American Academy of Political and Social Science

The End of Neoliberalism? What Is Left of the Left

Author(s): JOHN COMAROFF
Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 637, Race,
Religion, and Late Democracy (September 2011), pp. 141-147
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and
Social Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41328570 .
Accessed: 26/01/2015 12:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:29:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Inthewakeoftheeconomic "meltdown" of2008,there
aroseconsiderable publicdebateacrosstheplanetover
thefatesandfutures ofneoliberalism.Had itreached
its "natural"end? What,historically, was likelyto
becomeof "it"?How mightthecrisisin the Euro-
American economies oftheperiodtransform therela-
tionshipbetweeneconomy andthestate?Thisarticle
addressesthesequestions.It arguesagainsttreating
neoliberalismas a common noun,a fullyformed, self-
sustaining
ideological projectand makes thecase that
itsadjectival
andadverbial alive,well,and,
capillaries
The End of ifincomplicated ways,central totheunfoldinghistory
i ofcontemporary thearticle
Finally,
capitalism. offersa
Neoliberalism? on thewaysin whichtwenty-first-century
reflection
stateshavebecomeintegral totheworkings offinance
What Is Left with
capital, important consequences for theconcep-
tionofpolitical
economy.
of the Left Keywords:neoliberalism; state
capitalism;

Marx.Groucho,thatis. PlayingDoctor
Hackenbushin A Day at the Races (1937),
Recall
ВУ
Groucho Marx findsa patientlyingsupine on
JOHN COMAROFF
the floor.Takingthe unconsciousmans wristin
hishand,he putshis timepieceto his ear,listens
and says,"Eitherhe is dead or mywatch
briefly,
has stopped."
The analogyis rich. Is neoliberalismdead?
Or have our watches stopped? More to the
point,are we watchingforthe rightsymptoms
as homo economicus capitalis lies prostrate?
Or are our fingerspressed to the wrongpulse,

JohnComaroff is theHaroldH. SwifiDistinguished

Professor
ofAnthropology attheUniversity ofChicago ,
honoraryprofessor ofanthropology at theUniversity
ofCape Town, andresearch professor at theAmerican
BarFoundation. Hisrecent books, with JeanComaroff
LawandDisorder
include inthePostcolony (University
of ChicagoPress2006),Ethnicity, Inc. (University of
ChicagoPress2009), and TheoryfromtheSouth:Or,
HowEuro- America toward
Is Evolving Africa (Paradigm
Publishers
forthcoming).
NOTE: This piece was written in July2009 as an
openingcomment fora roundtable discussion at the
JohannesburgWorkshop in Theory and Criticism on
"TheEndofNeoliberalism? WhatIs LeftoftheLeft."
DOI:10.1177/0002716211406846
2011
ANNALS,AAFSS,637,September 141

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:29:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
142 THEANNALS
OF THEAMERICAN
ACADEMY

drawingour attentionto an entirelyfalseunconsciousness,thus mistakingit for

mortality? The play on wordshere is intendedto underscorethe deadlyserious-
ness of the question.
That questionhas been posed in a numberofways.Here I reflecton whether,
as some would have it, neoliberalismhas reached its "ultimatelimits" - and, if
so, with what implications for the futureof politics,economics,culture,and the
Left. Are we reallywitnessingthe "demise of capitalism"as we currentlyknow
it? Interestingly, thislatterphrase appeared threetimesin the opinionpages of
The Guardian in England on one day in late June2009- in each instanceas a
provocation,a call to make sense, more broadly,of the currentmomentin the
unfoldinghistoryof capital.
For all that Jean Comaroffand I have writtenabout neoliberalism,I am
uncomfortable discussingthe termin itsnoun form.Why?Because, thusreified,
it takes on the denotationof a concreteabstraction,an accomplishedobject, a
totalizingideological formation;even, in its temporaldimension,an epoch, one
that may be deemed presentor past. For me, the adjectiveneoliberalis much
easier to grasp discursivelyand politically,since it may be taken to describe a
tendency,a more-or-lessrealized,more-or-lessarticulated,unevenlydistributed
ensemble of attributesdiscerniblein the world.In the activevoice, as adverb,it
connotes an aspiration,a species of practice,a process of becoming,however
unbecomingthatprocessmaybe to our eyes. It is on thebasis ofthisunderstand-
ing of "the neoliberal,"at once adjectivaland adverbial,thatI seek to parse the
historyofthepresent:In whatmeasurehave recenttendenciesin thathistoryrun
theircourse?Are theystillwithus? If so, in whatproportionsand in whatguises?
Or are we seeing unfoldbeforeus a tectonicshiftof the long run?
My own reading,uncharacteristically, is cautious. It runs sharplyagainstthe
grainof what is being whisperedin some nooks and cranniesof the Left in the
U.S. academy,ofwhich,sadly,thereis notmuchleft.It also runsagainstmydeep-
est well ofpoliticaldesire:I wantto see millennialhope in thismoment;I wantto
see radical change emerge fromsome of the more egregiouscontradictionsof
neoliberalcapitalismcome visiblyhome to roost;I wantto see the so-called"mas-
ters of the universe"punished for theirgrotesque excesses, their self-serving,
oftenvenal,practices,theirstructuralcrimesagainsthumanity;and I want,also,
to see neocon scholar-ideologues, among themmycolleagues who put the "con"
in moderneconomics,finallyhave to admitto the errorof theirways.There is
also some grimsatisfaction, havingwrittenabout millennialcapitalisma decade
ago, in seeingtheprocessesthatwe identifiedthencomingto fruition -
although
when life begins to imitateanthropology, know thatthe world reallyis in deep
distress.But desiresand satisfactions are one thing,diagnosticsquite another.
While the worldeconomic crisisof 2008-2009 mighthave killedoffneoliber-
alism as a global ideological project- patently,in the noun form - it is
highly
likelyto leave the capillariesofthe beast,less LeviathanthanGreatWhiteShark,
largelyintact.Indeed, the "meltdown"and itsaftermathmaysee the planet less,
not more,open to alternativesto the neoliberaltendency,albeitwith
significant
"corrections" as some economistswere alreadycallingthemmorethana yearback.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:29:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEEND OF NEOLIBERALISM? 143

I am remindedhere, simultaneously, of ReinhartKoselleck and the Manchester

School of Anthropologyin Central Africa. Koselleck, in his study of the
Enlightenmentand the pathogenesisof modern society,drew attentionto the
dialecticsof crisis,critique,and correction;forits part,the ManchesterSchool
demonstrated the capacityofcyclesof ruptureand theirrepairto reproducesocial
systems and the orderof values on whichtheyare predicated(see, forexample,
Gluckman2004; Turner1996). Crisis,self-evidently, is alwaysreproductive.But
it frequently As
is. Mike Davis (1995) once noted,"apocalypse"is oftenabsorbed
quicklyinto the historyof the everyday, process he describesas the "dialectic
a
of ordinarydisaster."
As talk has grownof "green shoots" sproutingin the wake of the economic
devastationofthepast twoyearsor so, therehave been signsofbothcrisis-driven
critiquein pursuitof "correction"and a returnto the "ordinary."Discourses of
correctionhave come fromboth liberal and conservativesources. In a special
editionof Harpers in 2008, JamesGalbraith,JosephStiglitz,and others- most
-
of themwithimpeccable liberalcredentials suggesteda range of strategiesto
ensurethatcapitalismmightreemergerelatively unscathed.Theyprescribedcures
suchas reforming thetaxsystem,banningstockoptionsas incentives, bringinginto
line the self-interest of the bankingsectorwiththoseof the economyand society
at large,and findingregulatorymeans to harnessboth the risk-ladenexcesses of
the financeindustryand thetendencyto favorshort-run overlonger-
profiteering
term wealth production.Only one contributorto the debate, Eric Janszen-
a venturecapitalist - took a more radicalline. He argued fora return
ironically,
to industrialcapitalism,pointingout thatall recentbubbles and bustsare owed to
government creatingconditionsformammoth, "metastasizing]" marketsin financial
speculation.
Janszenapart,these efforts to "save capitalism"were symptomatic of a rushof
similarliberalwritingson the topic. Few of them- the notable exceptionbeing
GillianTetts extraordinary Fools Gold (2009)- delved deeplyintothe archaeol-
ogy of the crisis itselfor, more generally,into the inner workingsof a global
politicaleconomywhose complexityhas increased exponentiallyover the past
couple ofdecades. As a result,mosthave soughtsolutionsalongitsoutersurfaces.
They have positedadjustmentsthatmightlimitthe materialexcessesof the neo-
liberaltendencyand,in particular, the marketinstabilities and conflictsofinterest
to whichthose excesses give rise.This, itself,is a functionof the pervasiveprac-
tice ofexplainingall economicprocessesthesedaysbyrecourseto one or another
kindof utilitarian theory,whichis whythe fourcauses of the apocalypse,as John
Lanchester(2009) has pointedout, are almostinvariablytakento be "greed,stu-
pidity,government, and thebanks,"notanything in the structureofcontemporary
capitalism itself.The of
pursuit explanations and panaceas in such terms,as we
mightexpect, has its parallel on the Right, most notablyperhaps in Richard
Posners A Failure of Capitalism (2009), a salvo fromthe Halls of Friedmania.
Note thatPosnerdid nottitlethebook "thefailure" - usinga definitearticle- but
- -
merely"a failure."Posner,predictablyand in lightofTetts account spuriously,
arguesthatindividualsin the financeindustryacted rationallyin the yearsbefore

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:29:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144 OF THEAMERICAN
THEANNALS ACADEMY

the crisis.That crisis,in his view a fullyfledged"depression,"is blamed, again

predictably, on bad governmentand ill-considered,perfectibleformsof deregu-
lation.His "corrections," though,belong to the same genus as thoseprofferedby
liberal economists:establishnew formsof regulationthat reduce the conflict
between the rationalself-interest of economic actorsand the commonweal- the
invisibleold hand here,of course,being the economistof invisiblehands,Adam
Smith.In the finalanalysis,fromthisvantage,the pointis to perfectfreemarket
economies by establishingthe regulatoryenvironmentmostconduciveto a suc-
cessfullyderegulatedworld.
In the meantime- and thisis where the "dialecticof the ordinary"becomes
salient- forall thetalkoftheurgentneed for"correction," we have seen a tangible
returnto businessas usual,even bad-faithbusiness.This is in spiteofthe factthat
deeper crises appear inevitable,that employmentstatisticsare worsening,that
ratesof povertyand inequalityare rapidlyrising,and so on. The buzzwordin the
CityofLondon,in lateJune2009,was "BAB": "bonusesare back."And,withthem,
the formsof financecapital fromwhich theyemanate. As JonathanFreedland
(2009), also commentingon Britain,wrote,"Nine monthsago"- in 2008- "the
financialcrisisseemed certainto bringa revolutionin our economy.. . . Change
had to be on the way."But now "look what has happened. . . . [Just]when the
world seemed readyto burythe neoliberalregime... we have returnedto [its
waysand means]."
In sum,despitethe streamof assertionsduring2010 thatthe crisiswould have
deep transformative effects,puttingan end to the "neoliberalregime,"mostindi-
catorssuggestotherwise.For one thing,the massiveinfusionsof moneyintothe
bankingindustryand mega-businesson the part of nationalgovernmentshave
occurredwithouttheregulatory initiatives
thatwere promisedto followYetagain,
public fundsare being divertedintothe privatesector,underscoringthe factthat
capitalcontinuesto take itsprofitsbut not shoulderitslosses,a curious,perverse
denouementto the rise of Ulrich Becks Risk Society(1992). To be sure, state
intervention in the U.S. economyafter2008 has neverpointedin the directionof
a "New New Deal," as some Panglossiancommentatorson the Left thoughtit
might.Justthe reverse.It has been intendedto save the corporateworld,not
secure civil societyor ordinarycitizensfromthe prédationsof the market;the
pledge of measuresthatmightprotectthose citizensimmiseratedby the crash,
measures never substantialto begin with,has gone largelyunrealized.We are
plainlynotwitnessinga returnto social democracy,let alone the genesisof a new
age of nationalization;note,in thisrespect,how manyof the nation-states of the
global Northare moving(further)to the right.Which may be whythere have
been so fewlegislativeenactmentsanywherepromulgatedto curb the practices
thatsparkedthe meltdownin the firstplace: per contra,whilemarketforceshave
made it harderto negotiatetoxicassetsand to takesome ofthe moreextravagant
gambles in the business of finance,the investmentindustryis widelyreported
not merelyto have returnedto its old ways,but to be inventingnew "products"
without palpable constraint.The derivativestrade, it seems, is risingagain.
So, too, are the rampartsaround "economic liberalism."A recentarticlein The

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:29:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEEND OF NEOLIBERALISM? 145

Economist(2009) arguesthat,notwithstanding "thebiggesteconomiccalamityin

80 years. . . the free-market paradigm . . . deserves a robustdefence."
These are not the onlysignsthatthe capillariesof the neoliberaltendencyand
the"free-market paradigm"continueto embraceus. There are manyothers.Some
are obvious,like the continuingdominanceof the corporatesector:its relative
immunity frommostlegal challenge,even when its enterprisesviolatethe being,
bodies,belongings,or bioenvironment of ordinarycitizens;itsenjoymentof favor-
able taxationregimesand, increasingly, the use of laws of eminentdomain to
expanditshorizons;theprotectionofitsphysical,financial,and intellectualprop-
erty,sometimesby recourseto police violence,as an ostensiblefunctionof the
collectivegood; itscapacityto influencethe dispositionofthepublic treasuryand
public policyand, reciprocally, to have insurgentaction directedagainstit pros-
ecuted as commoncrime- forexample,in massprotestsagainstthe privatization
of such "natural"assets as waterand land. Other signsare less obvious,like the
growinghegemonyof legal orders,foundedon constitutions of distinctlyneolib-
eral design,thatfavorindividualrightsover collectivewell-being;thatlimitthe
responsibility of governmentto protect or provisionits citizens; that tend to
criminalizerace,poverty, and counterpolitics, in partbyoutlawingthe salience of
social cause or consequence; thatsubject what were once everydaydemocratic
processesto the finality ofjudicial action,therebyjuridifying politicsto the exclu-
sion of other formsof social action; that displace the "hot" sovereigntyof the
people intothe "cold" sovereignty ofthe law; and thattreatall citizensas rational,
self-interested, rights-bearingactors and the world as a communityof contract.
(For moreon neoliberalconstitutionalism, see, forexample,Schneiderman[2000]
and Comaroffand Comaroff[2006].)
I could go on in thisvein. To do so, however,would be to riskstatingthe obvi-
ous. But allow me one observation.Perhaps the most significantcapillaries of
the neoliberal that remainwith us have to do with the state and governance.
Foucauldians would prefer"governmentality" here; theyhave a point. Broadly
speaking, neoliberal etatism seems to be survivingwell, even strengthening, in
mostplaces. As Foucault explainedin The Birthof Biopolitics(2008), the riseof
neoliberalism - his use of the noun- markeda radical transformation: whereas
before,thestate,amongitsvariousbureaucraticoperations,"monitored" thework-
ings of the economy,its "organizingprinciple"is now the market.Government
actuallyhas becomebusiness.And nation-states have become holdingcompanies
in and forthemselves.In the upshot,the categoricaldistinctionbetweenpolitics
and economics,that classical liberal fiction,is largelyerased. Effectivegover-
nance,in turn,is measuredwithreferenceto asset management,to the attraction
of enterprise,to the facilitation of the entrepreneurialactivitiesof the citizenas
homo economicus, and to the capacityto fosterthe accumulation - but not the
redistribution- ofwealth.Undertheseconditions, heads ofstatebeginto resemble,
and oftenactuallyare, CEOs who treatthe populationas a bodyof shareholders;
vide the likesof SilvioBerlusconi,who explicitlyspeaks of Italyas a company,or
Dmitri Medvedev, head of Gazprom, Russia's mightiestbusiness and a major
instrument of the country'sforeignpolicy.There is a more profoundpointhere.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:29:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
146 THEANNALS
OF THEAMERICAN
ACADEMY

Once upon a time,antineoliberaltheorypositedan oppositionbetweenthe state

and the freemarket,arguingthatthe antidoteto the latterlayin the activeinter-
ventionof the former.But the oppositionis false,just anotherpiece of the detri-
tus of the modern historyof capital. As states become mega-corporations
(Kremlin,Inc.; Britain,PLC; South Africa,PtyLtd.; Dubai, Inc.)- all of them,
brandedand legallyincorporated -
incidentally, theybecome inextricably partof
the workingsof the marketand, hence, no longeran "outside,"an antidote,or an
antithesisfromwhichto rethinkor reconstruct "theneoliberalparadigm/'This,in
is is
part, whygovernment increasingly reduced to an exercisein the technical
of
management capital,whyideologically founded politicsappear dead, replaced
by the politicsof interestand entitlementand identity - three
counterpointsof a
singletriangle. And thisis why the capillariesof neoliberal governanceseem so
firmly entrenched in the cartography of our everydaylives,thereto remainfor
the foreseeablefuture - to the that
degree anyfutureis foreseeable.

Concluding Thoughts
None of thisis to suggestthatneoliberaleconomicswillpersistunchanged.It
is quite possiblethatwe will see some minorreregulationof the financeindustry,
especiallyin favoroflong-term wealth-generationinsteadof short-term profiteer-
ing; marginally greatercitizenprotectionagainstthe cons of the corporateworld,
particularly in the domain of credit;adjustmentsto regimesof taxation;and fur-
therstateintervention in the marketunderthe guise ofpublic-privateinitiatives.
Will therebe anythingmore? Hard to say.But it is not highlylikely.Not unless a
counterpolitics, a praxisof deep insurgency, impels us towarda historyof the
futuredistinctly different fromthe one we are livingthrough,in the continuous
present.Onlytimewilltellwhether,and whence,thatmightarise.
Historyhas taughtus repeatedlyto be humble beforeit, a lesson as apposite
todayas it has ever been. If we are to seek out possible alternativesto the neo-
liberaltendency,ifwe are to fashionotherfutures,it is criticalto graspfullythe
natureof the beast and of its capillaries- and theireffectsnotjust on our lives
but on our thoughtprocesses. Afterall, those forcescovered by the adjective
neoliberal, not to mentionits adverbsof practice,are no less colonizingthanthe
formsofempiretowhichtheglobalSouthhas been subjectedbeforenow.As Frantz
Fanon mighthave insisted,decolonizingour habitsof thinking - sometimes a
by
violentreconsiderationof its mostfoundationalassumptions - is the first
step to
decolonizingthe worldintowhichhistoryhas interpolatedus.

References
Ulrich.
Beck, 1992.Risk Towards
society: a newmodernity.
ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Comaroff,
Jean,andJohnComaroff.
2006.Lawanddisorder
inthepostcolony.
Chicago,IL: University
of
Press.
Chicago
Mike.1995.LosAngeles
Davis, after
thestorm. 27(3):221-41.
Antipode

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:29:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEEND OF NEOLIBERALISM? 147

Adayattheraces.1937.LosAngeles, CA:MGM.
TheEconomist.16July 2009.What wentwrongwith economics:
Andhowthediscipline shouldchangeto
avoidthemistakes ofthepast.Available
fromwww.economist.com (accessed21March 2011).
Michel.
Foucault, 2008.Thebirth Lectures
ofbiopolitics: attheCollege
deFrance,1978-1979 ,eds.Michel
Senellart,
FrançoisEwald,andAlessandroFontana.Trans.Graham Burchell.
NewYork, NY:Palgrave
Macmillan.
Freedland,
Jonathan.23June 2009.After howl
a global ofoutrage,
wehavereturned tobusiness
asusual.
TheGuardian.
Gluckman,Max.2004.Order andrebellion
intribal
Africa.NewYork,NY:Routledge.
November
Harpers. 2008.Howtosavecapitalism:Fundamental fora collapsing
fixes system.
Lanchester,
John.1June 2009.Outsmarted:Highfinance vs.humannature. TheNewYorker. Available
from www.newyorker.com 21March
(accessed 2011).
Richard.
Posner, 2009.Afailureofcapitalism.
Cambridge, MA:Harvard UniversityPress.
Schneiderman,David.2000.Constitutional
approaches Aninquiry
toprivatization: intothemagnitudeot
neo-liberal LawandContemporary
constitutionalism. Problems64(3):83-109.
Gillian.
Tett, 2009.Fool'sgold:Howthebolddream ofa small atJ.P.Morgan
tribe wascorruptedbyWall
Street
greed and unleasheda New
catastrophe. York,NY: FreePress.
Victor.
Turner, 1996.SchismandcontinuityinanAfrican Oxford:
society. Berg.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:29:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions