Hong Kong Soars

[Charles Brown]

Wasn't there a big shift to monopolization
at the end of the 19th Cent and beginning
of the 20th Cent. as compared with the
classical liberal period ? And an increased
role of the governments/states in directly
serving monopoly interests and not
"leaving them alone to do" (laissez faire) ?
The role of the state in the economy reached
its peak and reversed its direct service
to the bourgeoisie

 with Keynesianist reform as a general
method to forestall and prevent full 
working class revolution. 

Monopolization is now greater than ever,
which is not classical liberalism. So the 
the current pigs have instituted only 
returned to classical liberalism partially
in the form of raw dog capitalism without
Keynesian system preserving refoms.

By the way, there is long term reversal
of the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative"
with respect to government activism generally,
including in economics. 
Coming out of feudalism, the state still
represented the feudal ruling class in 
the main. So the rising bourgeosie,

 the liberals, were
therefore anti-government and for 
"leave us alone" (laissez faire). Today
this has reversed and "liberal" 
has (had ) become synonmous
with "big government" in the U.S.
with Rooseveltism and all. Conservatives
pretend now to be anti-government.
For example, Reagan ran "against"
big government and liberals.

"Neo-liberalism"  is historically
reactionary, bring forward
only the worst part of classical
liberalism for today context. 
What would be progressive
for today, anti-monopoly, is
remains "classical" and not
"neo". In other words,
the  IMF "neo-liberalism"
is pro-monopoly. 

Charles Brown

Detroit

Workers of the West, it's our turn.

 


>>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb at jmu.edu> 09/07 3:53 PM >>>

     The context of this term is political/economic 
categories outside of the US and UK or in those countries 
prior to early in this century, in other words to 
"classical liberalism" of the Adam Smith/laissez-faire 
variety, as hoov notes (although Adam Smith was not as big 
of a fan of l-f as he is frequently depicted as having 
been).  The term has a clear and useful meaning and very 
well describes what has been the dominant ideology of the 
IMF, etc.
Barkley Rosser
On Mon, 7 Sep 1998 15:47:08 -0400 (EDT) hoov 
<hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us> wrote:


> > > Louis Proyect wrote:
> > > > There is no such thing as "neo-liberalism."
> 
> as I understand it, 'neo-liberalism' reflects an ostensible return
> to the writings of Adam Smith and the group of 19th century
> utilitarian writers - mostly English businessmen - known as the
> Manchester School...what AS promoted as laissez-faire for
> economic efficiency and moral discipline reasons, the MS
> adverstised as the key to individual freedom for its own sake...
> Michael Hoover

-- 
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
rosserjb at jmu.edu