Profit Over People

Profit Over People Plot Summary

Introduction

Neoliberalism represents the dominant political-economic paradigm of our time, characterized by policies that allow private interests to control vast portions of social life for personal profit maximization. While often portrayed as promoting free markets, consumer choice, and individual liberty, neoliberal policies typically serve the interests of extremely wealthy investors and large corporations. The gap between neoliberal rhetoric and reality reveals much about how power operates in contemporary society. The analysis presented here examines how neoliberal doctrine functions as both an economic system and a political mechanism for undermining democracy. By tracing the historical development of neoliberal policies, their implementation across different regions, and their consequences for ordinary people, we gain insight into the relationship between corporate power and democratic governance. The evidence demonstrates that rather than enhancing freedom, neoliberal policies frequently restrict democratic participation, increase inequality, and concentrate power in unaccountable private institutions—all while maintaining a façade of promoting liberty and prosperity for all.

Chapter 1: The Doctrine of Neoliberalism: Market Myths vs. Reality

Neoliberalism presents itself as a system of principles based on classical liberal ideas, with Adam Smith often invoked as its patron saint. Its proponents claim it represents the natural extension of free market principles that have proven most efficient for organizing economic activity. However, examining the actual implementation of neoliberal policies reveals a significant gap between doctrine and reality. The "Washington consensus"—the term commonly used to describe the neoliberal policy package—consists of market-oriented principles designed by the United States government and international financial institutions under its influence. These principles include trade and financial liberalization, privatization, deregulation, and minimal government intervention. When imposed on vulnerable societies, often through structural adjustment programs, these policies typically benefit wealthy investors while causing significant hardship for general populations. Historical examination reveals that neoliberalism is neither new nor truly based on classical liberal principles. The countries that developed successfully, including the United States and East Asian nations, did so by systematically violating free market doctrine. The United States, far from embracing laissez-faire policies during its development, employed radical protectionism, violence, and state power to advance its economic interests. Only after achieving economic dominance did it begin advocating free trade principles for others. The actual record of neoliberal experiments demonstrates a consistent pattern: designers and local elites benefit substantially while subject populations often experience economic devastation. From British colonial policies in India to contemporary structural adjustment programs in Latin America, the implementation of "bad ideas" has regularly served the interests of powerful groups while harming vulnerable populations. This pattern continues in the modern era, with neoliberal policies producing massive increases in social and economic inequality alongside unprecedented wealth for the privileged few. The contradiction between free market rhetoric and protectionist reality persists today. The Reagan administration, despite its passionate advocacy of laissez-faire principles, presided over unprecedented protectionism and massive state intervention in the economy. Military spending served as a mechanism for transferring public funds to the corporate sector, with the Pentagon system providing crucial subsidies to industries like aircraft manufacturing, computers, and electronics. These sectors, portrayed as triumphs of private enterprise, have depended heavily on government support and protection.

Chapter 2: Manufacturing Consent: Democracy Without Public Voice

A decent democratic society should be based on the principle of "consent of the governed." However, this principle faces challenges in practice, particularly in societies where economic power is highly concentrated. As David Hume observed centuries ago, government is founded on control of opinion, and the more "free and popular" a government, the more it must rely on managing public perception to ensure submission to rulers. In modern democratic theory, the population is relegated to the role of spectators rather than participants. They may consent through periodic elections, but are excluded from meaningful involvement in decision-making processes, particularly in the economic arena where much of society's direction is determined. This conception of democracy was articulated by influential thinkers like Walter Lippmann, who argued that an elite of "responsible men" must control policy formation while the general public, described as "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders," should remain passive observers. The engineering of consent has become increasingly sophisticated over time. Edward Bernays, a pioneer of public relations, described "the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses" as "an important element in democratic society." This manipulation, he argued, is necessary because only "intelligent minorities" understand "the mental processes and social patterns of the masses" and can "pull the wires which control the public mind." The process of "engineering consent" was presented as the very "essence of the democratic process." These views reflect a fundamental distrust of genuine democratic participation. When popular forces have sought a larger role in managing their affairs, elites have typically responded with alarm. The Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller in 1973, characterized increased public participation as a "crisis of democracy" and sought ways to reduce citizen involvement in governance. The ideal was a return to a time when "Truman had been able to govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers." The gap between public preferences and policy outcomes illustrates this democratic deficit. Polls consistently show that most Americans believe the government serves special interests rather than the general public, that the economic system is inherently unfair, and that corporations have too much power. Yet policies continue to favor corporate interests over public concerns. The 1994 congressional election, hailed as a "conservative landslide," actually represented only about 20 percent of the electorate, and polls showed that the public opposed virtually all aspects of the Republican agenda despite media claims of a popular mandate.

Chapter 3: Free Trade Rhetoric vs. Corporate Protectionism

The rhetoric of free trade has been central to neoliberal doctrine, but examination of actual policies reveals profound contradictions. While developing countries are pressured to open their markets, wealthy nations maintain various forms of protection for their own industries. This double standard has been a consistent feature of international economic relations. The World Trade Organization (WTO), celebrated as a vehicle for promoting free trade, actually functions as a tool for powerful states to intervene in the internal affairs of others. The 1997 WTO agreement on telecommunications, for instance, was designed to allow foreign (primarily American) corporations to dominate global telecommunications markets. The expected consequences included benefits for business sectors and the wealthy, shifting of costs to general populations, and new mechanisms for undermining democratic governance. When trade agreements threaten powerful interests, they are simply ignored. The United States has repeatedly violated WTO rules when convenient, while insisting that weaker nations adhere strictly to them. When the European Union charged that the Helms-Burton Act (imposing sanctions on companies doing business with Cuba) violated free trade agreements, the U.S. administration argued that the WTO was not a proper forum for the dispute. Similarly, when the International Court of Justice ruled against U.S. actions in Nicaragua, the United States rejected the court's jurisdiction and ignored its judgment. The principle at work is that the United States is exempt from international rules while others must comply. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright articulated, the United States will "behave, with others, multilaterally when we can and unilaterally as we must," recognizing no external constraints in areas deemed vital to U.S. interests. International institutions are acceptable forums only when their members "can be counted on" to support Washington's views. The contradiction extends to domestic economic policy as well. While neoliberal doctrine emphasizes minimal government intervention, the reality is that state support has been crucial for successful economic development. The telecommunications industry, celebrated as a triumph of free enterprise, developed largely through public subsidies and protection. Similarly, the internet and other information technologies emerged from government-funded research and development. Even during the Reagan administration, supposedly the epitome of free market principles, government intervention was extensive, with massive subsidies for favored industries.

Chapter 4: Resistance to Globalization: The Zapatista Uprising

The Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, Mexico, which began on January 1, 1994—the day NAFTA took effect—represents a significant challenge to neoliberal globalization. The indigenous peasants who revolted described NAFTA as a "death sentence" that would deepen the divide between concentrated wealth and mass misery while destroying indigenous society and culture. The rebellion emerged from profound social and economic changes in Mexico. Following IMF and World Bank prescriptions, agricultural production had shifted from food for local consumption to exports and animal feeds, benefiting agribusiness and affluent consumers while increasing malnutrition among the poor. Real wages in manufacturing fell sharply, and labor's share of GDP declined by over a third. These outcomes were typical consequences of neoliberal reforms throughout Latin America. NAFTA was expected to accelerate these trends, driving large numbers of farm workers off their land and reducing manufacturing employment. Studies predicted that Mexico would lose almost a quarter of its manufacturing industry and 14 percent of its jobs in the first two years after the agreement took effect. These processes would further depress wages while increasing profits and economic polarization, with similar effects in the United States and Canada. Opposition to NAFTA was substantial in Mexico but largely ignored in U.S. media coverage. Mexican workers expressed anxiety about the erosion of their labor rights, while Mexican bishops condemned the agreement for its likely social effects. The leading Mexican journal Excelsior predicted that NAFTA would benefit only "those 'Mexicans' who are today the masters of almost the entire country (15 percent receive more than half the GDP)," a "de-Mexicanized minority," while most citizens would suffer. The Zapatista rebellion resonated widely because it articulated concerns shared by many people worldwide. As Mexican political scientist Eduardo Gallardo noted, "The Zapatistas really struck a chord with a large segment of the Mexican populace." Polls in Mexico showed majority support for the reasons given by the Zapatistas for their rebellion. The movement also gained international solidarity, which helped deter military repression and energized activism globally. The uprising highlighted the growing contradiction between democratic aspirations and economic policies that transfer decision-making power from elected governments to unaccountable private institutions. As global financial markets gained increasing power to dictate national policies, democratic processes were increasingly marginalized. The Zapatista movement represented a rejection of this model and an assertion of the right of communities to determine their own future.

Chapter 5: The MAI: Undermining Democracy for Corporate Rights

The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) represents one of the most significant attempts to enhance corporate power at the expense of democratic governance. Negotiated in secret at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) from 1995 to 1998, the MAI was designed to establish new rights for corporations while limiting the ability of governments to regulate investment in the public interest. The negotiations were conducted with remarkable secrecy. For almost three years, the general public remained largely unaware of the agreement's existence and implications. Even the U.S. Congress was kept in the dark, despite its constitutional authority over international commerce. Meanwhile, corporate representatives were intimately involved in the drafting process. The U.S. Council for International Business, which "advances the global interests of American business both at home and abroad," participated actively in shaping the agreement. The MAI would have granted investors (primarily transnational corporations) the right to move assets freely without "government interference," meaning without democratic input. It would have allowed corporations to sue governments for policies that might reduce their profits, while governments and citizens would have no reciprocal rights against corporate misconduct. The agreement included "standstill" and "rollback" provisions requiring governments to eliminate existing regulations deemed inconsistent with the treaty and preventing the introduction of new ones. The implications for democracy were profound. Decisions affecting employment, environmental protection, public health, and cultural policy would increasingly be removed from the democratic arena and transferred to unaccountable private institutions. As one WTO official candidly explained, these international bodies are places "where governments collude in private against their domestic pressure groups"—that is, against their own citizens. When information about the MAI finally leaked to the public, primarily through activist networks and the internet, opposition quickly mobilized. In Canada, public debate forced the government to address concerns about the agreement's impact on sovereignty and social programs. In Australia, parliamentary scrutiny eventually followed public pressure. The Financial Times lamented that governments had been "ambushed by a horde of vigilantes" including "trade unions, environmental and human rights lobbyists, and pressure groups opposed to globalisation." The combined pressure of public opposition and disagreements among negotiating countries ultimately prevented the MAI from being adopted by its April 1998 deadline. This represented a significant victory for democratic forces against seemingly overwhelming odds. However, many of the MAI's provisions have subsequently been incorporated into bilateral investment treaties and other agreements, indicating that the struggle between corporate power and democratic governance continues.

Chapter 6: Popular Mobilization: How Civil Society Challenged Power

The defeat of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in 1998 demonstrated the potential of popular mobilization to challenge powerful economic interests. Despite the overwhelming imbalance of resources—with corporate and governmental powers on one side and grassroots organizations on the other—the "ultimate weapon" of public opinion prevailed. This victory offers important lessons about democratic resistance in an era of corporate globalization. The mobilization against the MAI was remarkable for its breadth and effectiveness. Environmental groups, labor unions, human rights organizations, and other civil society actors formed coalitions across national boundaries. They shared information, coordinated strategies, and educated the public about the agreement's implications. The internet proved crucial in this effort, allowing activists to circulate leaked documents and analysis that mainstream media had largely ignored. The Financial Times captured the establishment's dismay at this development, reporting that "fear and bewilderment have seized governments of industrialised countries" as their efforts to impose the MAI in secret "have been ambushed by a horde of vigilantes." What particularly alarmed corporate interests was the demand for "greater openness and accountability" in international negotiations. The prospect that it might become "harder for negotiators to do deals behind closed doors and submit them for rubber-stamping by parliaments" threatened the traditional model of elite governance. Similar dynamics were evident in the defeat of "Fast Track" legislation in the United States in 1997. The Clinton administration had sought authority to negotiate trade agreements without congressional oversight, but unexpectedly encountered public resistance. Again, the business press recognized that opponents had an "ultimate weapon"—the general population—that was no longer satisfied to remain passive while elites made decisions affecting their lives. These victories, while defensive in nature, demonstrated that concentrated power could be effectively challenged through democratic organization. They revealed the vulnerability of neoliberal governance to public scrutiny and debate. When citizens gained information about policies being developed in their name, they often rejected the corporate agenda and demanded alternatives that would serve broader social interests. The response of power to these challenges was predictable: increased efforts to manage public opinion, attempts to implement defeated policies through other means, and characterization of democratic movements as extremist or irrational. Yet the fact that such extensive resources must be devoted to containing public participation indicates the potential strength of democratic forces when properly organized and informed.

Chapter 7: Economic Inequality and Social Control

The implementation of neoliberal policies has coincided with dramatic increases in economic inequality within and between nations. This growing disparity is not an unfortunate side effect but a central feature of the neoliberal model, which systematically transfers wealth and power from the majority to a small elite while undermining mechanisms for democratic accountability. In the United States, the consequences of neoliberal policies have been stark. Since the mid-1970s, real wages for most workers have stagnated or declined, even during periods of economic growth. Meanwhile, corporate profits have soared, and wealth has concentrated at the top of the income distribution. By the mid-1990s, the United States had reached levels of inequality not seen since the 1920s, far exceeding other industrial countries. The country also achieved the dubious distinction of having the highest child poverty rate among industrialized nations. This economic polarization has been accompanied by the erosion of democratic processes. As wealth concentrates, so does political influence. Large corporations and wealthy individuals dominate campaign financing, lobbying, and media ownership, giving them disproportionate power to shape public policy. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle in which economic inequality generates political inequality, which in turn produces policies that further economic concentration. The maintenance of this system requires mechanisms of social control to prevent popular resistance. One approach involves what Noam Chomsky calls "manufacturing consent"—using media and educational institutions to shape public understanding in ways that legitimize existing power arrangements. Another involves the criminalization of poverty and expansion of the prison system. It is notable that as neoliberal policies were implemented in the United States, incarceration rates increased dramatically, particularly for poor and minority populations. Internationally, the pattern is similar. Structural adjustment programs imposed by the IMF and World Bank have consistently increased inequality in affected countries while transferring control of resources from local communities to transnational corporations. When populations resist these policies, they often face repression, sometimes supported by the same powers promoting neoliberal reforms. The case of Haiti is instructive: when its first democratically elected government attempted to implement policies benefiting the poor majority, it was overthrown by a military coup that received tacit support from Washington. The neoliberal model also undermines social cohesion by promoting an individualistic ethos that weakens community bonds and collective organization. As Margaret Thatcher famously declared, "There is no such thing as society, only individual men and women." This ideology serves to atomize populations, making collective resistance more difficult while naturalizing extreme inequality as the result of individual choices rather than systemic design.

Summary

The analysis presented here reveals neoliberalism not as a system promoting freedom and prosperity, but as a sophisticated mechanism for consolidating corporate power at the expense of democratic governance. By examining the gap between neoliberal rhetoric and practice—from free trade agreements that protect powerful interests to economic policies that increase inequality—we gain insight into how economic and political systems function to benefit narrow elites while constraining popular sovereignty. The historical record demonstrates that successful economic development has typically involved significant deviation from neoliberal prescriptions. Countries that have achieved prosperity, including the United States and East Asian nations, have done so through strategic state intervention, protection of developing industries, and policies that distribute benefits broadly—precisely the approaches that neoliberal doctrine prohibits for developing countries today. Meanwhile, resistance movements from the Zapatistas to the international coalition that defeated the MAI show that alternative visions remain viable despite the apparent hegemony of neoliberal ideology. These movements remind us that the current organization of economic and political power is neither natural nor inevitable, but the product of specific historical choices that can be challenged and transformed through collective action.

About Author

Loading...

Noam Chomsky

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Read more