Neoliberal Hegemony: Compromised Reform, Suppressed Revolution | Ajay Mishra, Shraddha Rishi

Abstract

This essay scrutini​ses the likelihood of reform over revolution, attributed to the sway of neoliberal hegemony and state-mediated conspiratorial welfarism. It recogni​ses the potential of the social democratic movement for instigating revolutionary change but posits that such prospects are dampened by the influence of neoliberal hegemony and state-mediated conspiratorial welfarism, thereby underscoring the relevance of reform. Furthermore, it contends that while revolution is often conceptuali​sed, its practical execution tends to diminish its potential, thereby advocating for a middle ground within the democratic system.

This essay will also examine the debate on reform and revolution articulated by Karl Popper and Herbert Marcuse, and establishes linkages between Karl Marx and Popper through the prism of Herbert Marcuse, a prominent Marxist thinker. It will delve into democratic principles, class dynamics, and the fusion of theory and practice in knowledge proliferation. Additionally, the concept of conspiratorial welfarism, stemming from neoliberal influences in a welfare state, will be expounded upon.

Key Words: Neoliberalism, Conspirational Welfarism, Class Consciousness, Reform, Revolution.

Introduction

Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have mutually exclusive uses. Defining Economics narrowly initiates a rational discourse in market fundamentalism, ultimately leading to a neoliberal system. Neoliberalism involves competition that needs safeguarding from market tendencies to create monopolies and from state interventions. It is not merely an ideology or a belief one can adopt or reject. Rather, it is the outcome of strategies, tactics, and policies that forge competitive subjects of interest [1]. It has pervasive effects on ways of thought to the point where it has become incorporated into the common-sense way many of us interpret, live in, and understand the world [2]. The terms “labour†and “human capital†intersect, overcoming in terminology their longstanding opposition; the former becomes the activity and the latter becomes the effects of the activity, its history [3].

The discussion moves from the mode of production to the mode of consumption, where neoliberalism is seen as a specific way of producing subjectivity, shaping individuals as "human capital" subjects. It embraces the concept of homo economicus, the self-interested individual, while denying the existence of homo juridicus, the legal subject within the state [4]. This ensures that individuals, as human capital, have no legal rights. They engage in business and generate profit in an open competitive market. Consequently, neoliberalism portrays society as a marketplace. Deregulation, the central term and political strategy of neo liberalism, is not the absence of governing, or regulating, but a form of governing through isolation and dispersion [5]. The detachment of individuals from societal structures makes the social democratic movement either non- existent or if it exists, ineffective in achieving human emancipation. The goal of emancipation is to oppose totalitarianism from both the political right and left.

The discussion over reform versus revolution is typically rooted in subjective perspectives and stances. The proletariat often opts for revolution, while the bourgeoisie supports reform. Reform is seen as a way to maintain the existing paradigm, thereby perpetuating the status quo. The neoliberal state maintains its paradigm through gradual reforms, strategic welfare policies, and leveraging constructive criticism for legitimacy. Conversely, revolution aims to disrupt the prevailing paradigm, favouring significant shifts and deconstructive approaches. The neoliberal state considers revolution out dated, instead promoting the virtues of reform.

The essay contends that the neoliberal state engenders a compromised form of democracy as governance. This results in the inefficacy of social institutions like the market and democracy due to the promotion of universal solutions. Such an approach not only subverts Popper’s vision of democracy but also taints Marcuse’s vision of a significant revolution for alternative governance. Furthermore, the essay delves into democracy, class dynamics, the dichotomy between theory and practice of knowledge, and conspiratorial welfarism within the context of reform versus revolution. The overarching theme of these elements is to underscore the neoliberal epistemology that suppresses class awareness within a democratic framework. Additionally, it acknowledges the futility of such awareness with the theoretical appropriation of democratic practices via conspiratorial welfare strategies.

The Debate on Reform and Revolution

The debate on reform and revolution begins with the execution of the synthesis of reducing human suffering [6]. Both aim to achieve human progress; however, they differ in the methods of execution. Reform is the top-down method which renders the individual as the recipient while revolution emanates from the bottom-up which renders collectives as an agent of change and places agency in collectivism.

​Popper places the strong foundation of democratic institutions to empower the populace. Yet, he does not dismiss the impact of vested interests in the short term. Conversely, Marcuse acknowledges the difficulty in altering class consciousness once established. Furthermore, invoking Keynes’s adage, "In the long run, we are all dead," Marxian advocates for empowerment through the modes of production. His (the labourer’s) means of subsistence must therefore be sufficient to maintain him in his normal state as a laboring individual. His natural wants, such as food, clothing, fuel and housing, vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of his country. On the other hand, the number and extent of his so- called necessary wants as also the modes of satisfying them, are themselves the product of historical development, and depend therefore to a greater extent on the degree of civilisation of a country, more particularly on the conditions under which the class of labourers has been formed [7]. Marx advocates for empowerment via the structural analysis of class consciousness and the class struggle. Conversely, Popper fails to recognise class consciousness and structural analysis in the context of value production and distribution, aligning more with liberal ideologues. Nevertheless, he concedes that the state is a necessary evil for capital and labour. Therefore, Popper suggests empowerment through state-mediated actions and capital-driven initiatives.

On Democracy

Marcuse contended that democracy is susceptible to manipulation by vested interests, a by-product of neoliberalism in political governance. He believed that democratic institutions could be compromised by dominant groups, making them impotent for significant reform. Conversely, Popper maintained faith in democracy and its institutions to foster the resurgence of political democratic governance, even amidst crisis. He viewed democracy as resilient to on- going crises, as the operation of democratic institutions helps to eliminate discrepancies. Popper argues that all social orders of which we have any knowledge as containing "injustice and repression, poverty and destitution," but holds that in the contemporary western democracies these evils are combatted through representative democracy, the existence of certain political liberties, and the actions of the state itself. In Popper’s opinion, these societies "are very imperfect and in need of reform, but they are the best ever [8]. Moreover, Popper asserts that the democratic institutions continually occupied by the bourgeoisie are nothing more than a form of the Marxist fairy tale of the class dictatorship [9].

Noam Chomsky emphasises the role of language as a tool of control within liberal capitalist systems. The development and spread of ideas require resources, and while opinions cannot be bought or sold like tangible goods, their generation often resembles the production of typical commodities. The working class’s acceptance of their exploitation needs to be “manufactured†by influential entities in society through the creation of a “false consciousness†promoting the supremacy of capitalism, encompassing both the state and corporate media. Chomsky notes [10], “A privilege of power is the capacity to craft history with the assurance of facing minimal opposition.†​He has detailed how the media controlled by money undermines democracy.

Neoliberal democracy often makes emancipatory reform seem impossible by undermining collective consciousness. The neoliberal state labels any benefits it provides as welfare, freebies, or subsidies. For example, during the height of COVID-19, the Indian government launched a ’free vaccination’ campaign, which should have been a state duty to respectfully and humanely treat those affected by the pandemic. The term ’free’ implies provisions made by a benevolent state for the impoverished, suggesting that these individuals are dependent on the state’s goodwill. This suggests that individuals are not legal entities but recipients of the state’s benevolence. The absence of a revolutionary culture has allowed such degradation of people to go unchecked. In a neoliberal state, even protests are subdued through media control. Individuals strive to become valuable human capital or risk being excluded from the competitive market. The state’s role is reduced to maintaining market conditions, allowing the market to freely determine consumption and distribution.

Class Relations

Liberal theorists have posited that the primary role of government is to exert adequate force to deter inherently self-serving individuals from engaging in mutual aggression and theft. Popper remarks that "the state protects its citizens from brute force through legal and political institutions.†[11] Popper contends that the Marxist system fosters class conflict, portraying antagonistic class relationships. Yet, he acknowledges that class relations are effectively integrated within the capitalist mode of production. He further posits that accumulation is only problematic when performed by non-enterprises, whereas it boosts productive capacity when done by enterprising entities. Nonetheless, Popper overlooks the influence of monetary control over political governance, as evident in neo-capitalism. Marcuse contends that under capitalism there exists a class of individuals with no commodities to exchange other than their labour power, without them industrial production would not exist.

Neoliberalism may be viewed as a distinct form of "capitalism without capitalism," aiming to preserve the current wealth distribution within capitalism. It seeks to eliminate the antagonism and social insecurity associated with capitalism, paradoxically, by expanding capitalist symbols, terms, and logic across society [12]. It, therefore, dominates the socio-economic and political discourse to assert its inevitability.

Theory and Practice of Knowledge Dissemination

Classical liberals contend that value, distribution, exchange, and production hold greater significance than market competition. They focus on absolute rather than relative value. Marx critiques the marginality approach to production, advocating instead for the material requisites of production. In addition, Marx proposes that competition highlights relative values, thus nurturing vested interests. However, market competition dominates the neoliberal paradigm.

Vested interests often dominate the realm of knowledge, hindering reflection on social constructs. Indeed, they foster a false consciousness of their own superiority, perpetuating the notion that there is no alternative. Textuality in its own way marks the place where the production of discourse or the location of language as a model, escapes the person or the collectivity that engages in practice so that even textuality itself might simply be an uneven clenching of a space of dissemination… From this point of view, what a notion of textuality in general does is to see that what is defined over against ‘The Text’ as ‘fact’ or ‘life’ or even ‘practice’ is to an extent worlded in a certain way so that practice can take place [13]. The widespread promotion of neoclassical economics in introductory textbooks at Indian universities dominates academic discussions. This approach undermines the relationship between theory and practice and encourages individuals to act in self-centered ways, impacting their social and collective behaviour.

Manipulative practices often control theory and thought processes, steering class instincts towards a discriminatory class consciousness. The development of revolutionary proletarian class consciousness is underpinned by a dialectical relationship between theory and practice; without this, there is only duality, separation, and disjunction [14]. As long as theoretical knowledge remains the privilege of a handful of "academicians" in the party, the latter will face the danger of going astray [15]. It promotes theoretical justifications for neoliberalism that are not consistent with actual practices. For example, inequality is often deemed necessary for investment, production, employment, and growth. In India, economic growth and inequality intersect in their influence on socio-economic indicators. It is also observed that economic growth significantly outweighs inequality in reducing poverty. India should persist in prioritising economic growth to elevate the impoverished by increasing the overall economic pie; redistribution is viable in a developing economy only when the economic pie is expanding [16]. It overlooks the manipulative tendencies that stem from the vested interests born out of inequality.

Marx remarks that “the saving of labour time is equal to an increase of free time, i.e. time for the full development of the individual, which in turn reacts back upon the productive power of labor as itself the greatest productive power. From the standpoint of the direct production process it can be regarded as the production of fixed capital, this fixed capital being man himself.†[17] Marx’s departure from his usual terminology, which typically identifies the worker as labour power, the machine or factory as fixed capital, and money as circulating capital, is quite telling. It unveils a future that Marx could hardly imagine, a future that is now our reality: the real subsumption of society under capital. This includes all subjective capacities—such as communication, emotion, creativity, and cognition—into the productive apparatus of capital.

Conspirational Welfarism

The control over the subjective capacities helps capitalism to conspire with the state producing ‘conspirational welfarism’, which is selective and parochial in nature and practice. Conspirational welfare believes in freebies that guide the state, in the words of Michael Sandel, to attain distributive justice (rights without obligation) at the cost of contributive justice (rights with obligation); the latter ensures embedded social constructivism and participatory development. This trend leads to individualisation of everything, poverty as well as riches [18]. It objectifies individuals economically and politically. It creates two- class- zero- sum game in which class interests are traded- off. Neoliberal ​​government functions through interests, desires, and aspirations instead of rights and obligations. It does not directly impose on the body like sovereign power, nor does it limit actions like disciplinary power; instead, it shapes the conditions of action. Consequently, neoliberal governmentality tends to intensify. This intensification is paradoxical; as power grows less restrictive and corporeal, it becomes more pervasive, filling the realm of actions and potential actions [19].

The reliance on price-determined demand for equilibrium overlooks such equilibrium cannot be achieved when individuality is a social construct. Consequently, a neoliberal state that bases its policies on demand-generated metrics may use this as a pretext to disengage. For example, programs like MGNREGA are reduced or terminated due to a perceived lack of demand. Additionally, the education sector is impacted by demand-driven policies, leading to the potential closure of non-market-centric courses when there aren’t enough students. In it, the state assumes that the facts seem to speak for the subaltern [20]. However, in the presence of sensitivity produced by subaltern theory, subaltern also can speak [21].


The reduction in government size has negatively impacted subaltern narratives concerning education and the economy. The limited operational scope of the state is shaped by a form of welfarism in electoral democracy that is discriminatory and divisive. ​I​ndividual​s prioriti​ses negative liberty, ​c​entered ​to a private domain ​free from external interference, while overlooking positive liberty, which involves taking control of one’s life to essential goals. The debate on the sub-classification within SC/ST reservations can shed light on this selective welfare approach. Such sub- classification is​ for potentially fragmenting ​D​alit politics and for the possibility of transferring reserved seats to the unreserved category if deemed unsuitable. There is no established evidence of intergenerational privilege transfer, indicating that the SC/ST population has not achieved either negative liberty, fostered by societal incentives, or positive liberty, due to the absence of a significant ​transfer of the intergenerational privilege.

The debate on the reservation has intensified, casting a shadow over the state’s commitment to providing quality education and employment. The societal divide over reservation offers a convenient diversion for the neoliberal state to shirk its responsibilities. In this way, the state adheres to the age-old strategy of divide and rule, an offshoot of conspiratorial welfarism that creates a false dichotomy among different social classes. Furthermore, media control absolves the state while also shaping public consciousness, the "superstructure," to prevent revolutionary shifts in the economic "base."

The concept of ’conspirational welfarism’ justifies that state resources are insufficient to provide for everyone. It serves to support the dominant interest, foster a divided society, and suppress the potential for violent uprisings to safeguard the bourgeoisie’s private property. By highlighting the financial challenges faced by state governments in India, particularly those burdened by debt, the government declines to address the need to increase public expenditure, as recommended by the Keynesian multiplier. Instead, it adheres to the inflexible framework of the Fiscal Responsibility & Budget Management Act, which sets unrealistic fiscal deficit targets for India as a developing nation. The effectiveness and necessity of the government’s programs and their implementation raise concerns about the adequacy of the state’s involvement [22].

Today, we observe the rise of authoritarian populism in nations where governments have been largely inactive. Fascism is not rapidly growing in countries with proactive governments. Instead, it thrives in places where countless individuals are neglected. Neo-liberalism is at the root of the current surge in fascist populism. It underscores that although the power of the people is crucial in a democracy, the state is essential to maintain a humane constitutional democracy and prevent a descent into inhumane, unconstitutional authoritarianism. The state is advised to embrace its progressive role and bolster emancipatory actions instead of succumbing to the neoliberal snare of conspiratorial welfarism.

Conclusion

Popper did not reject the possibility of revolution; he simply advocated for political and economic governance to prevent it. Conversely, Marcuse recognised the potential for revolution to alter socio-economic conditions. Meanwhile, the neoliberal agenda quashes revolutionary zeal with its skewed reformist actions, epitomised by conspiratorial welfarism that justifies the neoliberal state. This validation leads to the quiet suppression of the revolution, negating the need for emancipatory actions as Popper suggested. Any observed protest is orchestrated and shaped by neo-capitalist forces dominating the state apparatus. This revives class instincts devoid of class consciousness and promotes a form of capitalism that lacks its essence. The accepted belief becomes ’You fail because you lack the necessary skills,’ ignoring the individual’s social context. This represents neoliberalism’s "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy which guarantees that the hardships inflicted on the populace by the neoliberal crisis do not result in the transcendence of neoliberalism, but rather in its reinforcement through the state under neoliberal hegemony. Moreover, a worker’s identity is dissolved into human capital, engulfing society within the market. Furthermore, conspiratorial welfare acts as a lifeline for the neoliberal state, perpetuating utilitarianism and preserving indistinct antagonistic classes without class awareness.

This essay does not seek to essentialise either reform or revolution. The discourse on Popper and Marcuse’s theses has exposed the susceptibility of both to implementation challenges. Nevertheless, this analysis acknowledges the neoliberal state’s resilience against reform and revolution, as it has absorbed reformative efforts and quelled revolutionary zeal among the populace by blurring the lines between market and society. This paves the way for research into the possible structure of society post-neoliberalism, provided we do not become ensnared by Marx’s historical predictions of socialism and communism. Here’s to a brighter future!

(Authors: Ajay Mishra teaches Economics at Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Bihar, India; Shraddha Rishi teaches Political Science at Magadh University, Bodhgaya, Bihar.)