[PEN-L:9564] Primer on Neo-Liberalism (fwd)
Came through a while back... -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:22:04 -0800 From: D Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list LABOR-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Primer on Neo-Liberalism 29 August 1996 WHAT IS "NEO-LIBERALISM"? A brief definition for activists by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia "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. "Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Right wing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism. "Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an English economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished. Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted. But 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. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale. A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there " and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico." The main points of neo-liberalism include: 1) THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much. 2) CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business. 3) DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job. 4) PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs. 5) ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the
[PEN-L:9566] Re: MAI
Any (further) entrenchment of 'free' market conditions that facilitate exploitation should be opposed. But the objections to the OECD proposals on FDI I've heard so far (like the campaign against NAFTA and the FTA) seem to be mainly national-protectionist. They leave the impression the problem is not capitalism but foreign capitalism, i.e., not capitalism at all but foreigners! Why should national capitalists have an edge over foreign capitalists (in OECD countries)? Bill Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] home (604) 255-5957 fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:9565] Re: Primer on Neo-Liberalism (fwd)
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Chris Johnston wrote: Came through a while back... -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:22:04 -0800 From: D Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip 29 August 1996 WHAT IS "NEO-LIBERALISM"? A brief definition for activists by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia yes, I remembered that message as well (and even looked at it recently after Michael asked his question). Yet Michael's original question didn't concern the definition of neo-liberalism. Rather it concerned the historical origin of the expression "neo-liberalism" -- and that topic was not discussed in the Martinez/Garcia article. Jerry
[PEN-L:9563] Text of MAI on web
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 18 22:21 PDT 1997 Received: from irc.intergate.bc.ca ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [207.34.179.6]) by ferrari.sfu.ca with ESMTP (8.8.5/SFU-2.7H) id WAA19128 for [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]); Fri, 18 Apr 1997 22:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pm9s6.intergate.bc.ca (pm9s6.intergate.bc.ca [205.206.194.111]) by irc.intergate.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA03837 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 22:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 22:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Green) Subject: apec-L: Liberated copy of MAI Draft Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2023 Status: OR Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:54:26 -0400 From: Carole Samdup [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: apec-L: Liberated copy of MAI Draft Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-UIDL: 5514a36fae31e0109530e14460eccef5 PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE LIBERATED COPY OF MAI DRAFT TEXT! Public Citizen has managed to liberate an official draft text of the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI). This stealth investment treaty has been under secretive negotiations at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) since 1995 and has virtually reached completion without the scrutiny and cooperation of citizens, elected officials, the media and non-governmental organizations. To remedy that problem, we at Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch have initiated the Campaign of Inquiry - an international campaign designed to bring the MAI out of the dark. This radical global investment treaty might very well self-destruct if we can expose it to public and political debate. Check out our web site at http://www.citizen.org/gtw to review the MAI text, to send a letter of inquiry and to join our international coalition. This may be the first you've heard of the MAI, but it won't be the last. __ I appreciate your consideration. If you have further questions or would like more information please feel free to email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or call (202)546-4996. Regards, Chantell Taylor Forwarded by: Asia Pacific Regional Enviornment Network (APRENet) Distributed by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development http://www.nautilus.org
[PEN-L:9562] Graduate Employees Win at U. of Illinois!!!
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:55:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Dennis Grammenos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Graduate Employees Win at U. of Illinois!!! Greetings, It is my honor to announce to you that the Graduate Employees' Organization (GEO) at the U. of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign has won a resounding victory. Below is the press release sent out by the GEO. Thank you all for your support. Regards, Dennis Grammenos ___ | Dennis Grammenos[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Departments of Geography| | Russian and East European Studies | | University of IllinoisPhone:(217) 333-1880 | | Urbana, Il 61801 Fax: (217) 244-1785 | --- = = = = = = = ==S T A R T P R E S SR E L E A S E Urbana-Champaign, IL - Graduate employees have spoken: they want the G.E.O. to be their union. In a union election held April 15th and 16th, 64% of graduate employees voting chose the G.E.O. to be their representative in employment matters. The election turnout was exceptional, with almost 50% (2,539) of 5,446 graduate employees voting. These statistics are comparable to some, but better than most percentages in any state or national election. By comparison, recent University of Illinois Student Senate election turnout was only 5%, and Champaign county election turnout was 23%. The Religious Workers Association of Champaign-Urbana, who conducted the election have officially announced the results. 1,633 voted for the Graduate Employees' Organization - IFT/AFT and 906 voted for "No Representative." Last year, 3,226 graduate employees signed our petition requesting an election for union representation. This week's election was the fulfillment of that request in spite of the University's refusal to sanction the election up front. Now, with the solid backing of graduate employees, the GEO has called on the administration to: % recognize and abide by the results of this election % drop their unnecessary lawsuit % begin an open discussion with the GEO on employment issues The G.E.O. is ready to represent graduate employees, but will the University administration recognize the wishes of the majority? With this mandate from the majority, failure to recognize the graduate employees' chosen bargaining agent would be a flagrant attack on graduate employees democratic right to negotiate and a demonstration of the administration's anti-union stance. Regardless of the response, the Graduate Employees' Organization will continue to fight for the rights of graduate employees. ===E N D P R E S S R E L E A S E
