Neoliberalism Analysis

Neo-liberalism is associated with economic liberalism whose campaign support provides economic liberations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation and promoting the role of private institutions present in new society. Classic liberalism criticizes the neo-liberalism objective of introducing liberalization to bring about gradual increase of wealth and freedom among nations, however, classic liberalism explains that instead of realization of wealth and freedom, liberalization resulted to constant fight proposals that threatened the progress of achieving wealth and freedom among nations. Neo-liberalism aimed to prevent and control monopoly situations such that if there are no bodies

During the Progressive Era of the Gilded Age, many laborers were being mistreated by the companies that they worked for. Because of this, workers started forming labor unions or organized association of workers, formed to protect and further their rights and interests. Many of these labor unions failed, while few of them achieved their goals and still exist today. Many factors contributed to the failure of these labor unions. The labor unions were given a bad image, the reason for this was the media, and they did this by publishing articles depicting the unions as violent, communist groups. The government supported big business during this time, since the government had a lot of power; this was a huge setback in the labor unions’ battles.

Before Ronald Reagan became president, there was a lot of hostility between the federal government and working labor (Foner 831). In Reagan’s inauguration address, he states, “We are a nation that has a government – not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power expect that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.” He also clears up any misunderstandings by saying, “It’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work with us, not over us; but by our side, not ride on our backs. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it;

This, however, created chaos in other public programs for instance, Medicare and Social Security. Reagan was fairly ‘laissez faire’ and delivered on his promise to decrease government-intervention by reducing federal regulations on business and industry, a policy preferably known as deregulation which had begun under Carter’s presidency (Newman and Schmalbach 650). Nevertheless, Reagan opposed labor unions-he once fired thousands of striking air traffics who were against their contracts- and many businesses followed suit by taking strict measures against striking. As a result, labor union membership and striking drastically decreased as the economy grew tough during the Recession of 1982, and foreign competition for American jobs made jobs insecure and negatively affected worker’s wages (Newman and Schmalbach).

In the period immediately following World War I, American workers struggled to earn a living as prices rose and wages stagnated, forcing them to seek union support. Labor unions endeavored to represent the working class against their employers and corporations, who refused to increase wages or improve working conditions. In order to combat the capitalist’s immense political clout, unions made their voice heard through strikes. After the war, capitalists linked unions to the mounting communist threat, stressing that strikes undermined capitalism and threatened a republican form of government. As a result, government sided with capital against labor unions and the struggle of the American workers, who had no voice against corporations. This struggle can be exemplified in a correspondence between union leader, Samuel Gompers and bishop William Quayle, published in “The Twenties in Contemporary Commentary: Labor & Capital”. The letters demonstrate that in the 1920’s, labor unions were necessary as a means to overcome capitalist greed and enhanced the ideals of democracy by empowering the working class.

Mexico is a country where the economy has been low for years, and the violence has been high causing their people to seek jobs, and safety elsewhere. Immigration from Mexico to the United States has always taken place. Mexicans cross the border, either legally or illegally, in search of the American dream. However, since the war against the drug cartels started, back in the year 2000 or so, job opportunities in Mexico keep decreasing, and families struggle to bring food to their tables.

The world gradually entered its modern state after the English Revolution and largely abandoned the old political systems of monarchy. Economic achievement made due to the Industrial Revolution strengthened the connection between the economy and politics, and thus the emergence of classical liberalism and its future derivatives are inseparably tied to both economic and political components. Classical liberalism, New deal liberalism and neoliberalism are similar in that they all put much emphasis on the economy. They derived from the same basic ideology that individuals should be free and have their own properties protected. However, under the so-called freedom and democracy is the fact that they do not apply to every member of the society.

For generations, activists and legislators have strived and struggled to approach the subject of the unequal resource distribution across the nation. Typical discourses have concentrated on the dilemma between espousals of feigned concerns for insecure and impoverished people, while simultaneously projecting particular anxieties with supporting their dependency on the state. For the past three decades, US policy has positioned itself in conjunction with neoliberal philosophy, composed with the intention to discourage political aid. Not necessarily to foster an environment of starvation, but rather to encourage private individual living without state intervention. However, the consequence of neoliberal policy often results in marginalized identities,

The great depression of 1929 crippled the economy giving way to mass unemployment and economic insecurity. Those remaining that still had jobs felt fear and insecurity. As noted by a journalist, “the fear of being laid off hangs over the head of every worker. He does not know when the sword will fall” (Bedford 461)1. Every worker lived in fear because they do not know when they will be laid off. At any moment, they could be asked to not come back. To counteract the layoffs, some joined unions for job security. For others, they waited for relief which was coming in the form of the New Deal.

According to Wilson, Neoliberalism presents itself as an organic tradition, but her book argues against such an idea. Neoliberalism is not ground-breaking, but it rather adopted previous ideas of freedom. Our society remains ingrained in the principle of competition as a fuel of capitalism which has created spaces of "self-enclosed individualism." All popular schools of thought ascribe to the support of competition as Wilson references the Democratic and Republican alignments. Her description assigns four phases to the acceptance of neoliberalism, eventually leading to a fight to privatize all sects of life, diminishing the line between public and private.

The two theories which shall be compared are the modernisation theory and Neo Liberalism. The modernisation theory is a market oriented development theory which states that low income countries can develop economically if they give up their traditional ways which often can be dated back centuries and take on more modern economic principles, technologies and cultural values which comprise of an emphasis on productive investment and savings.

Neoliberalism’s world order was established during the 1980s under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan and his British counterpart Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and appears to be ever expanding, or so is perceived by large swaths of the global population. The world that these visionaries saw was meant to unite all nations into one system, and yet, despite the Soviet Union’s implosion in 1991, there has been an increased sense of nationalism throughout the world; no other entity exemplifies this more so than the European Union. Since the end of the Second World War, there has been a continued effort to create a more interdependent and united Europe. Starting out as the European Economic Community in 1958, then revitalizing the

Unlike Keynes, Hayek, in his book The Road to Serfdom, points out that any form of government intervention is dangerous and leads to serfdom. He argued that central government planning leads to serfdom or servitude which destroys personal freedom. Society has tried to ensure continuous prosperity by centralized planning which leads to totalitarianism. For example, socialism was supposed to be a means of assuring equality through restrain and servitude whereas democracy seeks equality in liberty-personal freedom and economical freedom. On the other hand, planning which is coercive is the least method of regulation where as cooperation of free market is superior because it is the only method that can adjust our activities with each other without the intervention of the authority. Furthermore, he argued that central planning is undemocratic because it imposes the will of the minority upon the majority. In pursuing their centralized goals, they take money or properties of the majority thus, destroying individual freedom. In addition, centralized planning reduces the individual to merely a means to be used by the authority as well as, giving away individual’s economic liberty. Unlike centralized planning, an open society offers more personal and economical freedom even to the very poor. He concluded by saying “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it

promoted a half way approach to liberal ideas while they incorporated parts of a social

(B. Kamiński 225). However, the package was met with a flurry of criticism from prominent economists and journalists. Echoing the key principles of neoliberalism, the economist Tomasz Jeziorański argued that the principal weakness of the package consisted in granting the full responsibility for economic performance to the central administration. The free enterprise characterized by responsibility and autonomy, he insisted, was incompatible with economic coercion by the state (B. Kamiński 226). As a consequence of protests of similar nature, the government eventually withdrew the package in question from further consideration.