I don't see the end of the neoliberal period in the maelstrom which
gathers populists/Trump/Qanon activists. They still behave in a
conservative way: guns, religion, free-market capitalism, climate change
denial, covid harshness denial, cult of the leader, economical
colonialism, etc.
Jean, if we simply define neoliberalism as capitalism, then nothing has changed. And if we measure the Zeitgeist by the side that just lost, well, they don't even think they lost...
It's different if you look at it in political-economy terms. From that angle, neoliberalism as a specific doctrine - formerly called "the Washington Consensus" - began its decline in 2008, and that decline continues. Continuous reduction of trade tariffs, strong currencies bought at the price of fiscal austerity, multilateral negotiation on all international issues and international military collaboration brought to its height by the first Gulf War and patched up in Afghanistan later on - these are some of the key traits. All of those have ceased to function as they did at their peak. Crucially, the central banks of all major powers started to print money after 2008 (Europe finally accepted to do this rather recently) and now, in the US, the new administration in the voice of the country's most official ever economist, Larry Summers, has declared that rising debt does not cause inflation and therefore that essentially unlimited money can and will be spent. Goodbye, Washington Consensus! This approach will inevitably be taken by all the other countries and blocs (which have mostly already started down that road) and the result will be, in my best projection, at least as great a sea change in the global economy as was experienced in the early 1980s, when the policy package and business model of neoliberalism was invented.
The groundswell that Trump rode to power was nationalist and anti-neoliberal. As president, Trump stoked the nationalist demand while continuing to carry out the neoliberal program through tax cuts, deregulation and curtailment of social services. However this contradiction at the heart of his presidency is now tearing the Republican party apart, and the damage that neoliberalism has done makes further neoliberalization impossible for the Democrats, even though they are the ones who brought that policy package to its culmination under Clinton (remember the Clinton/Shroeder/Blair era). This is not just about the US, but it might be safe to say that the decline in US power and prestige is itself a facet of the global retreat from neoliberalism. The rising prestige of China, with its controlled currency and state-guided economy, is another one (which is in the process of becoming a real nightmare under Xi). As yet, no new consensus model has appeared, but that may begin happening this year, so be alert!
How all this unfolds is not only something to observe, but something to fight for. Particularly important is how the financial markets evolve. At the outset of the pandemic, as after 2008, the US Treasury made large amounts of US dollars available to around fifteen major countries, so they could maintain their dollar reserves despite their citizens trying to buy all the dollars they could. This was a deliberate effort to preserve neoliberal globalization and surely those efforts are not over, so the trend lines I am pointing to could still be reversed. So far, one of the outstanding contradictions of the new regime is that socialized national money props up a thoroughly privatized, stateless circulation system accessible only to elites. In short, the battle over the future of the money-form is underway.
As a nettime reader, interested by net and digital culture, I have
studied the power of social networks algorithms on the sudden emergence
of Gilets Jaunes in France. Gilets Jaunes movement is almost identically
composed by the same items we see in US, apart from some national
cultural particularities: distrust of the political class, feeling of
social downgrading, feeling of territorial abandonment, decline in
purchasing power, specially for working class and low/middle class,
ideas mixed with all fake news and comploting theories.
This is totally interesting and I would like to know more. I share your analysis, except for me it's just an opinion, a feeling. I also have the impression that there is a lot more intermixing between the Gilets Jaunes and the far left/anarchist sectors than here, but anyway, it's all a result of the plunder that elites and the upper middle classes have carried out over the last four decades, no wonder the people revolt. Europeans really need to understand these similarities. Merkel is holding the lid on the pot in Germany...
The first struggle to build in my opinion, is the struggle against
social networks, and at the same time, the promotion of the use and
build of other alternatives ( existing or to by built) for press, local
direct democracy, information and education.
I am certain everyone agrees with you about GAFAM, another entirely characteristic neoliberal phenomenon whose contradictions have just exploded in our faces over here. Democracy as collective self-governance basically works - to the extent it ever does work - when different groups of people achieve consensus and even some degree of common purpose by peaceful, procedural deliberation. As that ideal breaks down, all social media can do is enflame passions, and then feed parasitically off the attention-storm. There is no chance for an individual or small group to find out what he/she/they believe - instead their hot button is pushed. It's a formula for civil war and it has gotten close to delivering that. Meantime Jack Dorsey regrets banning Trump (I think the employees forced him) and he dreams of stateless currency and freedom without responsibility. I think the reason that we all remain on nettime is that occasionally we can have a real debate here. At the same time, the McAlevey position is right as far as I can see, and yours is too. Without more cross-class local involvement at the neighborhood and institutional levels, one ends up stuck in an electronic echo-chamber. I think that kind of involvement has to climb the ladder of civil society, working through the NGOs and levels of government as all successful activism does. No country is ever governed by popular power alone, because it takes specialized political and pundit classes just to perceive what is happening in a large country, and it takes specialization to carry out all advanced technical operations. Nonetheless, democratic or egalitarian change has to start with the formation of political demands at the grassroots. In Chicago if you are not connected to a neighborhood org you are nothing. It's a terrifying city, but the political activism is very impressive.
all the best, Brian