This article is so far from reality that I don’t actually know where to start, but I will give it a shot.

(i) Under the slogan “the people of the world against neo-liberalism and for peace” the conference was brimming with ideas”

And yet it is precisly the liberalisation of their market that has brought them the trade and money (and therefore the tax) that they are gaining.

(ii) “huge level of experience in mobilising vast swathes of the population against free-market orthodoxy.”

Sounds like indoctrination to me. Shouldn’t people learn the difference and then make their own decision rather than have a govt. ‘mobilise’ the population?

(iii) “Today in Latin America, progressive governments predominate and ideas hold sway that have long been marginalized amongst the centre-left in Europe such as nationalising strategic economic sectors to foster social development.”

What a load of twaddle. The nationalisation of South America’s industries has caused massive FDI problems. What you also fail to point out is that South America is ravaged by some of the worst inflation any where in the world plunging millions into poverty. The govt’s interference in monetary policy in order to make their trade attractive and give them the trade that has grown their economies so quickly is exactly what has caused the problems.

(iv) “This shift stems from people’s struggles and experiences gained over thirty years. First this was against dictatorships and then against brutal free-market “shock therapy” that outstrips anything even currently seen in Europe.”

Don’t be thick. Seriously read some of the history of South America and you will realise it was dictatorships as you point out, but what you also fail to state is that an economic system such as free trade will simply not work with a dictatorship. The very idea requires a small state, so how do you suppose that these ideas are compatible with a dictator??? Just because someone calls themselves ‘right’ doesn’t mean their policies follow suit.

(v) “As former Brazilian President Lula said in his message to the Forum: “Progressive governments are changing the face of Latin America. Thanks to them, our continent is developing rapidly, with economic growth, job creation, distribution of wealth and social inclusion. Today, we are an international reference of successful alternative for neo-liberalism””

No it isn’t. It is exactly because they have allowed investment and liberalised their markets to foreign buyers that has grown.

(vi) “Take Venezuela: neo-liberalism left the country poorer in income per head in 1998, when President Hugo Chavez was first elected, than it had been in 1960. Today poverty, which once peaked at 70%, has been slashed. ”

WHAT?!?!!? this seems to suggest that Hugo Chevez is a good leader. Please tell me you are not suggesting this.

(vii) “Its ongoing challenge to neo-liberal austerity includes a staggering 250,000 social houses being built in the last 18 months as part of a huge fiscal stimulus that has got the economy back on track after worldwide recession hit it hard.”

Yes and tell me where they get the money? Go on…

(viii) “Far from the old stereotypes, today Latin America should be considered the most advanced place in the world for progressive politics. European progressives have everything to gain by learning from this development.”

HAHAHA, you are joking now. Please, seriously go away. What you have again failed to mention is that South America is horrifically violent, terribly poor, ravaged by high inflation, no/very little political freedom where to express a differing policitcal view lands you in prison. Please take your false god praising elsewhere. Get out of the “economic forums” chaired by well to do idle socialist academics and try taking a walk around a Brazilian favela, or post a policitcal message in Venezuela.

When I visited Sao Paulo last year on business, a 10-year old offered to shine my shoes in a bar in the business district at midnight. Clearly very progressive, as was the Fuvella (slum) we passed each day on the way to the exhibition centre, which is where he probably lives. We also visited several factories, which were all owned by multi-nationals. When I tried to locate Brazilian-owned and run companies in the exhibition, I could only find one out of hundreds of exhibitors. Other than that, the local TV consisted mostly of unbelievable violence and drug crimes. I don’t think we have much to learn.

Can all Latin American countries really be said to offer us a better example of a more centrist way to run our affairs than the Scandinavian example? Or even the German example?

Within Europe, we British have embraced the neo-liberal message more than most of our neighbours.

I’m not sure whether you can really use most Latin American countries as an example of successful leftist policies quite yet, but we should certainly keep a close eye on such a dynamic part of the world.

@3. mcneilio

I agree. As I posted above I believe South America to be a terrible example of governmental systems. It is interesting, the level of growth, but it could be explained by what often happens in under developed countries which is a little growth can have a disproportionate result on growth when you are starting out with very little. It is why Nigeria for instance has seen such huge growth.

I would however point out this “socialist Scandanavia” myth. The model often pointed to in this area is Sweden, and yes, while they have high marginal tax rates and a relatively large public services sector there are a few things worth pointing out to demonstrate why Sweden is not as socialist as people think.

In the early 90′s Sweden abolished ALL farming subsidies

In the mid 90′s they deregulated the electricity market allowing private companies to enter.

Telecoms, post, and transport now has huge private sector input. Many businesses in these areas being completely private.

Sweden also did something very clever which was to introduce a school voucher system where a parent can choose where to send their child. All the bad schools ran out of pupils and shut, the good ones prospered.

Lots of the healthcare is now in private hands, in particular the supply of after services and equipment. In fact one of the hospitals in Stockholm is a private company.

Swedens corp tax is a relatively low 28%, lower than the majority of Europe.

Most state monopolies have been torn down, and a chunk of their nuclear power is actually run by a German company.

There is no legal minimum wage and almost no retail open hours regulation.

Pensions are often linked to the performance of the economy.

As you can see there is actually very little that is socialist about the Swedish economy, and their success has only really come since implementing these measures. There will continue to reform and I would expect to see marginal tax rates lower in the coming decade as their economy continues to strengthen. Having said that investment and high earners can already protect themselves by that relatively low corp. tax rate. Indeed, Sweden’s model is one that SHOULD be followed. It has shown that the liberalisation of their market has done them well.

Good article, and I agree with the thrust. I love the way commenters above seem to feel insulted that they could possibly learn from those Latin Americans: ‘but they’ve got slums, so we can’t learn a thing from ‘em’! Well so does the USA, would you say there’s nothing to learn from the whole country because of this?

I’m in Latin America, and whilst galliantly trying to ignore the vast majority of your trolling @freeman, I can tell you that in the country I’m in, Venezuela, and those others not currently suffering from right-wing military coups, I can say what I like. Indeed, the main papers are virulently right wing in Venezuela, and against Chavez, being like ours owned by billionaire oligarchs. Tell me, is that exactly the same as in North Korea, or pretty different, would you say?

What I’m learning from being here is directly relevant to our problem now in Britain. The new Venezuelan constitution of 1999 mandated a mixture of participatory direct democracy and representative democracy. There are 2 branches of state, in addition to judiciary, executive and legislature, aimed at protecting citizens in their relations with the State, ensuring that ALL elected mandates are revocable (yes they have rights we don’t have yet in UK) and ensuring participatory democracy and consultation is protected.

In practice government extension of social welfare into areas: health, literacy, higher education, housing etc all takes the form of firstly the government assessing need, then the government saying to local communities that they need to organise themselves democratically locally into, e.g. a citizens heath committee, or a community land committee, to decide how the money should be spent and to come up with both the problems in their local community related to that policy area and the resolutions to the problems themselves.

These organisations outlast the distribution of resources, and so deeply strengthen civil society and citizen organisation. They oversee the provision of the services in the long term, so communities are in control of the resources they need. In the case of the citizen’s land committees (for the regulariation of tenures for slum dwellers), there is already a network of 6000 of these, independent of the state, that now wields considerable power. They also avoid the overly bureaucratised, top down provision of public services that can lead to people a) people not seeing their services as something that they fought for and need to fight for still, a political issue, sadly enabling the Tories to come along and sell em all off pretty easily, and b) bad decisions like brutalist housing estates that were not built with their inhabitants full needs, preferences and indeed humanity and aesthetic preferences in mind.

So social welfare provision is done as a ‘protagonist democracy’: i.e. people have direct democratic control over resources and are involved in the formulation of policy and the running of the state. Of course it’s not perfect but it’s a damn sight more democratic than the UK. Citizen ‘protagonism’ encourages people to defend services when governments of millionaires try to take them away, as is happening in the UK. So I think we can learn a great deal from Venezuela, and indeed the continent-wide social movements that gave birth to these policies and principles.

I’ll have a stab at this from a lefty perspective for a laugh.

The 2 places you mention are Brazil and Venezuela.

- We have lower infant mortality rates, a proxy for poverty levels.

- A more stable middle-class.

- A higher minimum wage.

- No Brazilian style slums and street children.

- Fewer New Left terrorists and rebels.

- More generous state pensions.

- Less rightwing extremism

- More generous benefits

- The poor and hungry (and asylum seekers) generally migrate or flee to Western Europe, not Chavez Land or Brazil (except in the case of Nazis and Ken).

- People live longer

- A free press (and media) which can and does attack the goverment. This is not the case in Chavez land according to according to absolutely every neutral monitoring group you will find, such as Freedom House.

Scrap the last point as I don’t think the OP much cares about that one.

*1 is correct on the issue of Brazil. Brazil is one of the new emerging economies precisely because it embraced the WTO/’neoliberal’ agenda. Nothing knew about this, Chile was the same for a while with far less resources and starting from an even lower level. Never got the credit for it because of the butcher Pinochet.

Wow, I’m going to have to quote you directly on this, @tory:

‘We have lower infant mortality rates, a proxy for poverty levels.’

Hmmm, what might be the problem with that argument?

Right. Can we proceed on the assumption that unlike you everyone else is well aware that most countries of Latin America are developing countries with much lower levels of per capita GDP than the UK?

People are fleeing Venezuela by the thousand every year, terrified for the safety of their families in a country where homicide rates are through the roof, home invasions are increasingly commonplace & the economy is in disarray. The neo-liberals whom Chavez replaced were a disaster for the country, but he has simply swapped this for economic instability and social unrest. Whatever the answer is, is cannot be him.

@Reallyfree : you clearly have a lot of information about Venezuela, but you sound very British. May I ask what your role in Venezuela actually is and how you come to be there?

@7

Which proves how much better Venezuala is?

Lets assume for one second that unlike you, I don’t immediately assume Venezuala having having lower GDP per capita is someone elses fault.

If we’re gonna compare Latin America to the UK it’s important to recognise that we’re moving in one direction and they’re moving in an altogether different one.

It is no coincidence that after rejecting the central tenets of neoliberalism the states of South America, in a spirit of cooperation and free from US interference, are at last developing along more egalitarian lines, reducing poverty and increasing citizen participation in politics. Not bad for a continent ravaged by US-backed maniacal right wing fascist juntas barely 20 years ago.

The UK on the other hand is currently on a hurtling decent into neoliberal hell. The author is right we do have a lot to learn from Latin America, principally that neoliberalism doesn’t work, never has, never will. If anyone is thinking of visiting Brazil then you should consider visiting a Favela (or Fuvella as Northern Worker refers to them) because that’s the future.

Let’s be clear this turbo-charged neoliberalism will result in:
-Spiralling inequality
-Increased infant mortality rates
-A shrinking and anxious middle class
-A decreasing minimum wage
-Return to cardboard cities
-Increase in urban violence and rioting
-More right wing extremism scapegoating muslims, blacks, asians, homosexuals, trade unions, jews, catholics, lefties, penguins, badgers
-The declining value of state pensions
-Cuts to benefits
-Decreasing life expectancy

Neoliberalism will turn the UK into a 3rd world country, cutting spending on education and health will make your population more ignorant and sickly. Remember though, as you marvel and wonder at the collective stupidity and lack of responsibility don’t get too close to the funeral pyre.

The varied corporate sociopaths that have ruined this country are terrified of what is happening in south america because they know that as their house of cards crumbles it will eventually be coming here.
Hence the pig ignorant and idiotic comments btl.

@11. LC Prestes

Firstly, the term ‘neo-liberalism’ doesn’t exist, it is simply liberalism. Unless you are trying to discredit through the rather unsavory term ‘neo’.

Secondly, if it is such a terrible system perhaps you could explain why Hong Kong is such a nice place to live. There aren’t people dying from easily treatable diseases, there are no ferral children running the streets being shot by the ‘rich’, and children have an education standard far in excess of Britain. So yes while the Sino-British joint declaration has protected the future of Hong Kong’s economy at least until 2047 it seems to suggest that the free market has served Hong Kong pretty well (apart from unchecked immigration from China, which was not included in the declaration). Along with the fact that there has been an 800 fold increase in real GDP in the last 150 years (one of the highest in the world), there is 3% unemployment at the moment (during the crash it peaked at 5%).

As for the list you provide. Almost all of it is wrong. Please actually research the figures and you will discover that it is almost the opposite in every instance you bring up.

Yes, because lessons drawn from a tiny mercantile city state that has been used as a trading post by the biggest imeprial economies of the world are really applicable anywhere elese arent they?

Oh dear.

@ 13 Firstly, the term ‘neo-liberalism’ doesn’t exist

That’s odd. Because it gets 950,000 hits on Google and another 2.5 million without the hyphen. Plus there’s a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberalism

For a non-existent term it’s certainly used by a lot of people!

Neoliberalism doesn’t exist? Did the Washington Consensus exist? Anyway, that’s a bit existentialist but I can see why you’re making a category error and deliberately confusing capitalism (responsible or otherwise) with the often contradictory policies of the Friedman school and it’s law of the jungle’ (neo)liberalism. Nice try.
Remember, even those on the left in Latin America concede that while (neo)liberal economic policies (usually imposed by unelected technocrats supported by murderous right wing dictatorships) did sometimes result in often impressive if unsustainable growth figures (Brasil 64-70, Chile 1982-) this was vertical development at a massive social cost (sound familiar? because it should do).
As a result since around 2000 onwards citizens of the South America states (with the exception of Colombia that paragon of virtue, freedom and stability) have firmly rejected (neo) liberalism if favour of governments of the left. Since 2000 from the southern tip of the continent to the Caribbean leftist governments have rolled out policies squarely aimed at redistribution. This primary role of the state is a fundamental rejection of (neo)liberalism with the state playing a key role in policies aimed at reducing inequality.
This is the most important thing we have to learn from Latin America; INEQUALITY DOES MATTER and the state does have fundamental role to play in reducing inequality because spiralling inequality will result in mayhem, violence, poverty and instability.

I totally agree @16. LC Prestes, inequality is important (and bloody nightmarish still in Latin America, but at least the Left governments are going in the right direction on it.) I also think that what Venezuela, and to a certain extent Brazil, Bolivia, Equador and others teach us, is that gains in more equality, poverty reduction, literacy, health and all those other nice things that @tory above loves, will only be sustainable if they are put in place in a participatory and democratic way.

I think one of the lesson’s of New Labour’s modest but nonetheless crucial investments in public services, reductions in poverty through tax credits and Sure Start, is that they have been very easy for the @tories of this world to dismantle, because they were not made protagonistically by social movements of people, and so were not defended by anyone once the attack came.They put in place by a patrician Labour Party that is not controlled social movements any more, does not have internal democracy, does not involve people fundamentally in the implementation of social policies. As people were not involved, they do not consider it their political fight to defend the gains they made.

I think the Labour Party could learn from Venezuela, by ensuring that as many of the people as possible at a local level are democratically engaged in the decision making and implementation of any dispersal of increased social welfare. Then the Tories would struggle so much more to tear them down. As my favourite British politician ever Nye Bevan said, ‘The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it’.

I think what people mean when they say that neo-liberal economics do not exist it is in response to how some on the left use the term as a generic catch-all slogan for things they do not like. Contact an economics dept. in any UK or US university and ask how many neo-liberal economics courses they run and the answer will be none. What does exist are economic reforms that disparate nations have undertaken over the last forty years to varying degrees. What does not exist is the imagined neoliberalism.

Rather than using generic terms that only confuses it aids clarity if people say exactly what it is they oppose. If you are against free trade say that you are against it and would rather see tariff unfree trade. Likewise with the free movement of capital across borders, just say you are in favour of capital controls. If the issue is the privatisations of state utilities and industries say that is what you oppose. Same thing with managed or free floating currencies. Just saying you are against neoliberalism would suggest that the writer is against any economic reforms in that direction anywhere, at all times. That would be absurd as virtually every nation on earth has reformed in varying degrees in those directions. Brazil is more successful than Venezuela because they have reformed more in directions that Venezuela has not. Even Cuba are trying to reduce their government sector share of the economy and build up the private sector share.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2010/0912/comm/kline_cuba.html

Policies to reduce inequality are perfectly valid things for governments to do. I doubt whether many people actually support inequality per se. Inequality is the default state of humanity because we are not all born with equal abilities. However, people will have different views on how successful policies to reduce inequality will be, that does not mean they support inequality.

Latin America is doing better than previously precisely because they did reform. Those who reformed the most are doing best. However, It would not be very meaningful just to look at individual LA countries in a before and after situation. What matters for comparison is how a nation is doing in comparison to its immediate neighbours.

@18 Richard W,

‘Inequality is the default state of humanity because we are not all born with equal abilities.’

No it’s not. Unequal social outcomes are almost entirely unrelated to ability. The social factor that determines outcomes is generally the class you were born into and in more unequal countries this is more so. See ‘The Spirit Level’ but surprised anyone still believes what you said, it’s completely without basis in evidence.

‘Latin America is doing better than previously precisely because they did reform. Those who reformed the most are doing best.’

Opposite of the truth. Latin America lost a decade to zero or in many cases negative growth after swallowing the Washington Concensus. Growth was more than double (mainly much more) both before (1945-60) AND after (2000 onwards) the ridiculous neoliberal experiment you nefariously call ‘reform’.