Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 10:11:28 +1000
From: sjwright-AT-vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Steve Wright)
Subject: discussing neo-liberalism & utopia


I'd like to return to 2 (perhaps even interlinked) issues raised earlier on
this list: that of the nature of neo-liberalism (raised by Harry Cleaver),
and the place of utopia (raised by Harald Beyer-Arnesen).

I'd like to start by asking for a definition of terms. How does
"neo-liberalism" square with "monetarism" and "globalisation"? Are there
significant variants of "neo-liberalism"? Can it be coupled with
keynesianism, as Werner Bonefeld has argued of monetarism?

As for utopia, and as a way to link the two issues, I'd like to quote the
last section of Massimo De Angelis' recent article on globalisation, which
appeared in _Vis-a-Vis_ 4:

"Within current common sense, the word 'globalisation' is associated with a
perception of the human destiny of contemporary societies as fixed,
immutable and given. If there is some space for changes, these are
nonetheless confined to what is necessary for adaptation to global
competition's new rules of play, or for the fine-tuning of the budget [o ai
vincoli imposti dalla contabilita' di bilancio - could be 'terms of trade'
instead?]. But it seems impossible to contemplate radical changes, even
within the hypothetical horizon of parties belonging to opposing camps. The
ideology of the 'failure of communism' (read state capitalism) is used here
to taint as fanciful any attempt to think beyond the basic assumptions that
constitute the most expeditious tallying of life in pursuit of
accumulation. With all its dependence upon subjectivity and creativity,
modern capitalism can only promote a political culture characterised by the
asence of *radical* imagination, by the absence of an alternative vision of
existence - not in the distant future, but here and now, where the present
material and subjective bases could render it conceivable, if not
actualisable [yes, I'm sure that's a neologism].

"Well, it seems to me that the picture of globalisation set out in this
paper is quite different from that static, given, incorruptible and
immovable one supplied in the common places of traditional channels of
information and presupposed in political debates. Our picture illustrates
that the globalisation of both finance and production processes is a
strategy, and thus subject to failure. Furthermroe, it seems to be that we
need to respond in two ways to the passive acceptance of the economy's
autonomy. Firstly, with autonomy *from* the economy, with a critical and
radical thought that simply does not accept the basic assumptions imposed
by a representation of the world finalised in the elaboration of strategies
for the maintenance of the current system of affairs. Secondly, with the
*economy of autonomy*, economy understood here not as a system of
capitalist relations, but as an alternative system of social relations,
definition of needs and of human mores [modi] for their satisfaction, given
the current material and subjective bases. In short, against the false
realism of economic realism we have to recover a utopian discourse, in
thought as well as in antagonistic and constitutive practice. Through an
interesting play on words, the word utopia is defined in English as
*no*where - no place. But this could also be read as *now*here - here and
now. Utopia therefore not as *the* alternative model, not as a party
program or a plan in search of subjects to subordinate. Utopia instead as
an open and inclusive horizon of thought, antagonistic practice and
communication. If theoretical and political recomposition must occur as a
heterogeneity of antagonistic thematics and therefore subjects - labour,
production, reproduction, race, gender, health, environment, education etc.
- it must therefore occur in terms of a discourse which to those who manage
the Great Leviathan must necessarily seem 'utopian' - that is, as a
discourse centred around real human subjects, their needs and aspirations
uncoupled from the priority of social relations which take the form of
despotic objects."

Any reactions? I think the notion in the last sentence of 'a heterogeneity
of antagonistic thematics and therefore subjects' is not meant to suggest
that these are inherently antagonistic *to each other*, but can become
antagonistic to capital - is that right, Massimo? After all, the phrase
"antagonistic movement" is often used in Italy these days as a broad label
to encompass a range of revolutionary politics.

BTW, Massimo tells me he's translating the article into English.

Steve




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---