Sunday, 8 December 2013

A Brief history of Neo – imperialism, History and Methods

A Brief history of Neo – imperialism, History and Methods

Till the 1960s, neoliberalism had the same status in economics 
as Wahhabism (a supremacist, fundamentalist and intolerant 
version of Islam) had in Islam. (1-1). How it became the guiding 
principle of Western countries is an interesting question.
Neoliberalism claims that human beings are best served by
liberating the entrepreneurial class through strong private
property rights, free market and free trade. State’s only role 
was to protect these by guaranteeing integrity of finance by 
legal means and also by deploying the police and the army.
Education, health and welfare would be taken care of by those
who needed it. Environment would take care of itself.
Even old style welfare states in Northern Europe and New 
Zealand embraced it. Nelson Mandela betrayed Post Apartheid 
South Africa by adopting neo-liberal policies.
Neoliberal pundits occupy academia, media, think tanks, 
corporations, finance ministries and international finance

            Aggression and Coups in Service of Corporations:
            On 9/19/2003 Paul Bremmer in Iraq ordered full privatization 
of public enterprises, full repatriation of foreign profit, full ownership 
rights to foreign firms, elimination of trade barriers; thus giving away the 
real reasons for the invasion (4-2). Strikes by the coolies were 
forbidden, unionization restricted, flat tax unrelated to income 
imposed; never mind that all these impositions were in violations 
of Geneva and The Hague Conventions. 3
            “Sovereign” Iraqi Government took over in 6/2004 with power
only to confirm existing laws and shortly before that Bremmer 
added copyright and intellectual property rights (5-4).
            First attempt at neoliberal state was made after Pinochet’s 
coup on 9/11/73 which implemented neoliberal policies facilitated by 
thousands of killed and disappeareds. A team of Chicago boys, 
adherents of Milton Friedman, were called in. 8-5
            The US had also been training and funding Chilean economists
at Chicago since 1950s to counteract left wing tendencies in Latin
America. The experiment went sour all over in the continent’s debt 
crisis of 1982 (8-6).
             Import substitution-promotion of indigenous industry via Tariffs
and Subsidies had been promoted Post WW II to prevent threat 
of another depression. 7). Undiluted Capitalism and communism
had failed. 9-8
            Breton-Woods agreement and institutions like UNO, WB 
and IMF were attempts to stabilize international relations. The price of 
Gold was fixed at $ 35 per ounce. 9
            USA and Europe turned into liberal-democratic states and 
concentrated on Keynesian full employment, economic growth, 
welfare, and state intervention in national industries. The USA 
underwrote growth, promoted class compromise between labor and 
capital, but for much of the third world it remained a pipe dream. The 
state internalized class conflict, the left and unions had real influence.
            By the end of 1960s, unemployment and stagflation were up. 
Britain was bailed out by IMF in 1975-76. 10 Tax and welfare 
expense were reduced. US dollar escaped into European banks. Fixed exchange rate of currencies was abandoned in 1971. 11
            Socialist parties advocated more intrusive regulation-open 
market socialism. The left acquired power in Portugal, France, Spain, 
Britain and Scandinavian countries. Even the USA passed regulatory 
reform, but they did not go beyond social-democratic solutions 10-12). 
           The corporatist world reasserted and the result was Washington 
consensus of 1990s. 13 Clinton and Blair both were closet 
            Stagflation had hurt every one. Discontent goaded the state to contemplate the possibility of a true socialist alternative to papering 
over of the class divide.
It was a clear threat to capitalist hegemony. In Sweden, 
Rehn-Meddner plan to buy out private business gradually and turn
the country into a worker’s democracy was adopted (14-harvey p15).
            There had been substantial change.  Share of the top 1% of the population in the national income fell from 16% in the pre WW II USA, to less than 8% by mid-1970s. It was due to the loss of control over finances. 15-harvey p 15
            Coups, subversion and civil wars in Latin America, Iran and 
Indonesia were one kind of solution but suitable only for the third world countries.
            Neoliberal agenda was restoration of class power. By the end
of 20th AD, the share of wealth of top 1% had gone up to15% 
(21% by 2010), ratio of worker-CEO salary from 1:30 in 1970s to 
1:500 by 2000. Bush Jr made it more acute (13-16). 
            Britain and USSR as well as China followed suit, but Mexico and India and OECD countries were more loyal than the king. (Ambani brothers 
of India are worth more than 90 billion US dollars, while more than 500 
million people live on less than a dollar a day). 17 Sebastian
            That theoretical Utopianism-Freedom of the market equates 
individual freedoms is only an attempt at legitimation of means to 
reaffirm the power of the capital.
            In 1947 neo-liberals Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman, 
among others gathered around philosopher Friedrich 
von Hayek to create Mont Perelin society named after the Swiss spa 
they had met in first.
            Founding statement: the central values of civilization are in 
danger…the position of individuals and voluntary groups …
undermined by extension of arbitrary power…the group holds that 
these developments…question the desirability the rule of law…
fostered by a decline of belief in private property… with out (which)…
difficult to imagine a society …freedom may be effectively preserved 
            There is a contradiction between free market and individual
freedom, between human dignity and the need of coercive state 
apparatus, as well as the judicial trick of defining corporation as 
individuals. 19
            The elite, fearful of mixed economy, were prepared to accept
the whole range from McCarthyism to Neoliberalism. Nurtured by the 
likes of Heritage Foundation and the Chicago School, the movement 
moved center stage in 1970s. The prize controlled by Swedish 
Bankers; Nobel went to Hayek in 1974 and to Friedman in 1976.
            It really came into its own with the advent of Thatcher and 
Reagan who demolished the Post WW II Social Democratic state.
She declared, “No such thing as society, only individual men 
and women (17-20).             
In 10/1979, Volcker dramatically changed USA monetary policy. 
Fight inflation at any cost. Ditch Keynesianism. 
By July 1981 interest rate had risen close to 20%; recession 
was unleashed to empty factories and break unions, driving 
debtor countries to insolvency through structural readjustment, 
the Volcker shock (18-21). Monetarism had hitherto been 
paralleled by acceptance of union power and welfare-statism.
Carter had already shifted to deregulation (Airline and Trucking). 
Reagan faced down Air traffic controller’s union in 1981. Federal
minimum wage fell 30% below poverty level by 1990; there was 
fast decline in real wages as well.
Reagan went the whole hog; deregulation (tax breaks, transfer
of investment to non-unionized South and West (after working class 
leaders attain power, they behave worse than those used 
to power-Thatcher and Reagan compared to the Rockefellers). 
          Outsourcing started in real earnest. Top tax rate fell from 70% to 
28%. 22-harvey-p 26
After the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, prices shot up. British 
intelligence reported that the USA had planned to invade 
Saudi Arabia and other oil states, but the states agreed to 
recycle all their petro-dollars through NY banks (20-23).
The banks loaned money to third world countries and 
obtained secure conditions through the USA government.
The USA functions through satraps. In the 1920s and 1930s 
the USA intervened in Nicaragua and found Somoza to fight 
nationalist Sandino. Somoza opened the country and assisted 
in other Central American countries. This was the model
adapted in Post WW II. CIA coup in 1953 in Iran was a link in 
the same chain 21-24).
Before 1973, the US investment was direct; exploitation 
of raw material (oil, minerals and agriculture), Telecom and auto. 
Now banks focused on lending capital. Borrowers were forced
to borrow at usurious rates (22-25). Rise in USA interest rate 
exposed the countries to default; Mexico 1982-84. Reagan had
it rolled over in return for neo-iberal reforms. All Keynesian
influences were removed from IMF (24-26).
Under liberal regimen banks take losses; under neoliberal, 
borrowers pay through the nose, no matter the 
consequences and that includes surrender of assets. The USA 
capital got high returns (23-27).
In Indonesia and Philippines, the Chinese held economic power 
through trade.
Large manufacturing corporations became more financial
institutions even though they still engaged in, for example 
auto manufacture loss in production was offset by gain in 
investments. Mergers helped along by deregulation diversified 
interests. US Steel bought interest in insurance (22-28).
Neoliberalism meant financialization of every thing. It deepened 
the hold of finance over economy including the state (28-29). Shareholders were bilked out of millions; immense fortunes made 
in short periods through speculation (Warren buffet and George 
Soros). Carlos Slim took over Telecom in Mexico and expanded 
into Circuit City and Barnes and Noble (25-30).
Walton-Wal-Mart integrated into Chinese and retail world 
wide-sales $ 500 billion/year. 
Net worth of 358 richest people is equal to that of world’s
2.3 billion people. 200 richest people are worth $ 1 trillion. 
Top three billionaires are worth more than the GNP of all least 
developed countries (33-31).
All 247 editors of Rupert Murdoch papers supported the war 
in Iraq (Tony Blair consulted him before taking major decisions 
on a regular basis). 32- Harvey p 35
The idea of freedom, “thus degenerates into a mere advocacy 
of free enterprise- and explains the neoliberal authoritarianism 
of G.W.B (36-33).
Corporations withhold AIDS drugs (34). Halliburton makes 
war profits from wars which seem to be designed specifically 
for the purpose (35). Neoliberals created immense concentration
of power and wealth in energy, Media, Pharmaceuticals, 
Transport and retailing and have the power to persuade that 
every one is better off.

            The Evil Quad: Public Opinion manipulated:
 Neo-liberals regimes were established in Chile and Argentina 
through what I call the ‘Evil Quad- landowners, the clergy, 
the army and bureaucrats; army coups, backed by the USA. In 
the UK, the USA and other developed countries, opinion was   indoctrinated through cultural socialization and by distractions like
cultural prejudice, belief in God and country, status of females, 
fear of socialism, fear of immigrants and slogans like freedom 
Corporations and the Media owned by them, Think Tanks, 
Universities and Churches funded by them and 
professional associations together control the whole spectrum
of opinion in mainstream parties. The state used its coercive
apparatus to maintain consent. WB, IMF are freely used before
coups and subversion.
The left was already in disarray due to its internal contradictions. 
Further, Berkeley Free Speech Movement of 1968, student 
upheaval of the same year, which demanded social justice 
were brutally suppressed.
Individual freedom and social justice are not wholly compatible.
Social justice requires sacrifice. In 1968, there was a conflict 
between students (freedom) and the left (social justice-France 
CP and students in 1968). Neo-liberals drove a wedge between
the two in the name of freedom.
In the USA, the left has never been able collect on one platform.
Its agenda was hijacked by mainstream parties. In 1960s 
Vietnam was the catalyst to bring some cohesion in the left. 
They also took up Civil and women’s rights.
Lewis Powell, soon to be elevated to SC, wrote a secret memo 
to the Chamber of Commerce that opposition to free enterprise 
had gone far enough. Strength to oppose it lies in organization…planning……consistently…indefinite…years…
financing…political power…lead assault on major institutions” (4-37).
In 1970s Corporations spent nine hundred million per year
on political process. It rose close to 2 billion/year in the 21st CAD. Think Tanks, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and other foundations sponsored research and an avalanche of books followed by TV programs (5-38). Universities had been the hotbed of the left and were especially targeted.
Because of bureaucratization and deindustrialization, N.Y and many large cities had urban crisis in 1960s. Neo-cons reduced federal aid in early seventies. In 1975 investment banks led by the Citigroup (Chairman Walter Wriston had equated government intervention with communism) refused to roll over debt. Bail out involved wage freeze, cutbacks on welfare and public service and decline if trade unions. CUNY had tuition introduced. 7-39Unions kept demands low or face loss of pension due to bankruptcy of the city (7-40). 
The working class and ethnic groups descended into racism and crack cocaine in mid-1980s and were further hit by AIDS in 1990s.Crime became the main recourse for the poor. Guiliani’s claim to fame was fascistic persecution of the victims. Thomas Edsall “during 1970s business refined its ability to act as a class…dominant theme…defeat of bills…consumer protection…enactment of antitrust legislation…” and moved to capture the republican party (14-4). 
1971 campaign finance law legalized financial corruption. In 1976 SC defined corporations as individuals and corporate contribution to political parties protected under first amendment freedom of speech. Political Action Cimmittees (PAC) dominated both political parties, and the number went from 89 in 1974 to 1467 by 1982 and favored right wingers (16-42). 
Democrats were ambivalent, though enjoying a popular base, they could not pursue an anti-capitalist course (17-43). Republicans sought alliances with the Christian right to get a popular base. Jerry Falwell’s moral Majority offered what appealed to the working class, which was cheated out of its share by the affirmative action. Cultural nationalism, racism, homophobia and anti-feminism mobilized the base. The likes of Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz provided “intellectual” foundation to moral values, gave bad name to liberalism, distracting attention from unbridled commercialism. 44-harvey p 50
The duo of big money and Christian right managed to exclude liberals from the Republican Party and persuaded the working class to vote against its interests. 19-45 Democratic Party under Clinton chose corporate links over its traditional base, tightening the belt of the poor, and loosening that of the rich, as Blair had done in the UK (20-46).
Reagan had cut back on the budget and regulation. (22-47)The National Relations Board took little time to reverse the decisions deemed by business to be favorable to labor. Regulation was good only for labor. New tax depreciation on investments let corporations get away with out tax. N.I.H funded drug research products handed over to Pharmaceutical firms (24-48).
Reagan had already crushed Air Traffic controllers in 1981 and accommodation between corporations and unions was over. 49 Jobless % in mid 1980s was 10%. Jobs went South and assisted by tax breaks to Asia, manufacturers threatened plant closures and did it many cases. Labor unions had been de-clawed, and their leadership often in the pocket of capital. Real wages stagnated and fell and benefits cut back under Neo-lib dogma, that unemployment was always voluntary because it was underwritten by welfare.
Clinton dealt a body blow to welfare system. Government intervention was the actual problem. Harvard, Princeton and U.Penn business schools were munificently funded by MNCs. They train foreigners too.
In the UK, there was no viable Christian Right. Corporations were class based, with links to levers of power. Labor party was beholden to the unions. Post WW II conservatives had shied away from hitting at the benefits to the poor; socialized health, education. (27-50).
The city of London remained a center of international finance. It has always been monetarist rather than Keynesian. Protection of finance capital with interest rate manipulation conflicted with the needs of domestic industry. It was hit with balance of payment crisis in 1970s.
In 1975, inflation rose to 26% and jobless to over 1 million. State and the unions got into conflict. Coal miner’s union went on strike in 1972 and 1974, the first since 1926. The conservative government under Heath declared national emergency, three day working week and called an election in 1974 which it lost. Labor settled the strike in miner’s favor. But Labor could not afford settlement terms. In 1975-76 there was a financial crunch; choice was to submit to IMF terms or declare bankruptcy and lose integrity of sterling. It, of course chose IMF course with cutbacks in welfare (29-51). Workers launched a series of crippling strikes in the winter of discontent 1978 (30-52).
The government fell. Thatcher came in and made monetarism the state policy. She provoked miner’s strike in 1984 which lasted a year. 31-53 Miners lost. She opened the country to foreign competition and further reduced labor power. She also demolished steel and ship building Industry and offered the country to MNCs especially to Japanese auto manufacturers as an offshore base for European operations.
Thatcher fought rearguard action against municipal councils and that included jailing of half the councilors in Liverpool. She cut back central funding of municipalities. When they raised taxes on property, she took away their right to tax.
She privatized state enterprises whole sale, shedding labor to make them attractive, giving away family silver. Subsidies were hidden by not including valuable land and assets, public housing sold to tenants, helped other privatizations.
Finally she imposed a poll tax which was too much to bear even for her neo-con supporters and led to her downfall.
She tried to demolish education, health care and welfare, bureaucracy and judiciary, but did not meet with quick success. She introduced tuition in higher education.
Thatcher was supported by the middle class and by the splintering of working class. She brought the consumer and debt culture and made the minority position into mainstream. Blair and Clinton followed suit.
The neo-liberal state is riven by contradictions and is an unstable political form. It favors private property law, rule of free market/trade.
The state must use its coercive apparatus to protect these rights. They are very keen on privatizing assets in the third world. Ground rules for market competition must be properly observed. Privatization and deregulation will increase efficiency and improve its competitiveness in the international market. Each individual has to take responsibility for welfare, education and health (pension privatized in Chile and Slovakia). GWB proposed it for the USA.
Free mobility of capital was crucial; all limitations like tariffs, taxes, environmental planning must be removed. State sovereignty must be surrendered to the market, except for the vaguely defined national interest. States must be forced to open their markets, except the labor one.
Neo-lib is highly suspicious of democracy, and views it as a luxury possible only where a strong middle class exists; governance should be by the elite and experts ought to be preferred by the executive and judiciary order to parliamentary decision making. 54- Harvey p 66

Contradiction and Grey areas:
Electric grid, water sewerage and gas lines are natural monopolies and competion in the same geographic region would make no sense.
When costs are externalized e.g. pollution, some less irrational neo-libs conceded need for state intervention (hard boiled ones claim that cure will be worse than the disease) but should be through the market, like pollution trading. Competitive failure resulting in rise of costs e.g. currency speculation should be dealt with by the market and not by regulation.
Better informed players have the advantage (2-55). Patents set monopoly prices. Neo-libs are in a state of denial. New Pharmaceutical products require invention of new diseases; the system contains an inherent flaw which promotes instability in social relations (3-56).
Individuals are free to choose but not to choose strong collectives like trade unions or vote for the state intervention parties. To fight that neo-lib depend upon WB, IMF, Federal reserve and WTO etc but denying their core argument, intervene to suppress social movements.
 A composite picture of neo-lib states can not be offered yet as they are still spread over a wide spectrum. Biases arise in treatment of labor and environment as commodities. But in a conflict the state favors business to labor and quality of environment. They also favor financial institutions to general public welfare.
But Opportunism plays a part. GWB imposed steel tariffs and subsidies to US agriculture. Europeans do the same. 57- Harvey 71
Transition from communism or social democracy (East and West Europe) to neo-lib takes some doing and results in chaos (Russia). Rationally developing states-Singapore, Malaysia and China, keep state enterprises, irrationally developing ones like India and Pakistan do not and pay little attention to social infra-structure, health and education too (4-58).
Opening of Capital markets is the conduit for IMF, and WTO membership and these states drawn into neo-lib circle. In the 1997-98 Asian Crisis saw core states fall into line. China and Taiwan had not opened capital markets and suffered less (5-59).
IMF covers risk in internal financial markets. James Baker, Reagan’s treasury secretary used IMF to impose structural adjustment on Mexico and NY city investment banks, extracting resources from the third world to pay international bankers (6-60). Third world entrepreneurs have to be backed by their own states.
The US lends resources at 12% interest while the US bonds pay 4% resulting in a net inflow from the poor to the rich.
Defaulters are forgiven part of the loan in return for neo-lib reforms. Trade unions and social institutions (Greater London Council) have to be suppressed. The State withdraws welfare and social support; people are impoverished. General outcome is lower wages, insecurity and loss of benefits and heavy dependence upon cheap labor in China, India, Indonesia and Bangladesh (7-61).
Under Margaret Thatcher corporations got a stronger role in writing legislations of Public Policy and Regulation. Dick Cheney refused to release the names of consultants who formulated Bush’s energy policy (11-62).
The state assumes risk; profits go to private corporations. Out of job workers who protest against the core belief on non-intervention, are imprisioned by the state. Boundary between corporations and state are all but removed. Judiciary is extremely expensive, so poor people have to give in. Class bias works too (12-63). NGOs and GROs (Grass Roots Organizations) take over the role of reform-funded by corporations (13-64).
            The real contradiction is between the aim of well being of all and restoration of class power.
Deregulation promotes behavior scandals that require re-regulation. Competition in reality creates oligopoly-soft drinks, Coke and Pepsi, Energy and Media corporations.
It becomes difficult to control anomie and leads to anti-social behavior, revival of interest in religion, fascism, racism and amounts to a back lash against economic globalization. Mood is one of helplessness and anxiety… in new brand of populist politician…easily turn into revolt (18-67).
Neoliberalization in authoritarian states (China and Singapore) is converging with increasing authoritarianism in the USA and the UK. But they veer away from neo-lib in their concern for order.
Unbridled individualism, life style, sexual habits and self expression result in social anarchy-nihilism and make states ungovernable. Neo-cons emphasize militarization; highlight threats, real or imaginative-Thatcher against Europe and Falklands War (21-66.
Post cold War Islam and China were branded as threats. Waco, Oklahoma bombing and race riots following the beating of Rodney King gave internal excuses. 9/11 crystallized the war on terror 22-67.
Neo-lib are a coalition of the elite and moral majoritarianism, white working class cultural nationalism, Christian evangelism, right to life, anti-feminism, gay, affirmative action and environmentalism.
In principle neo-lib theory does not favor the concept of the nation, though it needs a strong state. In the Neo-lib reform of 1990s in Mexico, unity of state and nation fell apart. Rise of right wing fascist parties in Europe is a reaction to neo-liberalism.
Neo-lib appeals to national sentiment in China, SK, and Japan and was the major factor in the success in pushing neo-lib policies and the rise of the BJP in India.

 Development Hampered
 Contextual conditions:
South Africa, emerging out of the collapse of Apartheid and desperate to be accepted in global economy was coerced by IMF and WB to embrace neo-lib (40-68). Perhaps Mandela did not understand economics/or class conflict.
Demobilizing organized labor by subversion or violently (Britain, the US and Sweden, violent in Chili) is a necessary precondition for neoliberalism. It has faced problems where labor has managed to acquire power (SK). Capital, in the end, acquires control over state power (the USA) via financial institutions and buying elections (the USA) and academia and media.
Neoliberalism arises out of internal and external forces. In Chili the upper class asked for US support in the coup. In Sweden employers sought integration into Europe to consolidate neoliberal agenda.
IMF can not impose with out collaborators on the ground. Argentina successfully challenged it, as did Malaysia and Taiwan. Through collapse (USSR and Eastern Europe) civil wars (Senegal and Nicaragua) degenerate ruling cliques (Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, India), external power gets the opportunity to orchestrate neoliberal restructuring. Neoliberal policies produce social unrest and political instability (China, Indonesia and Argentina). It can be said that it repels investment (8-69) Vulture capital is devastating. Neoliberal policies frequently attract just that.
Civil wars and less disturbing events are fomented to bring a country to its knees (9-70).
Neoliberalism has a universal tendency to social inequality, concentration of wealth which has been unequalled since 1920s.
The genius pf neoliberal theory is to …provide …mask of words like…freedom, liberty, choice and the right to hide grim realities of the restoration …of naked class power (71-Harvey p 119).
 Chinese Style of Neoliberalism:
 Mao died in 12/1976. In 12/1978, Deng Xiaoping announced a program of economic reforms. They coincided with neoliberal trends in the USA and Britain. China developed centrally controlled market economy establishing the intimate relationship between two as in other countries.
Egalitarianism was not given up, but individual and group initiative was unleashed and consequent inequality was tolerated. Deng promised pursuit of four modernizations-agriculture, industry, education and science/defense. Competition was allowed between the state owned and private enterprises. Political and economic powers were rapidly devolved to regions but confrontation with the power centers in Beijing was avoided. The country was opened up to foreign trade and investment under strict state control. With emphasis on joint ventures, technology transfer and foreign reserves, it was concentrated initially in Guandong, next door to Hong Kong (1-72).
The emergence of neoliberal policies of 1980s opened up a space of China’s entry into the world market, not possible under Bretton woods system.
China, by not acceding to shock therapy administered to Russia and central Europe in 1990s, avoided their disasters and developed state manipulated market economy with stunning growth rates averaging 10% a year and rise in standards over twenty years but also suffered from eco-degradation, increased social inequality and capitalist class power under the aegis of the C.P. (3-73).
It kept the capitalist class off shore, making it easier to control. Finance capital had to deal with state owned banks. Rather than compromise with state ownership, only managerial autonomy was granted. The state, though, had to deal with the Chinese Diaspora. Hong Kong was absorbed in 1997.  It was allowed into the WTO in 2001.
Worker protest started in 1986. Student protest ended up in Tiananmen Square massacre… Simultaneously Wang, “monetary policy became a prime means of control... Shanghai-Pudong development zone fully opened up and development zones…on track 5-74). In 1992 the whole country was opened up under close supervision of the Communist Party and democracy of consumption was promoted in urban areas.
In 1978, nearly every thing was under state owned enterprises. They were efficient and offered job security and social welfare. Agriculture worked under the communist system, but productivity was low. Village residents were less privileged and were kept separate from urban population with a system of residency permits which held back mass migration. Each sector in regional state plan was assigned targets. Banks deposit savings provided money for investment. The system gave a social safety net. Open market was first created by dissolving communes. Town and village enterprises were created out of assets of communes. Wholly private sector was permitted only on small scale product/trade and gradually expanded with limits on employment of wage labor.
In 1990s, FDI came in and were initially limited to joint ventures. Banks expanded and substituted for the state to finance investments and line of credit (14-75)  .
By the end of 1980s, communes were dissolved. Peasants did not own land, but could lease or rent it, hire labor and sell produce at market prices. In 1978 to 1984 rural incomes went up 14%, but stagnated later and fell by 1998. Disparity between rural and urban incomes increased; urban income per year was $80 in 1985 went up to 1000 in 2004, while rural fell from $50 to 300. In addition they had to pay for health and school (76).
1. P.Treanor, P., “Neoliberalism: Origins, Theory, Definition,” Treanor/neoliberalism.html. 2.
2. Klien, N., “Of Course White house Fears Free Elections in Iraq,” Guardian, January 24, 2004, 18.
3. find ref on Geneva and Hague conventions.
4. Crampton, J., “Iraqi Official Urges Caution on Imposing Free Market,” New York Times, October 14, 2003, C5.
5. Valdez, G., “Pinochet’s Economists: The Chicago School in Chili (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
6. Ibid.
7 .Ibid.
8. Dahl, R and C. Lindbloom, C., “Politics, Economics and Welfare: Planning and Politico-Economic Systems Resolved into Basic social Processes,” (New York: Harper, 1953).
9find ref Gold Standard, price fixed at $35 an oz.
10. Britain Bailed out by IMF 1975-76 find ref.
11Fixed exchange rate of currency abandoned under Nixon in 1971, find ref.
12. Blythe, M., “Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional change in the Twentieth Century,” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
13Ref on Washington consensus.
14. Harvey, David, “A Brief history of Neoiberalism,” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
15. Ibid. p 15.
16. “American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality,” (American Political Science Association, 2004-Task force on Inequality and American Democracy).
17. Sebastian, Thomas, “Globalization and Uneven Development: Neocolonialism, Multinational corporations, Space and Society,” (Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications, 2007).
19find ref US Supreme court, Corporations are individuals.
20. Yergin, D and J. Stanislaw, J., “The Commanding Heights: The Battle Between Government and Market Place That is Remaking the World,” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999).
21. Panitich, L and Gindin, S., “Finance and American Empire,’ in the Empire Reloaded,” Socialist Register, 2005 (London: Merlin Press, 2005) 46-81.
22. Harvey, “A Brief History,” p 26.
23. Alvarez, L., “Britain Says US Planned to Seize Oil in ’73 Crisis,” New York Times, 4 Jan, 2004, A6 and Gowan, P., “The Global Gamble: Washington’s Faustian Bid for World Dominance (London, Verso, 1999).
24. Dreyfuss, Robert, “Devil’s Game: How the Ynited States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam,” (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2005).
25.  Panitich, L and Gindin, S., “Finance and American Empire”.
26. Stiglitz, J., “Globalization and Its Discontents,” (New York: Norton, 2002);      27. P. Gowan, P., “The Global Gamble,”.
28. Panitich, L and Gindin, S., “Finance and American Empire,”
 29.  Martin, R., “The Financialization of Daily Life,” (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002).
30. Dumenil, G and D. Levy, D ‘The Economics of US Imperialism at the Turn of 21st Century,” Review of International Political Economy, 11/4 (2004), 657-76.
31. Polayni, K., “The Great Transformation,” (Boston: Beacon Press, 1954).
32. Harvey, “A Short History,” p 35. 33. Polyani, “The Great Transformation,”       34. M.Angell, M., “The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It,” (New York: Random House, 2004).
35Ref profits made by Haliburton in Iraq war.
36.  Gramsci, A., “Selections from Prison Notebooks,” trans. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith, (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971), 321-43.
37. Court, J., “Corportareeing: How Corporate Power Steals your Personal Freedom,” New York: J.P. Tarcher/Putman, 2003, 33-8.
38. Blythe, “Great Transformations,” 155.
39. Freeman, J., “Working Class New York: Life and Labor since WW II,” (New York: New Press, 2001).
40. Ibid.
41. Edsall, T., “The New Politics of Inequality,” (New York: Norton, 1988), chs 2 and 3.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid. 235.
44. Harvey, “A Brief History,” p 50.
45. Kirkpatrick, D., “Club of the Most Powerful Gather in Strictest Privacy,” New York Times Aug 28, 2004, A10.
46. Stiglitz, J., “The Roaring Nineties,” (New York: Norton, 2003).
47. Edsal, “The New Politics of Inequality,”
48Angell, “The Truth About Drug Companies,”
49. find ref to Air Traffic handlers strike 1981.
50. Hall, S., “Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis of the Left,” (New York: Norton, 1988).
51. Benn, T., “The Benn Diaries, 1940-1990,” ed. R. Winstone, (London, Arrow, 1996).
52. Yergin and Stanislaw, “Commanding Heights,” 104.
53. Brooks, R., “Maggie’s Man: We Were Wrong,” Observer, June 21, 1992.
54. Harvey, “A Brief History,” p 66.
55. Stiglitz, “Roaring Nineties,”
56. Harvey, D., “Limits to Capital,” (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982.
57. Harvey, “A Brief History,” p 71.
58. Wade, R., “Governing the Market,” (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992).
59. Henderson, J., “Uneven Crises: Institutional Foundation of East Asian Turmoil,” Economy and Society, 28/3 (1999), 327-68.
60. Stiglitz, “Roaring Nineties,”
61. Vasquez, I., “The Brady Plan and Market Based Solutions to Debt Crises,” The Cato Journal, 16/2 (Online).
62. Dixit, A., “Lawlessness and Economics: Alternative Mode of Governance,” Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004).
63. Milliband, R. “The State in Capitalist Society,”(New York: Basic Books, 1969).
64. N. Rosenblum and R. Post (eds.), Civil Society and Government,” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).
65. Schwab, K and Smadja, C cited in Harvey, D., “Spaces of Hope,” (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 70.
66. Hofstader, R., “The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays,” (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1996 edn).
67. Harvey, D., “The New Imperialism,” chap 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
68. Bond, P., “Elite Transition: From Apartheid to Neoliberalism in South Africa,” (London: Pluto Press, 2000).
69. Yardley, J., “In a Tidal wave China’s Masses Pour from Farm to City,” New York Times, September 12, 2004, Weekend Review, 6.
70. Kahn, J and Yardley, J., “Amid China’s Boom, No Helping Hand for Young Qingming,” New York Times, 1, Aug, 2004, A1 and A6.
71. Harvey, “A Brief History,” p 119.
72. Lardy, N., “China’s Unfinished Economic Revolution,” (Washington, DC.: Brooking’s Institution, 1998).
73. Cao, L., ‘Chinese Privatization: Between Plan and Market,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 63/13 (2000).
74. Wang, H., “China’s New Order: Society, Politics and Economy in Transition,” (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2003).
75. Li, S.-M.and Tang, W.-S., “China’s Regions and Economy,” (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2000).
76. D. Hale, D and L. Hale, L., “China Takes Off, ‘Foreign Affairs, 82/6 (2003), 36P

No comments: