Neoliberalizam i ordoliberalizam - kritika dvije forme imperijalizma i autoritarizma

Vassilis Fouskas

doi:10.5937/politeia0-20481

Abstract

Imperialism is primarily driven by a combination of public policies and accumulation regimes taking place within the domestic environment of the imperial state itself. As an international policy, however, imperialism aims at transforming other states' socio-economic and political orders, especially in the global periphery and semi-periphery, by way of transplanting there its own class model that prevailed at the metropolitan home. The two most important stylised and separable, but not separate, public policies of our times are that of Anglo-American neo-liberalism, which drives post-Bretton Woods globalisation/financialisation, and that of German-Austrian ordoliberalism, which guides the process of European “integration”. The argument advanced here is that (Anglo-American) neo-liberalism and (German-Austrian) ordoliberalism are not stand-alone domestic policies but are instead consubstantial with imperial undertakings, the former project being wider and truly global in scope, whereas the latter is dominating the EU/Euro-zone and its immediate periphery (the Balkans/Eastern Europe and the MENA region). In this context, the article puts forth a qualitative critique of both public policies as imperial policies of domination, transformation and exploitation, buttressing regimes of permanent austerity and authoritarianism at home and permanent war and devastation abroad.

Highlights

Imperialism aims at transforming other states’ socioeconomic and political orders, especially in the global periphery and semi-periphery, by way of transplanting its own class model prevailing in the metropolitan home
The two most important stylised and separable, but not separate, public policies of our times are that of Anglo-American neo-liberalism, which drives post-Bretton Woods globalisation/ financialisation, and that of German-Austrian ordoliberalism, which guides the process of European ‘integration’
A critique of these arguments from ‘orthodox’ Marxian positions was developed by Poulantzas[25] and Laclau[26] but we find that the overall contribution of the American school adds value to our effort to construct an epistemic framework defining the concept of imperialism in today’s financialised capitalism

Summary

Introduction

Extra profits appropriated from WWII Marxist theories of imperialism had colonies allow the funding of a ‘labour aris- (more or less) got it right: as Bukharin and tocracy’ in the core countries, especially in Lenin argued, monopoly capitalism and England, a development that had influenced division of the world into zones of colonial the socialist movement to adopt reformist, control accentuated inter-imperialist coneconomistic (e.g. fighting for higher wages tradictions and led to the breakdown of the alone without politicising the struggle) and imperial order and war.

Objectives

Results

Conclusion