[Previous entry: "So Much for the 1st Amendment"] [Next entry: "New Yorker busts Rumsfeld"]

05/15/2004:

"Resisting Market Fundamentalism! Ending the Reign of Extremist Neo-Liberalism*"

By Soren Ambrose
50 Years Is Enough Network

We have heard a lot about fundamentalism in recent years. Usually it’s
religious fundamentalism we hear about, especially when, as in the case of
Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu fundamentalism, it has become a factor in
global politics. In general, religious fundamentalism is characterized by a
strong belief in a well-defined set of beliefs set out in well-established written
texts (though there are disputes within each). It is prescriptive, in that it
asserts, often quite boldly, a comprehensive view of the world including moral
guidelines for behavior. It fosters an assertiveness on the part of its believers,
and usually includes a claim on political and territorial control. And, just as
importantly, it tends to reject compromise with alternative points of view.

The economic prescriptions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
World Bank are sometimes called – by critics -- market fundamentalism. The
differences between an economic ideology and a religious and cultural belief
system are obvious enough; the power of the comparison lies in the light it
sheds on the grip a simple theory of economics has achieved on economists,
policy-makers, consumers, and entire countries. Privatization, cuts in public
services and subsidies, trade and investment deregulation, mass layoffs,
hikes in interest rates: all because, as John Mihevc of Kairos Canada put it in
a ground-breaking study comparing the two kinds of fundamentalism, “the
market tells them so.” The fact that these measures almost never deliver any
of the benefits promised, and instead exacerbate the gap between the
wealthy and impoverished, often provokes activists to refer to the old fable:
“The emperor has no clothes!” But the power of belief in a body of rules that
has been endlessly repeated and attested to by authority figures from
professors to politicians blinds many to what is plainly before the eyes.
full article

Replies: 2 Comments

Sunday, May 16th, Rootsie posted:

I think that the truly dangerous thing about these times is that the worst goes on under the radar as it is extra-governmental. To fundamentalist capitalists, surely the United States itself is expendable. The industrial cities in the midwest are ghost towns like Potosi. The vultures have gone on to other places. Articles like this also point to the travesty of this presidential election. The problem is so much bigger than Bush. Capitalism didn't fail in the case of Spain and Latin America. The capital merely changed hands.
I do think that spontaneous global communication represents a huge revolution in the history of humanity, and it may save us yet.

Sunday, May 16th, Dale Morris posted:

I wonder if we are on the cusp of change, if the captialist system is failing -- again?

There are so many things that prompt that question in my mind: how a handful of people were able to *undermine* our political system (the Bush administration) the environment and it's wanton destruction by wealth and excess, the interconnectedness brought to us by communications, the financial interconnectedness brought about by the WTO, IMF and World Bank and the enormous wealth of multi-national corporations.

Can our present political system survive in a climate of wealthy, corporate lobbyists like the one that exists in Washington today?

Perhaps, like the silver mine at Potosi, we've exhausted our veins of wealth.