This piece had me arching my eyebrows until I got to the end, where Bello kicked it in to neo-Marxist gear and began to delineate the impossibilities of a global new deal, given the abiding contradicition between world accumulation and inter-imperial competition.
But I do have one comment... isn't his model of "neoconservative neoliberalism" more or less universally applicable to wherever WashCon has been implemented? That is, with precious few exceptions (are there ANY?) it is usually an ideological cover for advancing the interests of a fraction of capital or particular capitals with favorable access to the state and hence the various favors the state can dole out on behalf of those fractions and/or interests? I don't have a clearly formulated thesis but it seems to me that the critical literature on neo-liberalism (which continues to be churned out despite the passing of neo-liberalism's heyday some ten years ago) too often implicitly presumes that Friedmanite doctrine is actually followed in practice. One merit of Harvey's book is that he doesn't fall into this trap.
John Gulick Akita, Japan
>Doug Henwood posted:
>
>THE POST-WASHINGTON DISSENSUS>Walden Bello
_________________________________________________________________ Explore the seven wonders of the world http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE