WHY isn't the information contained within this book available to everyone? The answer, of course, is that the powers that be do not wish it so to be.

That may sound conspiratorial but, in this occasion, it has the ring of truth: a conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory when it IS a conspiracy! ( )

Everyone can accept that class struggle on behalf of the unwashed masses manifests as strikes and revolutions. But what about the other way? That's the void that Harvey's consistently addresses: the elites fight a class struggle too and their tool is neoliberalism. From Reagan and Thatcher to current globalization tactics, Harvey's point is that the rich fight the poor all the time. However, instead of doing it in the streets, they do it via public policy that regardless of political bent will ultimately favour continued advantage for the ruling class. ( )

Wow, what a helpful introduction to the history of neoliberalism. This book introduces the concept, traces a theory of its origin, and then details its emergence and eventual hegemony from the Seventies to Nineties.

I never knew the extent to which capitalists banded together as a unified class in the Seventies to secure their economic and political power in response to anti-establishment struggles. Harvey demonstrates how think tanks, business associations, and propaganda efforts went hard during that period, successfully exploiting the stagflation crisis and malaise of the Seventies to take the reins back from Keynesianism. Harvey is known for foregrounding economics in the birth of neoliberalism, in contrast to Foucault and his followers, who argue its an evolution of liberal governmentality.

That said, I have a problem with his theory about neoliberalism’s birth from the Sixties. Like a Marxist would, he sets up a dichotomy between two allegedly contradictory threads running through the period: social justice and individual freedom. Social justice requires working towards the interests of the group and other people, which allegedly requires submerging individual desires. Because the Sixties hosted both threads, and they emerged from dissatisfaction with the bureaucratic society built by the New Deal, the capitalists were able to use the desire for individual freedom to build consensus for neoliberalism. By framing it that the individual as consumer and producer should be free to pursue their own interests without permission from the group, they were able to make neoliberal ideas alluring.

Here’s what I think of that. There’s no way we’re going to build a better world without people being free to pursue their own desires and interests. Short of converting us all to zealots as SJWs try to do, most of us are not going to fight hard and take risks for the sake of other people, especially for a group we don’t belong to. Some of us will, sure, but most won’t. And I’d argue that those who did fight hard for others also had personal investment in whatever social change they were fighting for. The key here is to find ways of combining social and personal liberation, not heralding the former at the expense of the latter.

Additionally, it’s just not true that neoliberalism used individual desire and not social justice. Individual desire is not a cohesive enough glue to keep society together. That’s why Reagan rode in on the back of nationalism and religious conservatism and Thatcher benefited from it as well. Neoliberalism needs its own brand of “social justice”, however much we may disagree with its definition of the concept.

Now that I’ve vented my anarchist ire, I’ll say that this book is an important history for understanding the time we’re living in. I recommend it to everyone.
( )

Instructive and important even if you already have a good understanding of the material. Prescient for its time. ( )

A really thorough investigation and description of neoliberalism that helped me understand it as a body, rather than a cloak with a name. More later, probably. But still worth reading.

I’m not referring to my notes, so these are impressions. The book traces the history and impact of neoliberal policies from its theoretical beginnings in the 50s and 60s and the first inklings of its ideals in the fallout of the great depression in the 30s. It sets up the theoretical position of neoliberalism historically, which I liked. It’s very easy to read, the explanations are succinct and most of the required concepts are introduced pretty well (thought I had read *Debt* a few months ago so I may be more economically primed than I usually am). Then it starts discussing the impact of that theoretical position and how the people who implemented it sought and got their power, and what they did with it. You already know a lot of neoliberalism’s impact in the US and the UK if you’ve watched “Hypernormalisation” and all the other Adam Curtis films (which you should!), but probably not in this detail. What you probably don’t know about are the details of other countries’ histories with it, and the impact the end of the Bretton Woods policy had, though you’ve probably heard of some of the social consequences through authoritarianism and village slaughter.

The book is decidedly against neoliberalism both for its consequences and its theoretical faults. It feels like it’s written by that strain of liberal who champions FDR as the greatest president, who seeks a reconciliation between democratic socialism and liberal humanism. (I have no idea; I know the author publishes a lot but this is the only thing of his I’ve read.)

Anyway, it’s a really good book and if you’ve ever wondered what someone meant when they said the word “neoliberal,” my prescription is to watch some Adam Curtis films, then if you’re still interested, read this book. Or maybe the other way around if you can’t stand his tone. Either way, both make a meal. ( )