Contenu du sommaire : Néolibéralisme : rebond/rechute

On the Crisis of Neoliberalism
This discussion brings together five economists who address the major questions raised by the recent developments in the crisis of neoliberalism. The participants confront their respective definitions of neoliberalism, their understanding of the role played by financial mechanisms in the crisis and their interpretation of the crisis of sovereign debts. They discuss the implications of the crisis for the forces of the left, examining the consequences of the current weakening of the prior American hegemony : does it point to a bipolar or a multipolar world, a period during which regional evolutions will have a degree of relative autonomy, some of which might define the outlines of the alternatives to neoliberalism?

The Crisis of Sovereign Debts: The Limits of the Keynesian Treatment of a Structural Crisis
Why were several years of stimulation of demand by very large fiscal deficits not sufficient to allow the economies of the old centres (the United States and Europe) to recover their autonomous capability to grow? From this lack of capability results the contradictory character of the present situation. On the one hand, the deficits are still required in order to maintain the general level of activity; on the other hand, the unbounded growth of government debts seems impossible to prolong. This impasse manifests the “structural character” of the crisis, one of the large phases of perturbation that, every thirty or forty years, punctuate the history of capitalism and compel it to transform itself in fundamental respects, into what we denote as new “social orders”. The resolution of the circumstances of the present crisis requires much more than macro policies. Involved are economic institutions, the management of enterprises, the function of the financial sector, industrial policies and international relations. The crisis highlights the negative impact of neoliberal practices, leading to the deindustrialization of the economies of the centre, establishing a new configuration of growth around the globe. Leaving aside certain obvious singularities, the peripheries are now growing more rapidly than the centre.

European Capitalism at the Crossroads
The Eurozone turmoil is a structural crisis of European capitalism associated with the euro as world money. More broadly, the crisis reflects the culmination of tensions which have accumulated over three decades of neoliberalism in Europe. To create a global means of payment and reserve, the European Monetary Union (EMU) brought together countries of uneven and diverging competitiveness. The result was a situation of embedded current account surpluses for the core and deficits for the periphery, contributing to the accumulation of private and public debt. The response to the crisis was dictated by the interests of banks and large bondholders, entailing austerity and attempting to shift the social balance in favour of capital. For an effective response, the Left must break with Europeanist ideology. It must propose an alternative programme, rejecting the EMU and advocating social and economic transformation which would reverse neoliberalism in the interests of labour.

From Neoliberalism to Neocapitalism. Some Reflections Drawn from Foucault
The article takes up Foucault's analysis of neoliberalism in the 1970s. It begins by showing how this analysis represents an unforeseen effect of his introduction of the new category of biopower. It goes on to propose a hypothesis suggesting that, if we are to reappropriate the explanatory potential of the latter notion, it is advisable that we leave aside the political and cultural problematic of neoliberalism, focusing on the specific locus of the economic evolutions which are involved. Biopower has in fact largely become a constitutive function of neocapitalism, and must be examined as such.

Financialization in perspective
This paper reviews various interpretations of the nature and effects of financialization, suggesting that finance has expanded disproportionately, with correspondingly negative effects on the volume and the efficiency of capital accumulation and causing dysfunction in economic and social reproduction, accordingly as finance incorporates a wider range of economic and social activities. This is important in order to understand the relatively slow growth since the end of the post-war boom and the causes and course of the current crisis. The close relationship between financialization and neoliberalism is emphasised, the latter having gone through a shock phase (of state intervention intended to promote private capital in general and finance in particular), followed by further intervention to sustain financialization and respond to its dysfunctions. Consequently, it is important to distinguish between the often inconsistent and shifting incidence of scholarship, ideology and policy in practice that characterises neoliberalism. Alternative strategies will need to go beyond financialization to the material conditions of production and reproduction themselves.

Neoliberalism, the Highest Stage?
The deepening of the crisis is obvious. This article demonstrates the systemic nature of the crisis, using a long-term perspective. The substitution of neoliberal capitalism for “Fordist” capitalism can be seen as a reaction to the previous crisis which crystallised in the mid-1970s. With each of these periods can be associate specific modes of functioning, based on relatively coherent configurations. But neither one was really “sustainable”. The fall of the profit rate blew the earlier configuration to smithereens. The second configuration required the continuation of tendencies that eventually met their limits. The article describes these two configurations by way of a “synthetic indicator” of the main variables accounting for the basic parameters of capitalist dynamics. The main conclusion is that the potential inherent in these dynamics has now been exhausted, at least within the “old” capitalist countries. The article raises the issue of a potential continuation of such dynamics within “emerging” countries.

Crisis and post-Neoliberal Prospects
The central issue in this paper is the overtaking of neoliberalism by a possible new “social order”, a new phase in the history of capitalism. In contemporary capitalism, the “upper classes”—capitalist classes, the classes of managers and officials—jointly ensure the control of the means of production. Their common hegemony in neoliberalism is supported by the alliance at the top of the social hierarchies, under the leadership of capitalist classes. This hegemony could be continued beyond neoliberalism, though under new forms. A first such potential social order is similar to neoliberalism, which it prolongs, a “third financial hegemony”. (Neoliberalism represented the “second financial hegemony”; the first prevailed before the Great Depression of the 1930s). The other social order can be described as a “neomanagerialism”. While the same alliance would prevail at the top, the leadership would here be that of the managerial class, and would involve much stronger state intervention. (Another opportunity, albeit one which we unfortunately deem unlikely, would be the alliance between popular classes and managers, a “social-managerialism”). A comparison between the United states and China highlights the relevance of neomanagerialism. The strong neomanagerial features of China show the potential efficiency of this social configuration. A turn to neomanagerialism would probably be the only way of preserving what can be saved of U.S. international hegemony.

Dialectical Materialism in Capital. Some Suggestions for the Resumption of an old Debate
The question of the Hegelian heritage within the Marxian dialectic is a classic one that is still an open one, after more than a century of fruitful and various inquiry. In order to tackle the issue from a new perspective, we must first distinguish between, on the one hand, the subjective dialectic, or logic of Marxian thought, which is clearly inherited from Hegel, and, on the other hand, the objective dialectic, or logic of reality itself, which Marx arrived at by way of a frontal opposition to his master, even as he took up the latter's “rational kernel” in order to invert it, substituting for Hegel's idealist philosophy of creation a materialist conception of production and replacing the logic of negativity by a logic of produ-activity. Thus conceptualized by Marx, the gnoseological dialectic and dialectical materialism interact rationally. This enables us to renew the foundations of a dialectical materialism. Unrelated to stalinist « diamat », such a conception is well equipped to demonstrate its effectiveness for the knowledge and understanding of realities, both in terms of their irreducible material singularity, apprehended according to their constitutive historicity, and as elements of a certain real totality which is in process.

A Concise Philosophy of Management
Under the banner of the rationalisation of production, the figure of the manager has been presented as the incarnation of productive efficiency and social progress. Such an image, heir to the type of the « captain of industry » which was still prevalent in the Fordist paradigm, has proven to be totally illusory. The manager is henceforth the mere agent of financial profitability. Management is a mode of subsumption of labour by capital, one which attempts to control that component of autonomy in work that is a requirement in the processes of post-Fordist production. Class struggle, in its current aspects, is thus enacted by way of the modalities of capital's hegemony, which seeks to elicit labour's consent in the process of its own exploitation. It does so by way of paradoxical injunctions and a modification of the representations of social agents. However by breaking collective solidarities and replacing cooperation by competition, management has deployed an anthropology of simulation, provoking a general crisis of confidence which signals the failure of this Hobbesian paradigm.

On the « Belatedness » of the Reception of Subaltern Studies in France
This article considers the reception of subaltern studies in France. Its two starting points are, on the one hand, the uses which were made of Gramsci's theses on « the subaltern », depending on the various translations which were adopted and, on the other hand, the circulation within social history of the theses of e.p. Thompson (belatedly translated into French). While social history in France does not make explicit reference to the findings of subaltern studies as it first emerged, it nonetheless pursued a parallel approach, at least until the end of the “1968 era”, prior to the delegitimation of Marxism in the social studies in France. The situation today is characterized by the circulation of the translations which make available the culturalist and postmodernist current within subaltern studies, by a renewed interest for subjective experience, for popular movements of revolt and for a social history “from below”. This goes along with a rereading of the work of E.P. Thompson.

The Normative Supports and Capacities for Emancipation: the Example of Prostitutes' Demands
If the condition of prostitution manifests itself as one of the clearest instances of domination in our societies, the paths to emancipation offered to those who are its victims prove to be contradictory, ranging as they do from the disappearance of venal sexuality, considered as a practice that is intrinsically inadmissible, to its fully-fledged recognition as a trade. In fact, the demands formulated by the movements of « sex workers » prove to be vulnerable in the face of the presumption of alienation, while the goal of abolishing the practice of prostitution is open to the charge of paternalism, when it fails to meet with the approval of the prostitutes themselves. The article examines these rival paradigms for the emancipation of prostitutes. The issue of the social conditions which would render possible a questioning of the domination of these paradigms is central to the article's argument. To do so, it examines the reflections on the process of subjectification we find in the writings of Foucault and Rancière, and it sketches out a number of possible analyses drawing on the sociology of Bourdieu and that which was initiated by Boltanski.

The Alterglobalist Strategy
In an interview dealing with his latest book, The Alterglobalist strategy, Gustave Massiah answers a series of questions dealing with the crisis of neoliberal capitalism and with the specific agenda of alterglobalist strategies. The main topic of the interview is the relation between antineoliberal and anticapitalist struggles and the question of the possible and the desirable scenarios emerging from the crisis.