Neo-Liberalism: The Contemporary form of Globalization

Dec 2006

The purpose of the US strategy of establishing "Full-Spectrum Dominance":

Militarizing Space "to protect U.S. interests and investments" from the victims of neo-liberal Globalization.

The Vision for 2020 Report declares the U.S. Space Command's purpose as "dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and U.S. investments."

"The globalization of the world economy will also continue- with a widening between 'haves' and 'have-nots."

"The United States will remain a global power and exert global leadership. The United States won't always be able to forward base its forces… Widespread communications will highlight disparities in resources and quality of life-contributing to unrest in developing countries…The global economy will continue to become more interdependent."

Consider this "advantage" outlined in the long-range plan: "Economic alliances as well as the growth and influence of multinational corporations will blur security agreements. The gap between have and have-not nations will widen, creating regional unrest. One of the long acknowledged and commonly understood advantages of space-based platforms is no restriction of country clearances to over fly a nation from space."

Translation: Space militarization allows protection of U.S. investments without the messy restrictions of international law. All the better to ensure the "have-nots" don't step out of line.


What is neo-liberalism? Neo-liberalism is a term used to describe a range of policies and an economic philosophy that stresses international free trade, economic liberalism ( more commonly referred to as capitalism) and the promotion of such through deregulation of the economy, privatization of industry, liberalization of markets, financialization of national economies and corporatization of the remaining public sector. The term neo-liberalism is used to distinguish it from traditional economic liberalism, more commonly known as "capitalism", the major difference being neoliberalism promotes capitalism on a global scale.

The proponents of this ideology claim that this form of "free-trade" amongst international private business entities will lead to increased prosperity for the entire world. However, the results of privatization and the removal of trade barriers has had a number of negative externalities, the most apparent being the sharp increase of corporate power and influence in the world and the displacement of national governments on the international stage. Policies designed to benefit corporate interests have caused inequality to increase drastically, privatization of many formerly state-run enterprises or agencies has led to increased costs and poor performance, and countries that are otherwise rich in natural resources are shackled in debt and required to privatize their industries, which are then sold to wealthy foreign firms, as a prerequisite to receive financial aid or loans under mandated structural adjustment programs.

As a result, some opponents of these policies perceive neo-liberalism as a form of economic imperialism; a means for foreign businesses to plunder developing countries of their resources and indebt their governments to them through international trade institutions. Other opponents contend that neo-liberalism is not true "free trade" because it is managed and designed to benefit a few large corporations, and is thus in effect managed trade. Either way, the contradiction between capitalism and free markets / free trade is apparent.


Former Staff
Dec 2006
FEMA Region 10
I was in the middle of the police riots, AKA Battle of Seattle. The anarchist were brought in, and housed. It was bloody, hell I got sprayed twice, once for each day I was there, and shot at with rubber bullets. I dodged those, but a guy next to me took one that I will swear until the die I die, was meant for me. Next time, I carry!
Sep 2009
Neo-liberalism is just the attempts of the rich to just make themselves richer while the other 90% of the world sinks deeper into poverty.
Sep 2009
A better question than "What is neoliberalism?" is "What is the U.S.?"

As far as I know, most people are against neoliberal exploitation and demand social responsibility, so where is this country that wants "to establish 'Full-Spectrum Dominance'?"

Everybody point to their right...

...wait. No, left.

Ah fuck it. Idc if people wanna "read into" subliminal partisan politics. Goddamn attention seeking paranoia.

The lack of exercising consumer sovereignty is mindblowing.

Maybe we should have a new world order just so all the sheep get slaughtered. Call it goodwill. That way, at least they get tortured at short as possible as bred cash cows.
Dec 2006
[quote name='Morgan' date='06 March 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1267917265' post='125893']

Neo-liberalism is just the attempts of the rich to just make themselves richer while the other 90% of the world sinks deeper into poverty.


That is the US-dominated neo-liberall global economic system. It's been a priority for US planners to maintain this system since the late 1940's.

George Kennan was the head of the State Department policy planning staff in the late 1940s. In the following document, PPS23, February 1948, he outlined the basic thinking behind US policy towards the Third World:

We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.... We should cease to talk about vague and..., unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

Now, recall that this is a Top Secret document. The idealistic slogans are, of course, to be constantly trumpeted by scholarship, the schools, the media, and the rest of the ideological system in order to pacify the domestic population, giving rise to accounts such as those of the "official view". Recall again that this is a view from the dovish, liberal, humane end of the spectrum. But it is lucid and clear.

There are some questions that one can raise about Kennan's formulation, a number of them, but I'll keep to one: whether he is right in suggesting that "human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization" should be dismissed as irrelevant to U.S. foreign policy. Actually, a review of the historical record suggests a different picture, namely that the United States has often opposed with tremendous ferocity, and even violence, these elements - human rights, democratization, and the raising of living standards.

This is particularly the case in Latin America and there are very good reasons for it. The commitment to these doctrines is inconsistent with the use of harsh measures to maintain the disparity, to insure our control over 50 percent of the resources, and our exploitation of the world. In short, what we might call the "Fifth Freedom" (there were Four Freedoms, you remember, but there was one that was left out), the Freedom to Rob, and that's really the only one that counts; the others were mostly for show. And in order to maintain the freedom to rob and exploit, we do have to consistently oppose democratization, the raising of living standards, and human rights. And we do consistently oppose them; that, of course, is in the real world.

This Top Secret document referred to the Far East, but Kennan applied the same ideas to Latin America in a briefing for Latin American ambassadors in which he explained that one of the main concerns of U.S. policy is the "protection of our raw materials." Who must we protect our raw materials from? Well, primarily, the domestic populations, the indigenous population, which may have ideas of their own about raising the living standards, democratization, and human rights. And that's inconsistent with maintaining the disparity. How will we protect our raw materials from the indigenous population? Well, the answer is the following:

The final answer might be an unpleasant one, but... we should not hesitate before police repression by the local government. This is not shameful, since the Communists are essentially traitors.... It is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal government if it is indulgent and relaxed and penetrated by Communists.

Well, who are the Communists? "Communists" is a term regularly used in American political theology to refer to people who are committed to the belief that "the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people." I'm quoting the words of a 1949 State Department intelligence report which warned about the spread of this grim and evil doctrine, which does, of course, threaten "our raw materials" if we can't abort it somehow.

The basic policy goals are frankly spelled out in the internal record. Immediately after the US destroyed Guatemalan democracy in 1954, the National Security Council produced a Top Secret Memorandum titled "U.S. Policy Toward Latin America" (NSC 5432). It opened by explaining that:

There is no part of the world where business relationships play a greater role in our foreign policy problems than in Latin America.

The major threat to US interests is the trend in Latin America toward nationalistic regimes that respond to an increasing popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses and for production geared to domestic needs.

The United States is committed to encouraging a climate conducive to private investment, and must encourage the Latin American countries to base their economies on a system of private enterprise, and, as essential thereto, to create a political and economic climate conducive to private investment of both domestic and foreign capital, including guarantees for the opportunity to earn and in the case of foreign capital to repatriate a reasonable return.

These principles are reiterated elsewhere, often verbatim (e.g., NSC 5613/1, Sept. 25, 1956)
Dec 2006
According to a National Intelligence Council (NIC) report titled, 'NIC - Global Trends 2015':

"[Globalisation’s] evolution will be rocky, marked by chronic volatility and a widening economic divide. Regions, countries, and groups left behind will face deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation. It will foster political, ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism, along with the violence that often accompanies it."