One long paragraph in Naomi Klein's book "Shock Doctrine" eloquently summarizes the extent to which neoliberalism STRIPS POWER FROM DEMOCRACY and made me ponder when the current economic crisis in the U.S. is intended to strip the U.S. population of self-determination.
Klein discusses country after country where neoliberal policies were rapidly inflicted, and in Chapter 10 "Democracy Born in Chains", she is writing specifically about South Africa -- how the newly formed ANC government faced massive and immediate multiple crises when taking power, and were promptly hamstrung from making any real changes even as the government was handed over -- but it might as well be a litany of the areas where populist democracy typically conflicts with corporatist neoliberalism. As you read this, think about the United States today: the deep debt (both individual and national) and the massive expense of the Iraq war. The desparation of the failing working class as they struggle to pay for fuel, food and medical bills with stagnant wages and a poor job market. The declining dollar. When and if the reins of power are handed over to a more populist government, the neocons want to ensure that the nation itself is hobbled and shackled. Sometimes I've cynically imagined that Bush and Cheney were doing everything they possibly could to weaken America. Well, it wouldn't be the first time that the neo-whatevers had intentionally crippled democracy for the sake of enshrining the "Washington Concensus" in a place of power where it couldn't be reached.
Want to redistribute land? Impossible -- at the last minute, the negotiators agreed to add a clase to the new constitution that protects all private property, making land reform virtually impossible. Want to create jobs for millions of unemployed workers? Can't -- hundreds of factories were actually about to close because the ANC had signed on to the GATT..which made it illegal to subsidize the auto plants and textile factories. Want to get free AIDS drugs to the townships, where the disease is spreading with terrifying speed? That violates an intellectual property rights commitment under the WTO, which the ANC joined with no public debate as a continuation of the GATT. Need money to build more and larger houses for the poor and to bring free electricity to the townships? Sorry -- the budget is being eaten up servicing the massive debt, passed on quietly by the apartheid government. Print more money? Tell that to the apartheid-era head of the central bank. Free water for all? Not likely. The World Bank, with its large in-country contingent of economists, researchers and trainers, is making private-sector partnerships the service norm. Want to impose currency controls to guard against wild speculation? That would violate the $850 million IMF deal, signed, conveniently enough, right before the elections. Raise the minimum wage to close the apartheid income gap? Nope. The IMF deal promises "wage restraint". And don't even think about ignoring these commitments -- any change will be regarded as evidence of dangerous national untrustworthiness, a lack of commitment to "reform", an absence of a "rules-based system". All of which will lead to currency crashes, aid cuts and capital flight. The bottom line was that South Africa was free but simultaneously captured; each one of these arcane acronyms represented a different thread in the web that pinned down the limbs of the new government.
The elites have always feared 'mob rule' for its power to take away wealth. Handily, the same techniques they use to protect ill-gotten gains of ownership of natural resources or land are the same techniques that enslave the populace in a desparate struggle for the bare essentials. Is it coming home to roost?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
