Former Shadow Minister, Chris Williamson, explains how Keir Starmer’s Labour Party are repeating the same old tired ideology. Not for us but for the few.
The same few represented by the Tories and Reform UK.
Sir Keir Starmer's govt claims that prostrating the country before billionaires and global corporations is necessary to grow the economy – No, it isn't! pic.twitter.com/aZuTPJlRh8
— Chris Williamson (@DerbyChrisW) October 14, 2024
Neo Liberal Garbage By The Rich For The Rich
Neoliberalism, as an economic and political ideology, has exerted a profound influence on global governance since the late 20th century. It advocates for free markets, deregulation, privatisation, and a reduced role of the state in economic affairs. The rich and powerful have been the most enthusiastic proponents of neoliberalism, as its policies serve their interests in concentrating wealth and consolidating power. At the same time, these elites have often been quick to dismiss socialism and egalitarian policies, which challenge their privilege and seek to redistribute wealth and power more equitably across society. The wealthy and influential not only reject these alternatives but also invest considerable resources in conditioning the public to accept and even champion neoliberal ideas over more egalitarian visions of society.
To understand why the rich and powerful crave neoliberalism and dismiss egalitarian alternatives, it is crucial to examine the historical, economic, and ideological factors that have shaped their worldview. Equally important is an exploration of how these elites use their influence to mould public opinion in ways that favour their own interests, often at the expense of broader societal well-being.
Neoliberalism: An Ideology of Elite Power
Neoliberalism emerged as a response to the perceived failures of Keynesian economics, which dominated Western economic policy from the 1940s to the 1970s. Keynesianism advocated for state intervention in the economy to manage demand, reduce unemployment, and promote social welfare. However, by the 1970s, rising inflation and economic stagnation—phenomena often referred to as “stagflation”—led many economists and policymakers to question the efficacy of Keynesian approaches. In this context, neoliberalism, with its emphasis on free markets and limited government intervention, gained traction as a solution to the economic crises of the time.
For the rich and powerful, neoliberalism offered more than just a new set of economic policies. It provided a framework for enhancing and entrenching their wealth and power. By promoting deregulation and privatisation, neoliberalism enabled the wealthy to expand their control over key industries, from finance to healthcare to education. For example, the deregulation of financial markets in the 1980s, championed by figures like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, allowed for an unprecedented concentration of wealth in the financial sector. The globalisation of capital markets, facilitated by neoliberal policies, enabled corporations to move production to countries with lower labour costs, further increasing profits at the expense of workers in developed economies.
Moreover, neoliberalism’s emphasis on individual responsibility and self-reliance aligns with the worldview of many of the wealthy, who often attribute their success to their own hard work and ingenuity, rather than acknowledging the role of social structures, public institutions, or sheer luck in their fortunes. In this sense, neoliberalism provides a moral justification for inequality, suggesting that those who are wealthy deserve their riches, while those who are poor are responsible for their own plight.
This ideology is not just an economic preference but a worldview that legitimises and perpetuates existing power structures. By reducing the role of the state in redistributing wealth through taxation or welfare policies, neoliberalism ensures that the rich are able to retain and expand their wealth with minimal interference. As British political economist Colin Crouch notes, neoliberalism is “a doctrine that aims to remove as many as possible of the decisions about the distribution of resources from the political sphere, and locate them in the private sphere, within the domain of economic transactions” (Crouch, 2011). In other words, neoliberalism removes wealth distribution from democratic control, allowing the wealthy to maintain and expand their influence without facing significant challenges from the public.
The Threat of Socialism and Egalitarian Policies
In contrast to neoliberalism, socialism and egalitarian policies seek to redistribute wealth and power more equitably across society. These policies challenge the concentration of wealth by advocating for higher taxes on the rich, stronger labour protections, universal healthcare, and public ownership of key industries. Such measures threaten the economic and political dominance of the wealthy, which is why they are often vehemently opposed by elites.
One of the central reasons the rich and powerful dismiss socialism is that it fundamentally challenges the logic of capital accumulation. Socialism argues that wealth should be distributed based on need rather than market forces, which would inevitably lead to a reduction in the fortunes of the wealthy. This is particularly threatening to those who have built their wealth on capital ownership rather than labour. As American economist John Bellamy Foster argues, socialism presents a “radical critique of capitalism and its inherent inequalities,” proposing an economic system in which “the profit motive is subordinated to the needs of society as a whole” (Foster, 2002).
In addition to the direct threat to wealth, socialism also challenges the political power of the rich. Egalitarian policies often include proposals for greater democratic control over the economy, whether through stronger labour unions, public ownership, or worker cooperatives. These measures reduce the power of capital owners and give workers and citizens more control over economic decisions. For the rich and powerful, this loss of control is as threatening as the loss of wealth, if not more so. In a capitalist society, wealth and power are intimately linked, and any policy that reduces wealth inequality also threatens the political influence of the elite.
This is why elites often deploy rhetoric that frames socialism as not only impractical but dangerous. By associating socialism with authoritarianism, inefficiency, and economic collapse, the wealthy and powerful create a narrative in which egalitarian policies are seen as a threat to both economic prosperity and individual freedom. This framing taps into deep-seated fears in Western societies, particularly in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, where the Cold War has left a legacy of suspicion towards anything resembling socialism.
Conditioning the Public to Accept Neoliberalism
The rich and powerful do not merely oppose socialism; they actively work to condition the public to accept neoliberalism as the only viable economic system. This process of conditioning takes place through a variety of channels, including the media, education, think tanks, and political lobbying.
One of the most important ways in which elites shape public opinion is through control of the media. In many countries, the media landscape is dominated by a small number of wealthy individuals or corporations, who use their platforms to promote neoliberal ideas and discredit alternatives. For example, Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, which includes outlets like Fox News and The Times, has been a consistent advocate for neoliberal policies, from tax cuts for the wealthy to deregulation of the financial sector. As sociologist Noam Chomsky notes, “the mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace…they serve the ends of the dominant elite” (Chomsky, 1988). By shaping the narrative around economic policy, these media outlets help to normalise neoliberalism and marginalise socialist alternatives.
Education is another key site of ideological conditioning. Neoliberal ideas have become deeply entrenched in academic institutions, particularly in the fields of economics and business studies. Prestigious universities, many of which are funded by wealthy donors or corporate sponsors, often teach economic models that assume the superiority of free markets and the inefficiency of government intervention. This creates a feedback loop in which the next generation of policymakers, business leaders, and economists are trained to think within a neoliberal framework, reinforcing the dominance of these ideas.
In addition to the media and education, think tanks and lobbying organisations play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and government policy. Many of these organisations are funded by wealthy individuals and corporations, who use them to promote neoliberal ideas. For example, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a British think tank, has been instrumental in promoting neoliberal policies in the UK, from advocating for privatisation to opposing higher taxes on the rich. As investigative journalist George Monbiot has documented, the IEA has received significant funding from corporations and wealthy individuals with a vested interest in maintaining neoliberal policies (Monbiot, 2013).
Lobbying efforts by wealthy individuals and corporations also help to shape government policy in ways that favour neoliberalism. In the United States, for example, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) allowed for unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns, giving wealthy individuals and corporations even greater influence over the political process. This has led to a situation in which politicians are increasingly dependent on wealthy donors, making them more likely to support neoliberal policies that benefit the rich.
Manufacturing Consent: The Role of Ideology
The process of conditioning the public to accept neoliberalism is not merely a matter of media influence or political lobbying. It is also an ideological project, in which the wealthy and powerful work to shape the way people think about the economy, society, and their own place within it. This process has been described by theorists like Antonio Gramsci as the “manufacture of consent,” in which dominant groups create a cultural and ideological framework that legitimises their power and prevents challenges to the status quo.
One of the most effective ways in which neoliberalism manufactures consent is by promoting the idea of meritocracy. According to this ideology, individuals succeed or fail based on their own abilities and effort, rather than structural factors like class, race, or gender. This idea is particularly appealing in societies like the United States and the United Kingdom, where the myth of the “self-made man” is deeply ingrained in the national consciousness. By promoting the idea that anyone can succeed if they work hard enough, neoliberalism obscures the ways in which wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few. As sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argues, meritocracy is “the most effective form of conservative thought, because it denies the existence of inequality while simultaneously legitimising it” (Bourdieu, 1998).
In addition to meritocracy, neoliberalism also promotes the idea of individual freedom as the highest social good. By framing government intervention as a threat to personal liberty, neoliberalism creates a powerful rhetorical tool for opposing socialism and other forms of state intervention in the economy. This appeal to freedom is particularly effective in societies with a strong liberal tradition, where individual rights and personal autonomy are highly valued. However, as political theorist Wendy Brown points out, neoliberalism’s version of freedom is deeply paradoxical: it celebrates individual choice and autonomy while simultaneously undermining the collective institutions—such as labour unions, public healthcare, and social welfare programs—that make real freedom possible for most people (Brown, 2015).
The rich and powerful crave neoliberalism because it serves their interests in maintaining and expanding their wealth and power. By promoting policies of deregulation, privatisation, and tax cuts for the wealthy, neoliberalism allows the elite to accumulate more wealth with minimal interference from the state. At the same time, neoliberalism provides a moral and ideological justification for inequality, framing it as the natural outcome of individual effort and market forces.
In contrast, socialism and egalitarian policies challenge the concentration of wealth and power, proposing a more equitable distribution of resources and greater democratic control over the economy. For the wealthy, these policies represent a direct threat to their privilege, which is why they are quick to dismiss them as impractical or dangerous.
The elites do not simply oppose socialism; they actively work to condition the public to accept neoliberalism as the only viable economic system. Through control of the media, influence over education, funding of think tanks, and political lobbying, the rich and powerful shape public opinion in ways that favour their interests. By promoting ideologies of meritocracy and individual freedom, neoliberalism manufactures consent for a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many.
In the words of George Orwell, “The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” Neoliberalism has become so deeply entrenched in the fabric of modern society that challenging it can seem impossible. Yet as inequality continues to rise and the failures of neoliberal policies become increasingly apparent, the need for alternative visions of society becomes ever more urgent.
KEEP US ALIVE and join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg AND SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
