Questions and Comments


Copyright © 2010  
All rights reserved.
April 16, 2016


Crisis after crisis is being caused by a failed ideology. But it cannot be
stopped without a coherent alternative.

By George Monbiot


It’s as if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology
that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and
you’ll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before,
they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a
remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007-8, the offshoring of wealth
and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse
of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness,
the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises
as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either
catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has –
or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an
ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith
describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution.
But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the
locus of power.

Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It
redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by
buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It
maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation
should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour
and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions, that
impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast
as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to
enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counter-productive
and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they
acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education,
inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame
themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are
unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is
maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer
have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by
competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are
epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety
and social phobia. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology
has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all
neoliberals now.


The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the
delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and
Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state,
as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and

In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning,
by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises’s
book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of
some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free
themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first
organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin
Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters
of the Universe as “a kind of neoliberal International”: a transatlantic network of
academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement’s rich backers
funded a series of think tanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among
them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato
Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam
Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly
at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek’s view that governments
should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way, among
American apostles such as Milton Friedman, to the belief that monopoly power could
be seen as a reward for efficiency.

Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951,
Milton Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that,
the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and
the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common

At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins. The post-
war consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes’s economic prescriptions
were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals in
the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments
sought social outcomes without embarassment, developing new public services and
safety nets.

But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises
struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream.
As Milton Friedman remarked, “when the time came that you had to change … there
was an alternative ready there to be picked up.” With the help of sympathetic
journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions
for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter’s administration in the United
States and Jim Callaghan’s government in Britain.

After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package
soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions,
deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through
the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation,
neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the
world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left:
Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Daniel Stedman Jones notes, “it is hard to
think of another utopia to have been as fully realised.”


It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been
promoted with the slogan “there is no alternative”. But, as Friedrich Hayek remarked
on a visit to Pinochet’s Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was
comprehensively applied – “my personal preference leans toward a liberal
dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism.” The
freedom neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general
terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.

Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress
wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger
workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments.
Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out
of poverty.

As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the
use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example,
in the aftermath of Pinochet’s coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Milton
Friedman described as “an opportunity to radically reform the educational system” in
New Orleans.

Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed
internationally, through trade treaties incorporating “investor-state dispute
settlement”: offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of
social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales
of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or
prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often
successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.

Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal
quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public
services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and
monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that,
Ludwig von Mises proposed, would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central
planning has instead created one.

Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one.
Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in
Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich.
Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose
rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents,
privatisation and deregulation.

The privatisation or marketisation of public services – such as energy, water, trains,
health, education, roads and prisons – has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths
in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for
their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price
for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they
spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that
they have you over a barrel.

Those who own and run the UK’s privatised or semi-privatised services make
stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India,
oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted
control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world’s
richest man.

Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer points out in Why We Can’t Afford the Rich, has
had similar impacts. “Like rent,” he argues, “interest is … unearned income that
accrues without any effort.” As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer,
the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest
payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As
property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the
switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.

Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of
wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from
those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make
their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital
gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.

Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks
too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services.
As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Friedrich Hayek forgot that vital
national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot
run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.

The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use
neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining
public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-
regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the
public sector.

Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has
caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to
change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal
theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to
spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not
equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties
of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to
disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.

Chris Hedges remarks that “fascist movements build their base not from the politically
active but the politically inactive, the “losers” who feel, often correctly, they have no
voice or role to play in the political establishment.” When political debate no longer
speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation.
To the admirers of Donald Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.

Tony Judt pointed out that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and
the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only
remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more
likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from
the delivery of public services, are reduced to “cajoling, threatening and ultimately
coercing people to obey them”.


Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine
staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of

The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly,
very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the
Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the
further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British
American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the
richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement.
We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his think tanks, noted that “in order
to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organization is controlled and directed should
not be widely advertised.”

The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The
market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or
atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants”
tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Andrew
Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and
socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for
rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities
“camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with
wealth creation.

A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their
money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as
rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style
themselves entrepreneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.

These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of
modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for
whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy
regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the
tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one

The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by
Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice –
that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe
themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both
misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel
about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman’s classic work, Capitalism and


For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its
early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent
network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and
persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.

Neoliberalism’s triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire
economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic
theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the
1970s, there was “an alternative ready there to be picked up.” But when neoliberalism
fell apart in 2008 there was … nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and
centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.

Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian
solutions to the crises of the 21st-century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is
hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 1970s have not
gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest
predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer
demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are
the motors of environmental destruction.

What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it’s not enough
to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour,
the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic
Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the
demands of the 21st Century.

George Monbiot’s new book, How Did We Get into This Mess?, Is published this
month by Verso.