Geo Written #2

Explain the transition from Fordism to Neoliberalism. 

Fordism is the concept of capitalism based on mass production for mass consumption. While neoliberalism is a new form of liberalism that supports free markets and markets that have no government intervention. The transition began when fordism entered an economic crisis, specifically a profit squeeze crisis. Which is when companies are making less profit because inflation and unemployment are both rising at the same time. This crisis was blamed on labor unions because they were protesting for higher wages, which in result forced companies to increase price of products. When neoliberalism returned so did class power, which widened inequality because more money was flowing to the ownership class at the expense of the working class. 

Some argue Fordism was a “golden age” of capitalism with relative equality between capital and labor, and should have continued. Some argue it was always a flawed regime of capitalism because it created the conditions for neoliberalism. Which side of this debate do you side with? Explain your position using at least three examples. 

I agree with the idea that fordism was the “golden age” of capitalism because it protected union rights and voices, improved employment rates, and made housing available. 

1. The first example of fordism being golden was the treaty of Detroit. This was when big auto companies made a peace deal with labor unions granting higher wages, benefits, and in return they would strike less. This was the only point in history when inequality went down and productivity and wages went up. This highlights how unions were being protected enough to make benefits to worker rights but also to the company. In large neoliberal companies workers who strike can face consequences of being fired which shows why fordism was positive. 

2. A second example of fordism being golden is the use of taylorism and scientific management. This is when science was used to determine the most efficient labor process through division of labor. These highly specialized divisions made it so simple that anyone could do it. This allowed more employment opportunities because there were many jobs without prior skills needed to get hired. 

3. A third example of fordism being golden is that housing policy such as the homeowners loan corporation, made it much easier for the masses to afford homes. These policies and companies insured mortgages so that banks would grant loans to people. The amount of people able to move into suburban homes also paired with infrastire investments during this period, which build highways and roads to connect suburbs to the cities. All of this wouldn't be possible if fordism had not created so much economic growth to stabilize the economy and make loans and investments available.

Historically what did the process of dispossessing workers from the means of production look like (also called “proletarianization”)? 

The process of proletarianization was the movement of many people shifting from being self employed through the selling of their own products to becoming employed wage workers. Workers were not being physically forced into working through violence or coercion but now through invisible chains that heightened the anxiety to get a job to survive in society.

What two classes were destroyed by Proletarianation?

The first class that was destroyed was the peasants. They were disposed of from the land, therefore losing their livelihood because they had no way to grow crops or collect resources to sell and earn a living. The second class that was destroyed was artisans, they lost their ability to own their own tools. By this I mean their small unique handmade pieces take much longer to craft and cant compete with large companies who are mass producing. They become helpless and must sell their small business to larger ones, becoming wage workers. 

Please give at least three examples of Proletarianization

1. Enclosures are an example of the peasant class losing their land. The government created enclosures that took away common shared lands that were full of forests that had resources and provided the land to government use.

2. In my town an example of artisans going through this process is a family run hotdog and burger restaurant Casesys had to close down because they couldn't compete with the popular franchises such as Mcdonalds and Five Guys. This shows how independent workers producing their own products, self employing themselves for money lost their livelihood and had to lose their restaurant and become wage workers at a different larger company.

3. Rural farmers and agricultural workers who had their land taken away from them then had to migrate to cities to find work. This was especially common in the area of industrialization when urbanization became popular because factories were booming. But city living was gross and contaminated, and extremely packed with over 50 people in one apartment. Which shows the desperation of people to get factory jobs.

Would you a prefer to “go back” to a society like the one before capitalism where workers controlled the means of production? Explain your position. 

I would prefer to go back to a society before capitalism because I am unfortunately very trend influenced. I like to be able to order things on Amazon and have them delivered the next day, if it was pre capitalism times it could take an artisan three weeks to make one shirt by hand. Although the quality is much lower when items are mass produced and everyone wears similar clothes it allows me to order more items for cheaper costs. When stores sell handmade items they're more expensive and less appealing to buy.

What is “class dealignment”? 

Class dealignment is the weakening link between a voter's social class and their political party. For example parties like the Democrats used to be the party of the working class with lots of blue collar and service sector workers. While the Republicans used to be seen as wealthy country club class people. But with class dealignment there was a shift in parties, democrats became more of the affluent educated workers and republicans became the blue collar workers.

How did it shape the rise of populist movements on both the Left and the Right of the political spectrum?

On the political spectrum de alignment shaped populist movements on the left and right side because of their social values. The left wing is more progressive believing in civil rights, anti guns, and pro choice. While the right wing is more reactionary promoting religious statements, pro life, and guns. They both believe in neoliberal hegemony and free trade with no government intervention, but they prioritize different industries and believe in different enemies. The left wing is huge in finance, entertainment, and legal professions, while the right wing prioritizes finance, extraction, and military production. Therefore the left wing points to billionaires or the 1% as the enemy, but the right wing blames globalsm (immigrants and offshoring) for issues. Class dealignment formed these beliefs on the political spectrum because both wings want to prioritize “their people” but the right wing sees “the people” as Americans vs everyone else. But the left wing sees “the people” based on economic inequality and how this divides citizens.

 Do you think neoliberalism is over or can it be recovered? Explain your position using at least three examples.

1. The volcker Shock is an example of show neoliberalism over and cant be recovered because this was a huge increase of unemployment wehn 2.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost as unionization fell off. With Trump and Ice making so many service workers too afraid to work, not only are companies unable to produce products but also a huge population of the economy isn't buying goods or spending. 

2. Markets and trade are no longer free, now there is tariff mercantilism. There are rule based markets with contracts and bargaining that add costs on imports and exports. This completely goes against the ideology of neoliberalism because markets are not neutral and certain countries will have more expensive tariffs based on relationships which makes the markets political rather than free to all

3. Military keynesianism is also making neoliberalism over because markets are being influenced based on government spending. For example defense spending is a stimulative aspect of the economy and is the leading sector. This changes markets because now capitalists who are profit oriented are only focused on the markets the government is prioritizing.