DOCSLIB.ORG

Authoritarian and Democratic Socialism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Authoritarian and Democratic Socialism MASTER'S THESIS M-1080 BOYKIN, Milton Lee. AUTHORITARIAN AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. The American University, M.A., 1967 Political Science, international law and relations University Microfilms. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan AUTHORITARIAN AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM by Milton Lee Boykin Submitted to the Faculty of the School of International Service of The American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Signatures of Committee ^-7 Chairman: Date : ‘T / 9 ■/> ~A Acting Dean of tne School ■ ' / Date: ^ /uviCiviu,j , LJBRARY October, 1966 | |g5g The American University WASHINGTON. D. C. Washington, D, C. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE ........ ................................. iv CHAPTER I. PRIMACY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR DEMOCRATIC MATURATION ........................... ...... 1 United Arab Republic's Approach ............... 4 Sweden's Approach ............................... 13 II. ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL OF POWER ........ 26 United Arab Republic . ............. ....31 Electorial System ............................. 31 Political Parties ..............33 Parliament ................. 36 Executive Authority .......................... 40 Sweden ..................... 43 Electorial System ..... .................. 43 Political Parties . .............45 Parliament ...................................50 Executive Authority .......................... 53 III. EFFECTIVENESS OF AUTHORITARIAN AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM—VALUE 5 7 United Arab Republic ....... ......... ..60 Agrarian Reform ........................60 H o u s i n g ......................................... 65 1X1 CHAPTER PAGE E d u c a t i o n .................... 67 Sweden 71 Agrarian Reform ........................... 71 H o u s i n g ............................... 75 Education ......................... 79 IV. CONCLUSION...................................... 82 EPILOGUE ...................... 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................. 93 PREFACE The increasing number of socialist states has caused concern among many who consider democratic socialism con­ tradictory and authoritarian socialism redundant. One witnesses the meticulous care given to the construction of constitutions, parliaments, and electorial systems, and then observes that these institutions rarely seem to func­ tion as designed. This proliferation of democratic insti­ tutions throughout the socialist world raises questions concerning their use. A study of socialism within a com­ parative context will permit us to see whether the socialist phenomenon really means the same thing in a divergent social and political situation. It is the thesis of the paper that socialism may be characterized by a democratic or authoritarian process. Without regressing into semantic quibblings about defini­ tions, several concrete problems are raised by this distinc­ tion. The first is to determine the point of departure or fundamental assumption permitting two different interpreta­ tions of socialism. The second concerns the organization and control of human relations within these two systems. And the third problem is to ascertain the effectiveness of authoritarian and democratic approaches to social change in terms of socialist goals and objectives. V A fundamental assumption separating authoritarian socialism from democratic socialism is the primacy of eco­ nomic factors or political systems. If economic factors are considered the exclusive determinants of a nation’s character, then all things are permissible in the name of economic development. If a political system is valued more than the reflection of economic interest, then one must concern himself with the means of achieving socio-political goals. Undoubtedly, there is an interaction between the economic development and political factors, but the empha­ sis each receives contributes significantly to the demo­ cratic or authoritarian orientation of a nation. A second problem is the organization and control of human relations as it is observed in two socialist coun­ tries. Indeed, what is the purpose and function of demo­ cratic institutions? The function of political institutions in an authoritarian socialist country is to promulgate the word of higher authority. Their purpose is to control public opinion and to make the masses more amenable to the voice of command. Such discipline is necessary to achieve the economic goals which will make men free from economic exploitation. In a democratic socialist system, political institutions function to control the central authority and direct the development of the society. They represent the voice of people free to choose among alternative means of Vi achieving their socio-political goals. Their purpose is to protect the individual not only from economic exploitation but from the abuses of political power. The third problem focuses attention on the effective­ ness of each system in terms of socialist goals and objec­ tives. Modern socialism has as its basis a demand for the reorganization of the existing order along more equali- tarian and humanistic lines. Possibly authoritarian socialism will be able to raise the standard of living and, in this way, achieve a degree of equalitarianism. It is unlikely that once this economic level is achieved that the system will be able to realize its humanistic goals. The colonialist and feudal landlords can be forcedly expelled by authoritarian means. This method is not effective in creating a political system which encourages the realiza­ tion of individual potentiality. Democratic socialism is able to cope with the economic abuses using evolutionary reforms and, at the same time, maintain an open society which promotes individual freedom. It recognizes that equality of opportunity is necessary but may be rendered useless by political oppressions. Christian Bay points out the "feasibility of analysing political development in some countries in terms vii of valuable outcomes achieved in others,"^ Since the non- West has been pressed with two powerful alternatives to modernization, capitalism and communism, perhaps a less- ostentatious yet highly-successful comparison is in order. The following study is a description of the resem­ blances and differences between several similar institutions and developments in the United Arab Republic and Sweden. The socialism of the United Arab Republic represents au­ thoritarian socialism, and the socialism of Sweden illus­ trates democratic socialism. The discussion of these two models of applied socialism is intended to clarify the problems raised by the distinction between democratic and authoritarian socialism in Western and non-Western settings. Before engaging in a comparative study, it is appro­ priate that some attention be given to methodology. Com­ parative government has been a traditiohal approach to 2 political theory since Aristotle’s Politics. The classi­ cal approach in 17üj and IStt century Europe found expression in the search for natural law but was soon replaced in the Christian Bay, "Political and Pseudopholitics: A Critical Evaluation of Some Behavioral Literature," The American Political Science Review, LIX, i (March, 19é5), 48. 2 Harry Eckstein and David E. Apter (eds.). Compara­ tive Politics : A Reader (London: The Free Press of G1encoe, dollier-Macmillan Limited, 1963), pp. 726-728. viii 19Ub century by evolutionary advocates stressing positivism, utilitarianism, and "staat" idealism. The earlier meta­ physicians were succeeded by jurists and historians, thus submerging comparative government in descriptive knowledge about specialized political institutions. In Europe, a rational, normative and intuitive approach persists, with history and philosophy remaining the major sources of in- 3 ~ formation. Rejecting the classical European tradition, American theorists have emphasized a scientific approach to compara­ tive politics. This new emphasis on science, rising from the descriptive efforts of the institutionalist, can be divided into "structural" and "behavioral" perspectives. 1. Structuralists are concerned with "relationships in a social situation which limit the_ choice process to a particular range of alternatives." 2, Behavioralists are concerned with "the selection 4 process in choice," i.e., deciding between alternatives. According to Dr. David E. Apter, these alternatives stand at opposite ends of the same continuum. Behavior alists ^Medley Bull, "International Theory: The Case for A Classical Approach," World Politics, XVIII, iii (April, 1966), p. 361. ^Eckstein & Apter, o p . cit. , p. 732. ix generally study relatively small units and employ inductive experimental methods; while the structuralists utilize com­ parative studies of large-scale units. Both are concerned with prevailing patterns of behavior, cause-effect relation­ ships and scientific empirical investigation.^ It has been suggested that many American political scientists, in their attempt to achieve science, are avoid­ ing the dangerous subject— politicsCertainly, the behavioralists "are crippled by the assumption that there 7 is only one model of civilized behavior— consensus . ." No absolute structure can be set up as representing the road to modernization, especially in the face of insistent Afro-Asian assertions of the need for new socio-political institutions rooted in indigenous traditions. Many be- havioralists and structuralists find themselves in the position of trying to maintain "value neutrality" and, at Q the same time, desiring to support Western "democracy." Even when this is not the case, certain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Socialism from Above Or Below “The Two Souls of Socialism” Revisited
    Socialism from Above or Below “the two souls of socialism” revisited The quotation at the right is from the beginning of “The Two “Socialism’s crisis today is a crisis in the meaning Souls of Socialism,” by Hal Draper (1992), published as a of socialism…. Throughout the history of social- pamphlet in 1966. Draper’s editor notes, “Its political impact ist movements and ideas, the fundamental divide on a generation of socialists in the United States and Great is between Socialism-from-Above and Socialism- Britain has been considerable.” (Haberkern, 1992, p. xvii) It from-Below.… The history of socialism can be influenced that wing of Trotskyism which rejected Trotsky’s read as a continual but largely unsuccessful effort belief that the Soviet Union under Stalin (and after) was to free itself from the old tradition…of emanci- some sort of “workers’ state.” Instead, these semi-Trotskyists pation-from-above.” (Draper, 1992, pp. 3 & 4) held (correctly) that the U.S.S.R. had developed a bureau- cratic ruling class which collectively exploited the workers. Draper’s pamphlet was rewritten as the first half of a work by David McNally, “Socialism from Below” (1984). This has been circulated by the International Socialist Organization, which remains a major part of this international semi-Trotskyist By WAYNE PRICE tendency. McNally rewrote “Socialism from Below” in 1997; this version has been circulated by the New Socialist Group in Canada. He has recently rethought and rewritten his social- ism-from-below perspective in a new book (2002). Draper himself went on to publish four volumes on Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution,elaborating on his arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarianism Karl Widerquist, Georgetown University-Qatar
    Georgetown University From the SelectedWorks of Karl Widerquist 2008 Libertarianism Karl Widerquist, Georgetown University-Qatar Available at: https://works.bepress.com/widerquist/8/ Libertarianism distinct ideologies using the same label. Yet, they have a few commonalities. [233] [V1b-Edit] [Karl Widerquist] [] [w6728] Libertarian socialism: Libertarian socialists The word “libertarian” in the sense of the believe that all authority (government or combination of the word “liberty” and the private, dictatorial or democratic) is suffix “-ian” literally means “of or about inherently dangerous and possibly tyrannical. freedom.” It is an antonym of “authoritarian,” Some endorse the motto: where there is and the simplest dictionary definition is one authority, there is no freedom. who advocates liberty (Simpson and Weiner Libertarian socialism is also known as 1989). But the name “libertarianism” has “anarchism,” “libertarian communism,” and been adopted by several very different “anarchist communism,” It has a variety of political movements. Property rights offshoots including “anarcho-syndicalism,” advocates have popularized the association of which stresses worker control of enterprises the term with their ideology in the United and was very influential in Latin American States and to a lesser extent in other English- and in Spain in the 1930s (Rocker 1989 speaking countries. But they only began [1938]; Woodcock 1962); “feminist using the term in 1955 (Russell 1955). Before anarchism,” which stresses person freedoms that, and in most of the rest of the world (Brown 1993); and “eco-anarchism” today, the term has been associated almost (Bookchin 1997), which stresses community exclusively with leftists groups advocating control of the local economy and gives egalitarian property rights or even the libertarian socialism connection with Green abolition of private property, such as and environmental movements.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarian Socialism
    Libertarian Socialism PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:52:27 UTC Contents Articles Libertarian socialism 1 The Venus Project 37 The Zeitgeist Movement 39 References Article Sources and Contributors 42 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 43 Article Licenses License 44 Libertarian socialism 1 Libertarian socialism Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property[5]. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[6] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism[7][8] or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.[1][2][9] Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[10] Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic Capitalism Exceeds Socialism in Economic Efficiency As Well As in Morality
    Democratic Capitalism Exceeds Socialism in Economic Efficiency as Well as in Morality By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution As of 2020, many Americans—particularly but not the model is profit over everything else, you’re not going to exclusively the young—remain intrigued by socialism. look at your policies to see what is most racially equitable.”3 Indeed, a 2019 survey found that socialism is as popular as capitalism among young American adults.1 Well- Predicting the future is far beyond my abilities, and drawing known political figures such as Senator Bernie Sanders (I- lessons from past experience is only a bit easier. In this paper, VT), Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), I aim to defend the superiority of democratic capitalism and others describe themselves as “democratic socialists” over both the old socialism and neosocialism, not only for and advocate tens of trillions of dollars in new spending its economic efficiency, but also for its moral superiority and programs along with a massive expansion of state power the possibilities it provides for humans to flourish. In order over citizens’ lives.2 to do this, I explain my personal experience with socialism and describe how aspects of socialism are seeping into the In academic circles, too, the debate surrounding the merits current American debate. I caution that before they embrace of socialism continues. A little less than thirty years after neosocialism, young Americans ought to consider carefully the Soviet Union was formally dissolved, capitalism is not only its superficial attractions, but also its fundamental nearly everywhere on the defensive, both in academia and drawbacks.
    [Show full text]
  • SOCIALISM Definition Authoritarian Socialism Is Derived from the Concept of "Socialism-From-Above" Authoritarian
    SOCIALISM Definition Authoritarian socialism is derived from the concept of "socialism-from-above" Authoritarian socialism is a political-economic system that can be generally described as socialist but rejects the liberal democratic concepts of multi-party politics, freedom of ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ assembly, habeas corpus and freedom of expression. Other features that are common to ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ modern authoritarian socialist states (starting in the 20th century) include an emphasis on heavy industry for development, a single-party system to propel the goals of the state ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ forward, the extensive use of propaganda to do the same and more. ​ ​ Formation of Industry: Often, as authoritarian powers enforce socialist economics, the process goes hand in hand with supporting the growth of heavy industry as a means of reaching industrialization ​ ​ ​ Industrialization of China did occur on a significant scale only from the 1950s, in the Maoist Great Leap Forward (simplified Chinese: 大跃进; traditional Chinese: 大躍進; ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ pinyin: Dàyuèjìn). This was the plan used from 1958 to 1961 to transform the People's ​ ​ ​ ​ Republic of China from a primarily agrarian economy by peasant farmers into a modern ​ ​ ​ communistsociety through the process of agriculturalization and industrialization. ​ Single-Party System: Authoritarian States often oppose the multi-party system to instill power of the ​ ​ government into a single party that could be led by a single head of state. The rationale ​ behind this being that: 1) elites have the time and resources to enforce socialist theory, because 2) in this socialist state, the interests of the people are represented by the party or head of the party. Propaganda: Departments of propaganda are not at all rare in these regimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking the Social in Socialism Seriously
    386 Discussion forum upheavals and resort to them whenever needed. The French bourgeoisie did not refrain from cooperating with elements of the old order, but this cooper- ation was subsumed under revolutionary threats (and an overall ruptural vision) and, therefore, did not serve to restore aristocratic privileges in the long run. Likewise, symbiotic strategies could serve the transition to socialism Downloaded from if they are subordinated to revolutionary and interstitial ones over the long term. This intermittent revolutionary process would slowly build socialism over the span of a few centuries and perhaps even lay the groundwork for a post-socialist society. http://ser.oxfordjournals.org/ The events in North Africa have demonstrated that the question is not whether new revolutionary uprisings will take place; it is whether they will take a sustain- ably social route. The Tunisian and Egyptian revolutionary upheavals started out with social as well as political demands, but in time, political demands started to outweigh (if not drown out) social demands. This was partially because the inter- national intellectual environment, in addition to the major national political actors, focused on liberal democratic grievances at the expense of social ones. at University of Wisconsin-Madison General Library System on March 14, 2012 One reason for this restricted focus is the depletion of the intellectual arsenal that links political struggles to social issues. A public task of social science is, then, providing some of the tools that the actors of these uprisings could use to write the social into the revolution through connecting elements of rupture, symbiosis and a civic spirit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prospects for Market Socialism In
    1 THE PROSPECTS FOR DEMOCRATIC MARKET SOCIALISM IN THE EAST Thomas E. Weisskopf Department of Economics University of Michigan published in Erik O. Wright (ed.), Equal Shares: Making Market Socialism Work, Verso Books, 1996. The demise of the Communist regimes of Central/Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has given rise to all kinds of hopes for a better future for the people who lived through decades of bureaucratic state socialism. Not only did advocates of capitalism see a glorious opportunity in the end of communist rule; advocates of democratic market socialism, too, tended to believe that that conditions in these long suffering societies had finally become favorable for the development of a promising new "third way" between authoritarian socialism and capitalism. The idea that democratic market socialism has a future in the East does have a certain plausibility. The countries of the former "second World" face a momentous task of institution building, no matter what kind of new system they construct. With the collapse of the Communist Party (CP) state and the ubiquitous desire to establish a more market-oriented economic system, most of them have already made significant progress in establishing democratic procedures and in expanding the scope of markets. Each of these countries has embarked on a process of redistribution of rights to national property on a large scale. 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented to the conference on "A Future for Socialism" at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, May 1994, under the title "The Death of Market Socialism in the East." I am grateful to many of the participants at that conference for constructive comments that have helped me in revising the paper for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is to Be Done?: a Dialogue on Communism, Capitalism, and the Future of Democracy Pdf Free Download
    WHAT IS TO BE DONE?: A DIALOGUE ON COMMUNISM, CAPITALISM, AND THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Alain Badiou,Marcel Gauchet | 160 pages | 15 Feb 2016 | Polity Press | 9781509501717 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom What is to be Done?: A Dialogue on Communism, Capitalism, and the Future of Democracy PDF Book Katseli, Louka T. Even revolutionary democratic socialists and Communists have at times, particularly the past, called their parties "social democratic. The Welfare State in Britain Since 3rd, illustrated ed. SPD leader Kurt Schumacher declared that the SPD was in favour of nationalizations of key industrial sectors of the economy such as banking and credit, insurance, mining, coal, iron, steel, metal-working and all other sectors that were identified as monopolistic or cartelized. After World War I, several attempts were made at a global level to refound the Second International that collapsed amidst national divisions in the war. Lists with This Book. David Newlin rated it it was amazing Mar 20, Economic determinism Historical materialism Marx's dialectic Marx's method Philosophy of nature. Completing secondary education and receiving at least some post-secondary training is now economically essential. Trade rules should not give advantages to state-controlled economies at the expense of market economies. Busky, Donald F. D'Emilio, John Politics Today 1st hardcover ed. Crisis and Reform in Socialist Economies. Lamb, Peter In most advanced societies, economic concentration is increasing, limiting competition, innovation, and entrepreneurial opportunities. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Journal of Democracy. This issue had become especially prominent with the Millerand affair in France in which Alexandre Millerand of the Independent Socialists joined the non-socialist and liberal government of Prime Minister Waldeck-Rousseau without seeking support from his party's leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Core Concept “Political Compass”
    Journal of Social Science Education © JSSE 2010 Volume 9, Number 4, 2010, pp. 45–62 ISSN 1618-5293 Andreas Petrik Core Concept “Political Compass” How Kitschelt’s Model of Liberal, Socialist, Libertarian and Conservative Orientations Can Fill the Ideology Gap in Civic Education International value surveys and misconception studies reveal the crucial role of individual value orientations for political judgment abilities. But in Civic Education, political opinions are generally merely asked for or remain superficial, non-committal statements that don’t get analyzed to foster identity development, perspec- tive-taking and tolerance. Thus, this article discusses Kitschelt’s coordinate system of political preferences as an outstanding solution to fill the ideology gap in Civic Education and therefore to enhance political literacy. At first, I will explain and outline the landscape of the four political ideologies: market-liberalism, conservatism, democratic socialism and left-libertarianism. In addition, I will trace left-libertarianism to its merely known anarchist roots. After that, I will explain how our basic political values are shaped by economic and cultural developments and how they combine to become political ideologies, social milieus and party families. As a third point, I will outline possible applications of Kitschelt’s model for the subject of Civic Education. For that, I propose a map of fundamental controversial issues to help students to discover their own political position. Finally, I will introduce the “Found-a-Village-Project” as highly interactive and controversial scenario to foster political identity formation. Keywords: velop value systems as core concepts. Instead they political cleavages, ideologies, critical thinking skills, emphasize value-neutral, “objective” thinking and political judgment abilities, political compass, “Found- analytical skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 19: Converging Economic Systems
    Why It’s Important Why do people in some countries pay much higher taxes than Americans do? How do other nations’ economies work? This chapter explains the differences between capitalism and socialism—and why many nations are moving toward free enterprise. To learn more about the differences between socialism and capitalism, view the Economics & You Chapter 25 video lesson: Comparative Economic Systems Chapter Overview Visit the Economics Today and Tomorrow Web site at ett.glencoe.com and click on Chapter 19—Chapter Overviews to preview chapter information. 1 READER’S GUIDE Terms to Know • proletariat BUSINESS WEEK, JULY 19, 1999 • communism • democratic socialism For more than 15 years, the handful of foreign auto- • authoritarian socialism makers allowed into China have dutifully assembled the cars and trucks prescribed by Beijing [China’s capital]— Reading Objectives even if those vehicles didn’t make the 1. What are the three charac- most economic sense. teristics of pure market capitalism? . For years, China has tightly 2. What are the key character- restricted market access, espe- istics of pure socialism? cially for passenger cars. The 3. How did socialism develop? government limited the number 4. What are the benefits of of players, set production vol- capitalism? umes and prices, and dictated what types of vehicles could be made and where. Foreign carmakers have ended up making outmoded vehicles that are too expensive for most Chinese. ome government intervention occurs in the American economy, but generally the marketplace answers the three basic economic Squestions of WHAT, HOW, and FOR WHOM goods and ser- vices should be produced.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of Socialism
    Picture credit: MOSCOW, RUSSIA - DEC 20, 2014: Glass art symbols of USSR in Special Report pavilion Space at exhibition Miracle Mechanics at VDNKH. Exhibition presents objects created for the opening of 22-d Olympic Winter Games. (Copyright: Paha_L) The rise and fall of socialism Copyright © 2018 by Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute. The right of Domenico Mario Nuti to be identified as the author of this publication is hereby asserted. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and opinions of the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, its co-founders, or its staff members. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, please write to the publisher: Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute gGmbH Französische Straße 23 10117 Berlin Germany +49 30 209677900 [email protected] 1 Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The rise and fall of socialism1 Domenico Mario Nuti2 Socialist Taxonomy The term “socialism” is relatively recent, appearing for the first time some 200 years ago in 1827 in the Co-operative Magazine in writings by some followers of Robert Owen. Undoubtedly the term was used by Owen in 1835 in the sense of an economic organisation constituted in the interest of workers.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic Socialism in Chile and Peru: Revisiting the “Chicago Boys” As the Origin of Neoliberalism
    Comparative Studies in Society and History 2019;61(3):654–679. 0010-4175/19 # Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 2019 doi:10.1017/S0010417519000239 Democratic Socialism in Chile and Peru: Revisiting the “Chicago Boys” as the Origin of Neoliberalism JOHANNA BOCKMAN Global Affairs Program, George Mason University From 1956 to 1964, the U.S. government funded a program run by the Economics Department at the University of Chicago, famous for its advocacy of free markets and monetarism, to train Chilean graduate students. The Ford Foundation and other organizations continued this program after 1964.1 Latin American scholars, such as Chilean critic Alejandro Foxley, disparaged the central role of “the Chicago School” in the successful transfer of neoliber- alism to the region.2 David Harvey, Wendy Brown, and many other scholars have placed the “Chicago Boys” at the center of their global histories of neoliberalism.3 According to these studies, these Chilean students returned to Acknowledgments: Earlier versions of this essay were presented in the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress, the Simpson Center for the Humanities at the University of Washington, West Virginia University, and the annual meeting of the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. I thank these events’ organizers and participants for immensely helpful discussions. Great thanks to Jennifer Ashley, Ana Grondona, Álvaro Morcillo-Laiz, and Andrew Zimmerman for reading and commenting on this text, and to Peter F. Klarén, Peter T. Knight, Cynthia McClin- tock, and Jaroslav Vanek for talking with me about their knowledge of, and experiences in, Chile and Peru, which I found truly enjoyable, insightful, and fascinating.
    [Show full text]