Neo-Liberalism as Tragedy and Farce

Love him or hate him, agree with him or otherwise, it would be hard not to at least acknowledge that Slavoj Zizek makes you think. Zizek’s work, discussed among academics and lay intellectuals alike, often deploys a remarkable talent for dialectical thinking through explosive, sometime infuriating, engagements with received dogma.

Zizek's latest offering, a book called First as Tragedy, Then as Farce (2009), is a sobering analysis of neo-liberal economics and the ideological 'faith' that supports it. Much to the dismay of many elite power-brokers, Zizek's exposition and deconstruction of the policies and philosophy of neo-liberalism leaves no doubt as to the emptiness and pathological ignorance adhered to by its loudest and most powerful proponents.

With eloquence, wit and brief, but insightful, case studies, Zizek identifies two historic turning points that render neo-liberal practice and ideology bankrupt. Zizek convincingly argues that both the World Trade Center attacks of 9/11 and the economic crisis almost exactly seven years later were symptomatic of the definitive collapse of neoliberalism's alleged authority.

The attacks of 9/11, Zizek contends, exploded Francis Fukuyama's notion of 'End of History', with its naive faith in universal and unchallenged liberal capitalism. Next Zizek shows how the global economic crisis of recent years shattered the same doctrine's credibility in the economic sphere. As Zizek explains, the first event is the tragedy, the second is its farcical companion.

Zizek writes:

"It thus seems that Fukuyama’s utopia of the 1990s had to die twice, since the collapse of the liberal-democratic political utopia on 9/11 did not affect the economic utopia of global market capitalism; if the 2008 financial meltdown has a historical meaning then, it is as a sign of the end of the economic face of Fukuyama’s dream."

It may have been Fukuyama’s dream, but instead millions of people around the planet have lived the nightmarish consequences of the neo-liberal policies guiding massive international institutions to genocidal proportions.

Like Zizek, I interpret the 9/11 attacks and 2008 global economic crisis as symptomatic of just how morally impoverished and technically incompetent neo-liberalism has proved itself to be, but those two events were not the only effects, and certainly not the only symptoms, of the current pathological monetary regimes and governance institutions.

From Equador to Indonesia, and Mexico to Africa, powerful Anglo-American based elites continue to intervene and "restructure" the lives of millions of people, on both national and local levels - with devastating effects. In fact, the utter insanity of neo-liberal economic practices have been apparent for several years to anyone interested enough to look into how people’s lived have been materially and psychologically impacted by what has been going on everywhere, for over 20 years. Famine, inflation, political corruption and the auctioning of indigenous resources to multi-national corporations has become standard practice in regions all over the planet.

The vast gulf in resources and life-experiences between the rich and the overwhelming impoverished and dependant majority of humans on this planet is the literal truth and outcome of neoliberal capitalism.

Zizek goes on to link contemporary geopolitical divisions and tensions - what he calls the "new walls", both literal and metaphorical - to the awesome and terrible inequality of wealth and power in the world today. Evidenced, Zizek argues, in the way the hyper-rich elites devise ways to literally separate and seclude themselves from the masses and from the gross realities of the wider world.

As Zizek writes:

"The city that best embodies that division is Sao Paulo in Lula’s Brazil, which boasts 250 heliports in its downtown area... a futuristic megalopolis of the kind pictured in films such as Blade Runner or The Fifth Element, with ordinary people swarming through dangerous streets down below, whilst the rich float around on a higher level, up in the air."

Zizek argues that in order for civilization to retain any semblance of justice and equality that major challenges to the whole system are now absolutely necessary. He deftly demolishes current arguments that contemporary state intervention can be dubbed 'socialist' in any meaningful sense, and deconstructs the politics behind recent instances of intervention: 'there is nothing new with regard to strong state intervention in the banking system or in the economy in general... political decisions are weaved into the very texture of international economic relations'. He reminds the reader that 'market configurations are always regulated by political decisions', so it's no simple question of whether to intervene or not. He correctly concludes: 'The true dilemma is thus not “Should the state intervene?” but “What kind of state intervention is necessary?”

One of the central messages in the book is Zizek's challenge to the so-called New Left to confront the crisis of capitalism head on – with no apologies necessary. It is the Left's responsibility, Zikek argues, to articulate alternative demands that challenge the logic of capitalist systems, and begin to force very different priorities on to the agenda. In the second half of the book he even attempts to reformulate the relevance of the 'idea of communism' in today’s crisis ridden world, by stressing the implications and ideological role of climate change for likely future resistance.

And I agree with Zizek, that, as of today, unfortunately, this has not been the main response to crisis, partly (as Zizek recognises) because other reactionary cultural currents - like populist racism, protectionism and deep despair - are at work too, but also because of the glaring weaknesses in left-wing and radical thinking. He writes:

"There is a real possibility that the main victim of the ongoing crisis will not be capitalism but the Left itself, insofar as its inability to offer a viable global alternative was again made visible to everyone. It was the Left which was effectively caught out. It is as if recent events were staged with a calculated risk in order to demonstrate that, even at a time of shattering crisis, there is no viable alternative to capitalism."

Different stories are being told about what caused our current catastrophes: where fault lies, what could be done differently. But it should be the role and responsibility of all radicals, moralists and 'progressives' to take up the challenge Zizek and others so clearly articulate.

There is a battle going on everywhere – and yet we lack the necessary tactical and ideological alternatives which might challenge the deep structure of contemporary society. We can certainly expect that the interlocking crises of unstable economies, fragile imperialist power and ecological catastrophe will provide ample opportunity for the creation of several local and networked forms of resistance - but we can be less certain about how this will play out. Much will depend upon the abilities and willingness of people all over the planet to create and engage in new forms of life - and, perhaps more significantly, to risk their security in ways formerly unimaginable.

Without a coherent and forceful alternative response, in both direct action as well as ideological translation, the danger is thus that the predominant narratives of our current planetary situation will be those which, instead of awakening us from our dreams, will actually serve to perpetuate and deepen the overall realities of our darkest nightmares.