding Miraflores Palace (the seat of government) and demanding restoration of Constitutional government and return of their kidnapped president. The man would be dead if it were not for the people of Venezuela. And he knows it. NOBODY "dictates" to Venezuelans!

One of the component movements, within this greater revolution, is the peasant farmer movement, which is international in scope and huge. It is more responsible than any other international group for curtailing the World Trade Organization (which sets the rules for globalized profiteering, and has gravely assaulted national sovereignty--the ability of national/local governments to protect workers, farmers, local food supplies and the environment). And, yes, we very much need an international workers movement to parallel the work being done to protect small farmers and local food supplies. The WTO, for instance, set the "free trade" rules for globalization of the textile industry which led to the proliferation of sweatshops worldwide, where clothing sold by giant retailers like the Gap is manufactured, in slave labor conditions. There are loose alliances and networks of union organizers, human rights groups and other labor interests, but nothing so well-organized as the peasant farmer movement.

One good sign of the strengthening of the international labor movement is the activism of U.S. unions on the matter of the rightwing death squads in Colombia which have been targeting union leaders--who have been tortured and killed, some of them chainsawed to death, and their bodies or body parts thrown into mass graves. They also target small peasant farmers and political leftists. This is what the "war on drugs" has become under the Bush Junta (not that it was ever well-intended; it's just that Bush makes everything a hundred times worse). U.S. labor pressure on Congress has held up the latest multi-billion dollar military aid bill for Colombia. These rightwing death squads are very closely tied to the Uribe government (Bush's pals).

And here's another irony for you. Uribe is amending the Colombian Constitution, to eliminate the presidential term limit--so he and his cronies can keep feeding off the U.S. taxpayer and murdering the opposition (and trafficking in drugs). Where are the cries of "dictator" against Uribe from the Bush State Dept. and the corporate news monopolies? They descry Chavez's proposal that Venezuelans VOTE on allowing him a third term (which they most likely will do--they have their "FDR" and want to keep him in place). But Uribe does the same thing--far less democratically--and we hear NOTHING about it. The hypocrisy, lies and disinformation are mind-boggling.

Anyway, I wanted to point out that the South Americans are WAY ahead of us, in addressing neo-liberalism and its attendant horrors (neo-fascism). And if the South Americans can achieve democracy and social justice--after all they've suffered--so can we.

[TankLV]

3. Doesn't sound anyway shape or form in the vicinity of "liberalism" - let alone "neo"...

It's more of the FAILED REPUKE CONSERVATIVE ideology that has run rampant...

I totally disagree with and don't accept his terms...

[blindpig]

4. So, what are your terms?

A definition of Neoliberalism:

"Neo-liberalism is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer....Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter- American Development Bank....the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it 'neo' or new."

Neoliberalism is naught but classical liberalism on steroids:

"Liberalism as a coherent social philosophy dates from the late 18th century. At first there was no distinction between political and economic liberalism (economics was not considered a separate discipline until about 1850). Classic liberal political philosophy has continued to develop - after 1900 as a purely conservative philosophy. The basic principles of all liberal philosophy are:

*Liberals believe that the form of society should be the outcome of processes. These processes should be interactive and involve all members of society. The market is an example, probably the best example, of what liberals mean by process. Liberals are generally hostile to any 'interference with process'. Specifically, liberals claim that the distribution of wealth as a result of the market is, in itself, just. Liberals reject the idea of redistribution of wealth as a goal in itself."

Plenty more at:

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html

What many identify as liberalism today are the social issues attached to classic liberalism, tits on a boar. There's a lot of confusion, but in the end the social issues are both camouflage and and a fob, it's all about money and power. Liberalism used K-Y and whispers sweet nothings, the other guys just get down to business, their way.