Alternatives to Neoliberalism

While I agree with many of the attacks on neoliberalism made by Foucault, Yoda, and the Hart-Landsberg/Burkett duo, I remain uncertain as to what alternatives we might posit in refutation of the current system of global capital.  With my skepticism, I do not mean to diminish the critical efforts of these thinkers, nor do I wish to signal a subdued acceptance of the controls and limitations that affect our lives.  I do, however, want to start think more constructively--and less destructively--about these issues, especially in light of the fact that this course is nearing its conclusion.

In her article on Japanese neoliberalism and neonationalism, Yoda criticizes both schools of thought for their tendency to reify Japan as a national entity and posit that entity against the rest of the world.  For, as she argues, "the issue is not the changing relation of Japan versus global capitalism but the permutation of the global order of capital into an increasingly direct and pervasive force organizing our world" (50).  Yoda seems hesitant, however, to postulate a theory that will address this pernicious, invasive force.  She recommends a return to modernity "not in the sense of grafting old frameworks onto the new conditions but as a means for understanding the present by imagining the alterity to the dominant ideological horizon of our time" (50).  This statement suggests temporal (and epistemological?) alternatives that might undermine the universalist claims of the capitalist present.  I am reminded of the literary scholar Kamei Hideo's work, "Transformations of Sensibility," where he identifies in the experimental linguistic qualities of Meiji literature imaginative possibilities now precluded by the homogenizing tendencies of modern literary development.

Hart-Landsberg and Burkett are more explicit in their political views, advocating a "movement toward a new economic system centered on human needs instead of profitability and mutually destructive competition" (426).  While I sympathize with their aspirations, I fear that such a movement will prove unsatisfactory insofar as it seeks only to answer the needs of human beings without investigating their underlying causes.  I would not deny the validity of basic requirements for life, but I would suggest that the human proclivity for acquisition and power will continue to perpetuate itself unless more fundamental changes occur.  The inequalities of modernity demand far more than a socioeconomic transformation; they necessitate nothing less than a revolution of the mind and heart.

I contend that we can only find peace if we reject the prerogatives of the self that dictate our unending consumption, and seek instead an absolute release from suffering.  Such a position may well invite skepticism and derision from those who are more firmly anchored in materialist society.  For example, Gandhi is an eminently respected figure, but there are few who truly take his ideas seriously.  Yet I would venture to say that such principled idealism represents a refreshing alternative to the self-righteous indignation that so often characterizes the political stance of leftist academics.