Critiques of Neoliberalism

it's not that simple

It just happens that I’ve encountered a number of critiques of “neoliberalism” in the last few days.

There’s a piece on the resignation of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinta Ardern. Writer Tom Chodor:

Ardern’s initial victory, in 2017, was based on promises to fix the widespread socio-economic disadvantage plaguing [New Zealand] following four decades of neoliberalism and post-2008 austerity that would make even George Osborne blush.

What were the problems? Child poverty, inequality, housing affordability, homelessness. And today? Everything is worse.

Then there’s this critique of the City of Chicago on “neoliberalism in action” where roads and traffic infractions have been privatized and there is no forgiveness, while criminal violence is tolerated by the wokey mayor and prosecutor. So he blames the right for the privatizations and the left for the SAFE-T decriminalization of criminals.

Then there’s a piece from The Circulation of Elites Substack that takes everyone to task, from libertarians to socialists, for demolishing traditional, organic society in the last few hundred years. His line is that the Enlightenment, left and right, advanced “the values of universalism, progressivism, (monadic) individualism, and rationalism.” And customs and traditions were the problem.

[I]n fact, any element or manifestation of particularity, of organic community, any surviving social norms, customs, traditions or ways of life, that expressed and defended local identity, communal bonds, or Schmitt’s concrete institutions, served objectively as obstacles to the left’s agenda.

But this applies also to pro-market folks like me.

The fact is that the creative destruction of Sombart [and Schumpeter] was the destruction of the established, the traditional, the customary, the communal, to make way for the endless creation of the next new thing. Creative destruction at its very core is an endless assault upon tradition and organic community.

Now, the Circulation of Elites guy blames all the moderns; Jacinda critic Chodor blames the “Blairite Third Way mentality.” A lot of lefties blame the start of “neoliberalism” on Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s.

I would like to take a bigger view. I think that the transformation from rural-agricultural society to the current industrial-market-administrative-government society is not some cunning ruling-class plot. It is much bigger than that, and above all, it just happened. Because?

Because printing press, which made the transmission of knowledge — political, religious, economic, scientific — much cheaper and widespread.

Because nationalization of armies and emergence of absolute monarchs. This caused feudal barons to “improve” their estates, dump their peasants, move to the capital city, and engage, through their lawyers and agents, in the market economy.

And yes, life in the modern market economy is ruthless and individualistic and rational, and that is hard.

But I think it is wrong to idealize the traditional, organic community. Lefties love the idea of an egalitarian agricultural village; conservatives honor the Burkean ideal of a “partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” But my reading indicates to me that the old way was pretty ruthless. You could only get married if you brought property enough from both families to support the marriage. Not enough moolah? Then you lived your life as a servant. And, of course, in the event of weather or conquest, you were toast. In the year 1000, if things were getting too tough, you could volunteer to become the slave of your feudal lord.

Also, our modern society is not just logical and rational and administrative. In the 19th century people belonged to a whole array of mutual-aid societies that, I would argue, were helpfully replacing the place-bound community of the agricultural age.

In all times and in all places, political and religious and economic elites have worked to maintain their power and influence. And ordinary people attach themselves to powerful people in the hope of being protected. And when things go wrong it is always the other guy’s fault.

The eternal question is what to do when things go wrong. In the olden time people looked to their traditional community for help. But, of course, if the problem, the hardship, was too great the community just disappeared. In our time, even with our administrative welfare state, we are seeing huge numbers of people ending up on the street doing fentanyl. Obviously, something is broken, but what? Is is capitalism? The welfare state? The Enlightenment? Neoliberalism? Far-right insurrectionists? Mostly peaceful lefty protesters? The patriarchy? White oppressors? The Deep State?

Ultimately, I believe, humans are fixer-uppers. We break things and then we try to fix them. But people in power are usually reluctant to fix things, probably because they instinctively feel that any change is likely to diminish their power.

So Job One is to make sure that fixer-uppers are actually allowed to fix things up.