Neoliberalism's Demons by Adam Kotsko
Some quick thoughts having read Neoliberalism’s Demons: On the Political Theology of Late Capital by Adam Kotsko.
Political Theology
Kotsko takes a novel look at neoliberalism, expanding on Carl Schmitt’s ideas of political theology. Kotsko’s political theology is to enquire into the ways human communities try to justify their structures of governance (the political problem of legitimacy) and make sense of their experience of suffering and injustice (the theological problem of evil).
Kotsko criticises other approaches that have examined neoliberalism, such as in the works of David Harvey (Marxist) and Wendy Brown (Foucauldian) which prop up an arbitrary distinction between the “political” and the “economic.” Marxist accounts are “an economic-reductionist account” that “ignores the decisive role of the state in the development of the neoliberal order”. Wendy Brown’s account pits “neoliberal economics” against the “political” as two opposing forces. Political theology stresses that the political and economic are intrinsically entwined - not necessarily opposite poles. “Neoliberalism” is not merely “economics” but a “complete way of life and holistic worldview, in a way that previous modes of capitalism [was] not”: it is a political agenda, a moral ethos and economic doctrine in one.
Neoliberalism
Kotsko provides what I think is a very fair definition of neoliberalism:
advocates of neoliberalism realised there could be no simple question of a “return” to the laissez-faire model. Rather than simply getting the state “out of the way”, they both deployed and transformed state power, including the institutions of the welfare state, to reshape society in accordance with market models. In some cases this meant creating markets where none had previously existed… in others it took the form of a more general spread of a competitive market ethos into ever more areas of life… Whereas classical liberalism insisted that capitalism had to be allowed free rein within its sphere, under neoliberalism capitalism no longer has a set sphere.
Neoliberalism is not a naive libertarianism but the product of an active, interventionist state that creates and maintains competitive markets. One microcosm example provided of the neoliberal logic at work is that of Obamacare - rather than simply providing health insurance, the state created a healthcare market, managed the rules of that market, and even mandated participation in the market.
The Stages of Neoliberalism
Kotsko uses political theology’s idea of “genealogies” to map an evolution of neoliberalism: Combative Neoliberalism - during the Reagan era anxieties over socialism, changing gender norms, and shifting racial hierarchies were used to dismantle the welfare state of the preceding decades Normative Neoliberalism - in the 1990s-2000s, neoliberalism no longer needed to justify itself, but was taken as a priori - normative questions of fairness, reward and recognition could all be solved through the logic of the market Punitive Neoliberalism - following the GFC, the moralising of neoliberalism returned in the form of the Tea Party, which was not just focused on “good” economics but making sure people suffered for their poor choices.
Lastly, we see the emergence of a Neoliberal Reaction - in the Trump era we see a “heretical” reaction against the neoliberal order. Kotsko frames this as heresy rather than heathenism because its proponents still hold key a number of core neoliberal values. Trumpists still believe in the meritocratic narrative of the free market, which means their loss “must” be the result of people not playing fair. China is manipulating its currency, Mexicans are “stealing” jobs. Corrections need to be made in order to make this a true fair, competitive market (and we will know when it is a fair competition when White Straight Male Americans find themselves in their rightful place at the top).
Criticism
I find Kotsko’s argument fair and somewhat compelling, until a point. While he carefully defines neoliberalism, part way through the book he adds the concept of neoconservatism, but never properly defines this. The result is an utter confusion, where neoconservatism is at times seen as part of the neoliberal project, at times opposed, at times synonymous with “reactionary Christians” and at times reflecting the likes of the Bush administration. The distinction between “conservative” and “neoconservative” seems utterly unclear to me, and at times I think he is just using the term to denote “Republicans from the 1990s and 2000s”
It would be far more useful, and in my mind accurate to see the different eras of neoliberalism discussed above as not distinct phases, but overlapping movements. I.e. the combative neoliberals didn’t simply disappear or morph into normative neoliberals, but existed alongside them, perhaps in a less dominant position until they were reinvigorated as “punitive neoliberals”.
#Concluding thoughts The book is interesting, and has good criticisms of Arendt, some contemporary Marxists, and Foucauldians. I’m not entirely convinced by “political theology” which at times feels more like an excuse to use religious metaphors than actually aiding analysis. The neoconservativism confusion I think really undermines the book. Nonetheless, it is a quick read (<150 pages) and has some valuable insights.