Response on Neoliberalism and The End of History

Top of Form

The idea behind neoliberalism was to stop the burden of government reliance on programs to aid in personal or family life. Thatcher had plans to make cuts in the government of the programs that Aides families and individuals not as a means to punish the individual or family, but to cut on government spending, increase the responsibility of individual and family self-reliance, promote the wealthy to reinvest in the economy, and also decrease taxes on the wealthy. "To implement such theories, the British government under Thatcher cut income tax rates on the wealthy by more than 50 percent to spur new investment and pushed up sales taxes on items that ordinary people needed to compensate for the lost revenue, thus increasing the burden on working people" (Smith 828 kindle Ed). Her idea was to drastically reduce government spending by making cuts to many programs including education, healthcare, and also sold publicly owned businesses.  At the same time the country also increased the interest rate which placed a further burden on the working class.  Thatcher said "there are always pressures on Government to spend more than the country can afford. We’re not going down that road. Not this year. Not next year. Not any year. We will continue to keep a firm grip on public spending" (Smith pg 829 Kindle Ed). The first several years after she implemented these practices the country suffered. Education, public transportation, highways, and healthcare all went downhill. Perhaps she went a little too far with the cuts. The country saw protests and riots and lacked unity and patriotism for many years. It wasn't until 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands that Britain began to unite to overcome that obstacle and thatcher was able to get her people to become somewhat patriotic once again. Bottom of For

Top of Form

Of course, in reality this project, which constitutes “the end of history” according to its defenders, suffers from “unfortunate shortcomings” that lead to failures—albeit “temporary”—and produces “absurd reactions” (calling into question the “sound principles” of liberalism) that result in “chaos.” According to this view, it is the people, politicians, and ideologues alone who are responsible for the failures and the chaos, since the spread of globalized liberalism (that is to say the accumulation of capital) can only be a good thing for all (or almost all).This type of reasoning and these worldviews are not only held by the teams in power in Washington. They reflect the prevailing discourse of the large majority of powers and the narrow-mindedness of the prejudices on which they are based. An analysis of reality intended to be as true as possible must begin by challenging these prejudices and subjecting the views that they inspire to rigorous analysis. The differences between the world in 2020 and the world today as seen by the U.S. establishment are of relative importance only. Moreover, these differences only affect the place of Asia (China and India in particular) in the world economy resulting from the pursuit of high growth in the case of these two large countries. This growth it is assumed will take place in the context of liberal globalization and will be entirely compatible with the preservation of United States leadership. At no time is the question raised as to whether this model is sustainable indefinitely without the internal contradictions in the countries concerned branching out in new and unforeseen directions.Bottom of Form