Contenu du sommaire : Fin de néolibéralisme

A Marxian Theory of Neoliberalism One can locate in Marx's work important theoretical foundations for the analysis of neoliberalism : theories of the state (its relation to class patterns), of the transformation of the institutions in which the ownership of the means of production is expressed (the separation between ownership and management, loan capital), and banking capital (as administrator of loan capital). These theoretical frameworks are helpful in the analysis of the role of the state in neoliberalism, and the power of finance. To this, one must add the analysis of financial capital by Hilferding and Lenin. The recurrent postponement of the final superseding of capitalism constrained Marxist theoreticians to define long-term periodizations, such as the theory of monopoly capitalism or long waves. But the legacy of founding fathers is not very helpful with respect to the interpretation of the succession of the postwar Keynesian compromise and neoliberalism.

Freedom's prospects History shows convincingly that major transformations coincide with periods of crisis or wars. Many aspects of the contemporary world and US economy point to a possible crisis, in particular financial instability, and domestic and external imbalances. Neither hyperinflation nor deflation appear as likely issues. The consolidation of neoconservative authoritarism appears as a potential answer. Fortunately, there is a substantial opposition which can be mobilized against such trends. There are to ways of addressing the problem of alternatives. One is suggested by the directions taken by oppositional movement, now on the rise. The second is critical analysis. But analysis also points up exploitable contradictions within the neoliberal and neoconservative agenda.

The World State That Never Was Neoliberalism is the particular ideology of capital friendly state action through which the United States has sought to revive its hegemony after the crisis of the 1970s. Quite successful in attaining this objectivein the late 1980s and especially in the 1990s, neoliberalism has nonetheless reached its limits in recent years as the Bush Administration's embrace of the Project for a New American Century in response to the events of September 11 has precipitated a newand far moreserious crisis of US hegemony. The purpose of this article is to provide an interpretation of this new crisis that may throw some light on the longer-term and deeper causes of the crisis of neoliberalism.

Global capitalism's specific contradictions and antagonisms and their threats for mankind Around 1990-1992, world capitalism opened for itself a new period of expansion, marked in particular by the incorporation of China. But the movement whereby “capitalist production overcomes its immanent barriers, but does so only by means which again place these barriers in its way on a more formidable scale” is under way. New contradictions and antagonisms are discernable, alongside earlier ones. The consequences of the relationship between “man and nature” developed under capitalism, will now impinge on the accumulation process directly and indirectly. Given the external economic foundations of US hegemony, the scale on which it has accumulated fictitious capital and its dependency on energy, the situation is ripe with financial crises and with military conflict.

Neoliberalism: Superseding or Recasting of a Social Order In the analysis of contemporary capitalism, it is important to combine neoliberalism (the strengthening of the power of the capitalist class, in a new phase) and imperialism (the exploitation of peripherical countries). The contradictions of this newsocial order are numerous: first, the resistances that it fosters, then the desquilibria evident, in particular, in the United States. But imperialism at the age of neoliberalism also manifests itself in a new configuration particularly favorable to this country: the export of capitals and the financing of the US economy by the rest of the world. In the United States, this era can also be characterized by the new configuration of class alliances at the top of the social hierarchy : big capitalist owners and top managers. This consolidation manifests itself in the ongoing drift to the right, when the necessity of a compromise uniting managers and popular classes, as in the Keynesian compromise, is urgent.

Beyond Neoliberal Globalization: A Better or Worse World? As seem by the US establishment, contemporary neoliberal trends point to the “best of the worlds”, in spite of the difficulty to adapt of various regions of the world, and resistances as in Islamic countries. But overall the leadership of the US is not threatened. For committed to resistance, a first issue is whether Europe, given its democratic tradition, is susceptible of defining an alternative. But the autonomy of this region is considerably constrained by the rules of the European Union, and the Atlantic “connection” remains tight. The capability of the countries of the South to confront imperialism is limited by the illusion of emerging countries concerning their insertion in the world economy, and the weakness of the less advanced. Simultaneously, new cultural trends, such as post-modernism and “culturalism” have devastating demobilizing effects. The main task on the agenda is the redefinition of a new anti-imperialist internationalism.

Engels, from one Socialism to another It was most often Engels who had the task of presenting the future society, by commenting and developing the indications by Marx, and then, after the death of this latter, in making corrections of great importance. The aim of the article is to show that Engels did not defend just one single notion of socialism, but several. In his mind they corresponded to different stages in the construction of communism. For the period of transition following the coming to power of the proletariat, he envisaged a state controlled market socialism. For the period of socialism, as such, he recommended integral planning, abolishing the market. But later he moved away from this idea and approached an associative socialism, more in tune with the aims of communism: in brief, co-operatives, and a plan of orientation, which correspond to two levels of democracy. Finally, the article presents a certain number of critical commentaries in the light of past history and of current research on models of socialism.

Communism and Citizenship. Some Reflections on the Politics of Emancipation, from Nicos Poulantzas way the class struggle permeates the structure of the State, and of the contemporary crisis of the State and of state-practices. His analysis throws light on the formation of the « social national State » and on the crisis it is currently going through. It also enables us to address the question of a politics of emancipation, which should always associate the grammar of citizenship and the grammar of communism.

Postfordism, Marxism and Social critique The concepts of globalisation and of neoliberalism are symptomatic of the transformations which have taken place in the way the question of social critique has been addressed. The contemporary period has witnessed the emergence of a protocol of social analysis in which political inquiry is linked to historical diagnosis, drawing on the categories of historical periodisation and of economic analysis. The debate is thus, to a certain degree, shifted to the terrain of Marxism. As for the latter, it is confronted with a new set of theoretical and political challenges.

Foucault and Liberalism. Rationality, Revolution, Resistance In 1978 and 1979, the concept of governability was introduced by Foucault in his lectures at the Collège de France. The concept derives from the Christian figure of the shepherd. From this starting-point, Foucault was to embark upon a eulogy of liberalism, in contrast to the Marxist critique of political economy. However these two discourses, which both partake of the general structure of grand narrative, differ in their political and philosophical presuppositions. The latter is rooted in the tradition of natural law and is directed towards revolution, while the former, rooted in the tradition of English radicalism, is directed towards resistance. These two traditions may however have much to say to one another.

An Exchange Michel Vovelle, a historian whose work has received international acclaim, here addresses the crucial question of his original position within the field of social history, in terms of the perspective of a total history within which the random can give meaning to the historical event. As a historian of mentalités, Michel Vovelle goes on to point out how, along with Robert Mandrou, his work has made a contribution to the reformulation of the cultural history and history of representations which currently define the agenda of French historiography. To conclude, he shows how, both in the topics of research which he chose and in his intellectual engagements, his practice as a historian, without in any sense departing from the search for historical objectivity, was animated by his prior heuristic sympathy for a mode of Marxist explanation.