Neoliberalism: the New Communism?

Admittedly, this is an attempt by me, a confused individual, to briefly piece together the many sources of information I’ve come across in my time reading about current affairs and history. This is an interpretation; I am just looking for constructive thoughts from everyone, not blatant denials and little smilies with rolling eyes. Here are my thoughts:

I am no scholar of Marx or of the history of Communism; however, from what I have gathered from history class and philosophy, Communism spread as an ideology promising social justice and freedom from oppression. According to the academic texts and to the experience of previous generations, this hopeful ideology turned into a vehicle for personal gain. It was commandeered by power wolves and thieves, organizations that viewed Communism only as a means for establishing a monopoly. Socialism, once considered a beautiful and equitable political philosophy, has largely become an excuse for dictatorship and is associated with the oppression of peoples.

A major backlash to the Soviet collectivism seemed to take form in government economic policy in the 1980s – you know, Thatcherism and Reaganomics; in other words, neoliberalism. For those that are unfamiliar with this term, I believe Milton Freidman coined it, describing his extremist laissez-faire economic theory. The theory of Marx has been attributed as the ideology of the “losers” of the Cold War. This seems to be emphasized by the Western push for “globalization” and “free markets,” being sold to libertarians and capitalists as the ideology of maximum economic freedom, as the “winner” of the Cold War. Instead of placing our trust in government ownership and regulation, we are to place our trust in the deregulated free market.

Although neoliberalism and communism are portrayed so differently, and the proponents of the theories do differ greatly, I want to present this idea: that both ideologies are just two different tools for the same purpose - a way for establishing a monopoly upon the means of production. The monopoly can either occur from complete state regulation and ownership, or it can occur from removing all constraints upon corporations, which can establish cartels and bully others out of the market. However you may want your monopoly served, public (government-run) or private (corporate-run), it is all coming from the same kitchen. For example; Communism was a theory supported by many of the powers-that-be in the early twentieth century. Look into Norman Dodd; The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, available upon the internet. These backers of Communism and corporatism obviously had motive: these political-economic philosophies established a means for monopoly.

Then in the 1980s, extremist laissez-faire economics began to reach the masses in the form of Thatcherism and Reaganomics. Both subscribed to the theories of Milton Friedman – or, at least, they subscribed to the parts that interested them and their benefactors. Check out the Liberalization and Trade in Services (LOTIS) committee, for example. You will see Goldman Sachs, the Rothschilds, the Bank of England, USB Warburg, Morgan Stanley – and even Reuters. Many of the names you see above were involved in the creation of the Third Central Bank of the United States–I mean, the Federal Reserve System. Why would these financial and business elite switch sides all of a sudden? Maybe because they’ve been on one side the whole time: their side. They don’t have a problem with theory of neoliberalism, and in fact, they like it; but just like communism, the application of that theory must conform to their wishes. More clearly, the current neoliberalism isn’t as it was truly intended, just as past Communism wasn’t as Marx truly intended.

I think Lawrence Kudlow best sums up this relationship of corporate neoliberalism and Soviet collectivism, as well as the goals of both ideology's supporters: “IMF statism is no better than Soviet statism."

Originally posted by Luap
I am no scholar of Marx or of the history of Communism; however, from what I have gathered from history class and philosophy, Communism spread as an ideology promising social justice and freedom from oppression. According to the academic texts and to the experience of previous generations, this hopeful ideology turned into a vehicle for personal gain. It was commandeered by power wolves and thieves, organizations that viewed Communism only as a means for establishing a monopoly. Socialism, once considered a beautiful and equitable political philosophy, has largely become an excuse for dictatorship and is associated with the oppression of peoples-

This sounds much more like neo-conservatism than neo-liberalism to me.

Originally posted by whaaa
This sounds much more like neo-conservatism than neo-liberalism to me.

Kind of crazy you mention that actually. I just looked up new conservative on wiki and heres what I got back.

Neo Conservative

there seem to be a lot of contradictions in beliefs between conservatives and neo conservatives. The Wiki article states neo-conservatism originated on left wing ideas. Which we traditionally dont associate with the word conservative. Confusing to me still, I need to read the article one more time.

I still say it doesn't matter if you go too far right, or too far left, you end up in basically the same spot, a few own and control everything, and the rest of us get whatever they decide we deserve....the neo conservative, and the neo liberal are pretty much in the same realm. if you go too far right on a circle, you end up to your left.

whaaa
This sounds much more like neo-conservatism than neo-liberalism to me.

How so? I don’t know much about the differences between the neoconservatism found in the United States and other countries, but the neoconservatives here at home (US) seem to support privatization and deregulation – the hallmarks of neoliberalism. Some neoconservatism has a lot do with political ideology as well, whereas neoliberalism presents a threat toward national sovereignty.

Anyway, whatever you want to call it, does it not seem like this new ideology is becoming a new means for creating a monopoly over production and wealth?

dawnstar
I still say it doesn't matter if you go too far right, or too far left, you end up in basically the same spot, a few own and control everything, and the rest of us get whatever they decide we deserve....

I agree entirely. It seems that many people, though, are caught up in the momentum of privatization and globalization that they failto realize it is playing into the hands of a few elite. They seem to see these economic policies as completely opposite to those of the Soviet Union, so in turn, they believe that those policies must be good. How far can neoliberalism (or whatever you may call it) go?

Luap, want to give you credit for for coming up with the piece and without bias say:

I don't see the "Centralizing" of huge entities as Liberalism nor Conservatism. It's more like unfettered capitolism and what is wrong with the US today. The founding fathers warned of this happening. The USA was not founded on the backs of Corporations as they did not exist but labor forces did. The USA was founded as most other countries on the backs, sweat and blood of the people. We have bought in on the mega stores, bling-blingm, toys, mansions and low-low prices. All the while these corps have been feeding us their wears. Hey, I enjoy my foreign made computers, remote keyless entry auto and spacious homestead that I worked to buy. That's what real capitolism and free enterprise is all about. The problem comes in with monopolies, mergers, lobbists, corpoerate lawyers, unchecked balance sheets, lack of accountability in government and the stripping of social services for the benefit of corportions. Liberal Ideals are not communism but only resemble the framework of Marxism. The lines only cross where checks and balance are put in place to limit run away greed that feeds on the people. Where Marx definded it as being under ownership of the government, liberalism relies on fair trade and free enterprise. Todays large corporations are more at communism than any liberal policy out there. When choice is limited by factors of domination of markets then the people are forced to eat from one table. MS-Windows is over 17 years old and is the dominant OS for PCs in the country. While it's become great in its versatility it trampled most other oses out of the marker with force. Linux has grown to become both a threat and an feed stock for MS-Windows that is pushng it further than before. Why is this, with more money comes more power. Using Microsoft is a little unfair but it shows what happens in uncontrolled markets. We needed to open up the world banking system but the problem is that it's almost unrestricted. We need to bring the power back into the hands of the people. It's still a good thing to keep the idea of a Republic around as it removes some burden from having to vote on all issues (a true Democracy), but the boys in Washington have shown it's more important to line coporate pockets (a non-partisan issue as both parties are eating at that table).

forgive me up front but i'm a old school hard liner

Neo Liberalism? the new Communism?

hell no

the two are totally different, in social structures, political structures, doctrine, philosophy(ideology) etc. etc. etc.

just the thought of "Liberalism" or even "Conservatism" being consider in the same realm boggles my mind!

now i'm going to spare you my "mindless rhetoric" because this is not the time are place

but please don't fooled by todays imitators("the new age hippies") who sport the CHE t-shirts but have idea what communism is nor have they ever read the "Manifesto" or any of the works written by LENIN, MAO and etc.

but let me remind you that this is simply my opinion of course