NEOLIBERALISM

Edited by Adrian Scribano,

Freddy Timmermann Lopez
& Maximiliano E. Korstanje

IN MULTI-
DISCIPLINARY
PERSPECTIVE
Neoliberalism in Multi-Disciplinary Perspective
 Adrian Scribano
Freddy Timmermann Lopez
Maximiliano E. Korstanje
Editors

Neoliberalism in
Multi-Disciplinary
Perspective
Editors
Adrian Scribano Freddy Timmermann Lopez
Centre for Sociological Research and Catholic University Silva Henriquez
Studies (CIES) Santiago de Chile, Chile
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Maximiliano E. Korstanje
University of Palermo
Buenos Aires, Argentina

ISBN 978-3-319-77600-2    ISBN 978-3-319-77601-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77601-9

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018950238

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Cover image © John Kuczala / Getty Images

Cover design by Akihiro Nakayama

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

Scribano is a graduate in Development Sciences with a specialization in

Political Sociology from ILADES, Santiago, Chile, and did his PhD from
the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, the University of Buenos Aires,
Argentina. He has a postgraduate degree recognized by the University of
Leuven, Belgium, and a bachelor’s degree in Political and Social Sciences
from the Faculty of Political Science and International Relations, the
Catholic University of Cordoba (1985). Scribano received a diploma in
Human Rights endorsed by the Institute of Human Rights, Law School,
Complutense University of Madrid, Spain, in 1983. He is the director of
the Centre for Sociological Research and Studies and a principal researcher
at the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research, Argentina.
He is also the director of the Latin American Journal of Studies on Bodies,
Emotions and Society and the Study Group on Sociology of Emotions and
Bodies of the Gino Germani Research Institute, Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Buenos Aires. He also serves as coordinator of the 26
Working Group on Bodies and Emotions of the Latin American Association
of Sociology and as vice-president of the Thematic Group 08 Society and
Emotions of the International Sociological Association.

v
 Acknowledgment

This book is fully dedicated to our families, daughters, sons, wives, friends,
and colleagues who distressingly devoted considerable of their time while
we concentrated efforts in organizing the chapters. The authors who pas-
sionately contributed to this project, as well as Palgrave Macmillan staff,
above all Katelyn Zingg for her generous support. By this way, we do
thank the labor and time of reviewers who substantially made a real con-
tribution to their observations. Majid Yar struggled, taking pains to edit
this manuscript for gaining readability. This was a great effort for three
non-English native speakers to adapt the different chapters to a polished
English. However, we feel—after hard work—our efforts have been
worthwhile and we are very happy with the outcome. Neoliberalism is a
key factor of capitalism, which deserved our attention. We proposed here
a critical perspective formed by the voices of scholars coming from the
four corners of the world. Lastly, this book would have never seen the
light of publication without the author’s commitment.

vii
 Contents

1 Introduction: The Multiple Janus Faces of Neoliberalism   1

Adrian Scribano

Part I Theoretical Tools to Understand Neoliberalism  21

2 Neoliberalism and Crisis of the Republican Pact  23

Paulo Henrique Martins

3 Neoliberalization and New Commodification Frontiers:

A Global Critique of Progressive Reason  45
Horacio Machado Aráoz and Pedro Lisdero

4 Neoliberalism in the Culture of Terror  67

Maximiliano E. Korstanje

5 The Thousand Faces of Neoliberalism: From Politics to 

Sensibilities  89
Adrian Scribano

6 Neo-Liberal Effects on Time Perception: When “Time Is

Money” Turns into “Hybrid Time” 119
Mira Moshe

ix
x   Contents

Part II Central Issues of “Living-the-Neoliberalism” 137

7 Implosion of Time: Body, Emotions, and Terror in the 

Neoliberal Civilization in Chile 139
Freddy Timmermann Lopez

8 The Neoliberal Tourism System: Strategies of Production

and Distribution of Travel 155
Luis Gómez-Encinas

9 Neoliberalism, Outsourcing, and Domination 171

Patrick Cingolani

10 Facing the Self-Government Test: Italian Youth and the 

Avatars of Neoliberalism 185
Paola Rebughini

11 Capitalism, Hacking, and Digital Media 203

David L. Altheide

Index 229
 CHAPTER 3

Neoliberalization and New Commodification

Frontiers: A Global Critique of Progressive
Reason

Horacio Machado Aráoz and Pedro Lisdero

Introduction
As we attempt to delve into neoliberalism, an issue intensively covered by
social sciences and current political debates, it seems appropriate to start
out from a key thoughtful reflection from our perspective. As a matter of
fact, we cannot refrain from warning—and to take as a starting point—that
we are speaking from a region which is not only troubled by said phenom-
enon, but also decisively relevant for its further arrangement as such.
Despite its being an undoubtedly global phenomenon, any analytical
attempt to comprehend it could not—or should not, actually—be sepa-
rated from the particularly verified events within this region. Latin America,

H. Machado Aráoz (*)
CITCA-CONICET—Universidad Nacional de Catamarca, CIES,
San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca, Argentina
e-mail: machadoaterreno@arnet.com.ar
P. Lisdero
CIECS—CONICET y Universidad Nacional de Córdoba—, UNVM,
CIES, Córdoba, Argentina
e-mail: pedrolisdero@gmail.com

© The Author(s) 2019 45

A. Scribano et al. (eds.), Neoliberalism in Multi-Disciplinary
Perspective, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77601-9_3
46   H. MACHADO ARÁOZ AND P. LISDERO

in spite of its marginalized status, peripheral within the world-system—or

maybe due to it—has been the key epicenter of the set of policies and
processes that we generically identify with neoliberalism.
Moreover, the region has functioned as a “social laboratory” where, for
the first time, this set of ideas which had been converted into state policies
were experimentally applied, with the stated purpose of creating “market
societies” (sensu Polanyi). Almost ten years before Margaret Thatcher’s
and Ronald Reagan’s administrations, Pinochet’s dictatorial regime made
Chile “the genuine pioneer of the neoliberal cycle in contemporary his-
tory” (Anderson 1999: 24). His Chicago Boys1 held positions at La Moneda
Palace in order to relentlessly apply a comprehensive and systematic dereg-
ulation program, trade and financial openness, regressive tax reform, mas-
sive company and public asset privatization, dramatic wage and social
welfare cuts, and the removal of trade union power, among some other
relevant measures. Later on, the “Chilean experience” would be trans-
ferred to the “Old World” by means of frequent contact and excellent
relations between advisors and officers of the Thatcher administration
with Pinochet during the 1980s (Anderson 1999). As Harvey pointed
out, “(N)ot for the first time, a brutal experiment carried out in the
periphery became a model for the formulation of policies in the centre.”
(Harvey 2007: 15).

1
 Actually, although Von Hayek’s ideas had more impact on the theoretical-political field,
Milton Friedman’s courses taught at the University of Chicago achieved greater direct influ-
ence on the economic policies, administrators, and decision-makers. Connections of the
Chicago School with Chilean students date back to mid-50s through the formalization of an
agreement between the University of Chicago with the University of Chile and the Pontifical
Catholic University of Chile. As a result of this agreement, teachers such as Theodore Shultz,
Arnold Harberger, Earl Hamilton, and Simon Rottenberg, among other members of the
Friedman group, developed a course of studies at the Center for Economic Research specifi-
cally created to that end. Then, Chilean students who attended that Center were given
scholarships to continue with their Master’s and PhD studies at the University of Chicago.
Afterward, many of them held key positions within Pinochet’s regime, such as the following:
Sergio de Castro (Minister of Economy, 1975–76; Minister of Finance, 1976–82), Pablo
Baraona (President of the Central Bank, 1975–76; Minister of Economy, 1976–78), Álvaro
Bardón (President of the Central Bank, 1977–81; Under Secretary of Economy, 1982–83),
Sergio de la Cuadra (President of the Central Bank, 1981–82; Minister of Finance, 1982),
Jorge Cauas (Minister of Finance, 1974–77), Hernán Büchi (Minister of Economy, 1979–80;
National Planning Office [ODEPLAN], 1983–84; Minister of Finance, 1985–89), Miguel
Kast (ODEPLAN 1978–1980; Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, 1981–82; President of
the Central Bank, 1982), Rolf Lüders (Minister of Economy, 1982; Minister of Finance,
1978–79), among others (Delano and Traslaviña 1989).
   NEOLIBERALIZATION AND NEW COMMODIFICATION FRONTIERS…    47

Some years later, the imaginary expansion and neoliberal policies had a
second and significant experimentation cycle in 1985  in Bolivia, where
under Jeffrey Sachs’ guidance, a monetary shock program—initially pre-
pared for the dictator Hugo Banzer, but later executed by the administra-
tion of Víctor Paz Estenssoro, the leader of the revolutionary party of
1952—was applied for the management of hyperinflation, and which,
some years later, would be replicated in Poland and Russia after the fall of
the Berlin Wall. Also during the 1980s—severely affected by the outbreak
of the Latin American debt crisis—international financial entities, such as
the International Monetary Fund at the forefront, would try out in the
region their “fiscal adjustment programs,” systematic monitoring of pub-
lic accounts, and they would set explicit goals for economic policies ulti-
mately contingent upon ensuring debt repayment.
Subsequently, during the early 1990s, under certain emblematic presi-
dencies, such as those of Salinas de Gortari (Mexico, 1988), Menem
(Argentina, 1989), Carlos Andrés Pérez (Venezuela, 1989), and Fujimori
(Peru, 1990), we entered into a third cycle focused on the implementation
of the “Washington Consensus” principles, with the expansion and con-
solidation of programs on privatization, liberalization, and opening of
strategic sectors,2 which would also be “exported” to European countries
of the former Soviet Bloc.

2
 Structural reforms occurring in the region from the mid-80s until the end of the century
were characterized by the following:

• Trade and foreign exchange openness: regarding trade regimes liberalization, a 15%
reduction on average rate of duty was implemented. As a result, duties went from aver-
age levels of 48.9% during the pre-reform years up to 10.7% in 1999, and dispersion
was remarkably reduced.
• Financial transformations: reduction of reserve requirements, removal of interest rates
control, and dismantling of compulsory investments mechanisms and directed
credits.
• Taxation: foreign trade taxes went from representing 18% of fiscal revenues of the
countries in 1980 to 13.7% in the mid-1990s—for greater domestic collection.
• Privatizations: 396 sales and transfers to the private sector were carried out between
1986 and 1999, which represent over half of the privatizations operations value in
developing countries. The main sectors that experienced these transformations were
infrastructure (57%) and banking—and similar—institutions (11%). Apart from the
peculiarities of the privatization makeup by sectors/countries, it may also be pointed
out that other affected sectors were electricity—mainly in the Dominican Republic,
Colombia, El Salvador, Argentina, and Bolivia—and telecommunications—mainly in
Guatemala, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela—, among others.
48   H. MACHADO ARÁOZ AND P. LISDERO

The experimental nature of these policies is key to understand the

essence of the process: more than a finished, a priori set “government
programs,” we are facing deep transformations not guided by tight policies
but by non-negotiable policies, since the goal was to achieve and ensure
governance of the society of the masses in conditions of extreme poverty,
inequality, social deprivation, and structural dispossession.
Having said this, we find the scenario of social, cultural, political, and
environmental deterioration resulting from these policies to be key to
understand the succeeding phase of the neoliberalization process, which in
our view, is paradoxically opened by the neoliberal governance collapse
toward the end of the 1990s3 and the subsequent processes the experi-
ences of different “progressive” governments of the region resulted in.
It could be stated that the crushing success of neoliberal policies in the
1980s and 1990s were, indeed, the trigger of the “metamorphosis”4 of its
governance model during early 2000. For some analysts, the excesses of
neoliberal policies where to blame for its implosion—and the subsequent
need to introduce “adjustments”—(Dávalos 2012; Garretón 2012). Truth
is that at a historic moment when the world underwent a suffocating
atmosphere of neoliberal hegemony and the Thatcher-inspired motto
“There is no Alternative” conclusively expressed the mood of political
helplessness, the outbreak of popular rebellions that took place in Latin

One of the major effects of privatizations was the increase in foreign investment in Latin
America after clearing the obstructions—mainly to strategic sectors. Thus, foreign invest-
ment targeted to privatizations accounted for 36% of the direct foreign investment in the
90s, which had a total amount far higher than that recorded during the previous decade—of
0.3% of the GDP in 1989 to 6.9% in 1999 (Lora 2001).
3
 The collapse of the neoliberal governance, pre-announced with the Caracazo (February–
March, 1989) and which covertly unfolds through a growing social conflict throughout 90s,
becomes clearly visible with the prolonged Ecuadorian political crisis marked by the promi-
nence of the rebellion of the indigenous movement brought together in the National
Confederation of Ecuadorian Indigenous Nationalities (CONAIE) and the following failed
presidencies of Abdalá Bucaram (1996–1997), Jamil Mahuad (1998–2000), Gustavo Noboa
(2000–2003), and Lucio Gutiérrez (2003–2005), the meltdown of the Argentinean institu-
tional system, in December 2001—anticipated withdrawal of the government from the
Alliance, the “sovereign” default declaration, and subsequent interrupted presidencies until
Néstor Kirchner took office in 2003—, and, decisively, with the events that framed the so-
called Water Wars (2000) and Gas Wars (2003) in Bolivia.
4
 From different perspectives, the metamorphosis or mutation idea has been referenced as
a change process, where structures that give meaning to—and define—the social system are
kept (Castels 1996); or as the inherent variability of the social accumulation regime defined
as matrix of changing configuration (Collado 2005; Nun 2003).
   NEOLIBERALIZATION AND NEW COMMODIFICATION FRONTIERS…    49

American streets and plazas burst into an unexpected fresh wind that not
only contradicted the Pensée unique order, but also seemed to fiercely rein-
state a revolutionary political language that had been deemed outdated for
a long time.
After emblematic historical events such as the assumption of power of
president Hugo Chávez in Venezuela (February 1999), Lula in Brazil
(2003), Evo Morales in Bolivia (2006), and Fernando Lugo in Paraguay
(2008), the discourse of the first years of Kirchnerist policies in Argentina,
the triumph of Frente Amplio in Uruguay (2004), the constitutional pro-
cesses opened in Venezuela (1999), Ecuador (2009), and Bolivia (2009),
among other events, the most ambitious political prospects for once-­
inconceivable radical transformations were efficiently enabled. Back then,
terms such as “turning left,” neoliberalism, neoliberalism’s “failure,”
“end,” and “overcoming” started being used. They talked about post-­
neoliberal governments and the “post-neoliberal era.”
It goes without saying that “progressive governments’” policies trig-
gered mutations regarding the neoliberal boom during the 1990s.
“Progressive” governments marked a stark contrast against the ideological
discourse of preceding decades. However, the sense, course, and political
balance of the “progressive” wave has been, and currently is, the subject
matter of heated debates. When they were in full swing, but, even more,
when some signs of exhaustion and crisis were starting to be foreseen,
these governments created a strong atmosphere of polarization as regards
neoliberalism binarism versus “the only alternative” in the face of the
threat of the “neoliberal right wing.”
In these times, the fact that we are facing a new turning point of the
political processes is indisputable. The advent of new governments has
prompted intensification of debates on neoliberalism, framed within dis-
putes regarding “failures” or “defeats” of the “progressive projects.”
Ultimately, this brief résumé allows us to determine to what extent the
events that took place in Latin American territories and affected its popu-
lation during the last 50 years have become decisive for the future of struc-
tural transformation processes—of neoliberalization—of the global
political system. It also allows us to size up to what extent Latin American
societies have been—and continue to be—beleaguered by neoliberalism.
We are trying to approach the phenomenon within and from societies that
have been drastically affected by it, societies that have been pioneers in
experimenting with neoliberal policies, and which, additionally, have gen-
erated the toughest popular rebellions against neoliberalism. These are
50   H. MACHADO ARÁOZ AND P. LISDERO

societies that during a decade have been mostly governed by leaders or

coalitions springing from those revolts, and that have governed with the
explicit aim of overcoming neoliberalism and leaving it behind. In brief,
those are societies that currently debate whether to follow a path of a
strong polarization against the course taken during the last decades or to
maintain the same course to face the future.
As we find ourselves immersed in those academic disputes that the
aforementioned process resulted in, and placing ourselves inside the vast
field of critical thinking, we deem it necessary to reopen the underlying
issue, that is, to discuss again about the nature and the definition of neo-
liberalism, its scope, and its implications. In short, what is neoliberalism?
It is an issue that—despite everything that has been said—does not seem
to find clear or uniform answers.
In particular, we think it is necessary to review the predominant litera-
ture—almost instituted as a “hegemonic common sense”—which regard-
ing recent political processes in the region—analyzes the cycle of
“progressive governments” as a “way out of neoliberalism” and/or as a
“post-neoliberal” phase. Such literature consequently interprets recent
turns—the advent of Macri’s administration in Argentina, PPK’s in Peru,
Temer’s in Brazil, Piñera’s in Chile, and so on—as a “return to the 1990s”
and a “neoliberal comeback.”
As we already stated, we depart from the understanding that those
readings are the product of a deep theoretical mistake with dire political
implications. Instead of “burying” neoliberalism (as it is claimed), this
literature tend to revive and re-update it, this time, as a phantom (sensu
Scribano).
On the basis of this initial motivation, in the following pages we aim at
providing an alternate definition for neoliberalism that essentially consid-
ers it as a new frontier of the historical-geological process of becoming the
capital of the world. This phase has the distinctive feature of assuming a
new unconventional exploitation era, or, based on Ruy Mauro Marini’s
thoughts, a super-exploitation globalization era.
In order to construct and substantiate said characterization, we depart
from a superficial review of some of the main definitions provided for neo-
liberalism in recent critical literature so that we can subsequently provide
our own concept of neoliberalism regarding the accumulation model that
exacerbates global exploitation on the basis of the restructuring of a Global
South marked by the twofold confiscation/predation of primary vital
energy—Earth/territories—and social energy—body/work. Lastly, we
   NEOLIBERALIZATION AND NEW COMMODIFICATION FRONTIERS…    51

shall emphasize, at the end of this critical reflection exercise, a current

dimension of the neoliberalization process that connects progressive dis-
course with a new expansive and global rearrangement of extraction of
“ideological surplus value” (Ludovico Silva).

What Is Neoliberalism? A Key Review

Since the 1980s, a perplexing mix of overreach and underspecification has
accompanied the troubled ascendancy of the concept of neoliberalism in
heterodox political economy. The concept has become, simultaneously, a
terminological focal point for debates on the trajectory of post-1980s regu-
latory transformations and an expression of the deep disagreements and
confusions that characterize those debates. Consequently, “neoliberalism”
has become something of a rascal concept—promiscuously pervasive yet
inconsistently defined, empirically imprecise, and frequently contested.
(Brenner et al. 2010: 283–284)

Since we are in the presence of a “rascal concept,” we find it convenient to

start—as a prelude to our own argument—with a superficial review of
some of the main definitions provided for neoliberalism in the critical
literature.
We shall  start with some propositions that stress neoliberalism as an
ideological phenomenon that turned out to be able to create or introduce
a whole new political culture based on the hegemony of the doctrinal cor-
pus developed through a prolonged gestation period that dates back to
the traumatic 1940s. Several works5 depart from The Road to Serfdom
(Von Hayek 1944) and the constitution of the Mont Pelerin Society
(1947) as building blocks of a political belief that made state interven-
tion—that in that time was precisely “saving” capitalism—the main enemy
of private property and the competitive market, by extension—according
to its assumptions—the main threat to the “main values of civilization”
and, lastly, to the “essential conditions of human dignity and freedom.”6
In this sense, posing a fairly generalized interpretation, Göran Therborn
stated that “neoliberalism is an ideological and political super-structure
that accompanies a historical transformation of modern capital” basically
consisting in the shift in the vertex of power of capitalism’s institutional

5
 Among them, Anderson (1999), Harvey (2007), Plehwe et al. (2006), Puello Socarrás
(2015).
6
 https://www.montpelerin.org/statement-of-aims/
52   H. MACHADO ARÁOZ AND P. LISDERO

triangle, from state to the market (Therborn 1999: 31). Although the
importance of the ideological dimension in the arrangement of neoliberal-
ism is not less important, and we should not overlook the complex opera-
tions involved in the battle of ideas,7 it seems evident that it cannot be
reduced to them. There is at least a 30-year gap that needs to be explained
between the moment of the inception of neoliberal ideology and the
moment of its massive entrenchment and dissemination—and over signifi-
cant political agents and actors.
Other literature is focused on the large changes verified in central capital-
ism—particularly the crisis of the post-war American hegemony and its
rebuilding attempts—as triggers of the neoliberal era.  On one hand,
Literature such as those coming from Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin (2004),
Aijaz Ahmad (2004), and Gregory Albo (2004), among others, suggest con-
ceiving neoliberalism as a newly restructured form of imperialism on the basis
of great financial and foreign exchange reforms, unilaterally imposed by
United States in the 1970s. Ultimately, they refer to a new globalization and
financialization of capital that, through different mechanisms, managed to
create new and sophisticated mechanisms for a global tax levy.
On the other hand, David Harvey, in one of the most disseminated
interpretations, analyzes neoliberalism as a—new—cycle of accumulation
by dispossession (Harvey 2004). He upholds that cyclical overaccumula-
tion crises tend to be overcome through space-time adjustments, that is,
physical or institutional technologies that increase the geographic scale of
investments, reduce spatial dimensions of valuation processes, and raise
the amount and intensity of commercial and financial transactions. The
final effect of the recomposition of the profit rate is carried out through a
higher step on abstract valuation, namely, the increase of financial income

7
 After their first meeting, the Mont Pelerin Society has held 40 general assemblies, 33
regional meetings, and 12 special meetings. It currently has “500 members in 40 countries,
including senior government officials, Nobel Laureates in Economics, ‘businessmen’, jour-
nalists and academics” (Mato 2007: 27). Around it, an extensive and powerful transnational
network of Think Tanks—constituted by over 200 foundations, institutes, “study” centers,
among others, around the world—has been built from which a true crusade against “statism”
has been launched, with a sustained strategy coming into play in the shaping of public opin-
ion through prominent businessmen, political officers, university professors, economists,
journalists, and social and religious leaders aiming at setting up a hegemonic common sense
around the full de-legitimization of the State, the assimilation of the public and state sector
as intrinsically corrupt, inefficient, and authoritative, contrary to absolute markets as the only
social arrangement compatible with full individuals freedom and fair mechanism to allocate
resources.
   NEOLIBERALIZATION AND NEW COMMODIFICATION FRONTIERS…    53

at the expense of the destruction of infrastructure and productive resources,

a phenomenon that stresses intensification and diversification of a “vulture
economy”: “finance capital intervention backed by state power (...) forms
the cutting edge of a ‘vulture capitalism’ dedicated to the appropriation
and devaluation of assets, rather than to building them up through pro-
ductive investments.” (Harvey 2004: 111).
In a subsequent work, Harvey (2007) makes his analysis on the accu-
mulation by dispossession converge with the propositions of Gérard
Duménil and Dominique Lévy, who define neoliberalism as a “a new stage
in the history of capital whose main characteristic is the reinforcement of
the classes and the restoration of the capitalist profit.”8 (Duménil and
Lévy 2012). There are three variables to understand this process: in first
place, rather than neoliberalism implying an imposition of the market over
the state, it actually assumes an operation by which it is the state—inter-
vening as a bureaucratic power in the hands of the capitalist class—that is
the one imposing the commodification of society as a whole. There is no
weak, absent, or withdrawn state, but a powerful, interventionist, and
punitive state acting deliberately in favor of the interests of the capitalist
class. On the other hand, the increasingly complex characteristic of own-
ership structures results in the setting up of managerialism as a distinctive
feature that overwhelms the state and corporate sector and drenches the
world of the social and private life as a whole.9 Regarding the third vari-
able, the authors point out that the transition from Keynesian capitalism
to neoliberal capitalism does not mean a “displacement” of industrial capi-
tal by financial capital, but it is the most concentrated form of power of
classes of the capitalist group. Financial capital is the greatest capital,
which boasts the ­ability to have and to control the economy that works

8
 By case, the income difference between 20% of the world population who lives in the
wealthiest countries and 20% of the poorest countries went from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 74 to
1 in 1997. (Duménil and Lévy 2004, pp. 41–63).
9
 These analyses on managerialism can be elaborated on and articulated with Boltansky and
Chiapello (2002) studies regarding the new spirit of capitalism, where, among other things,
the extraordinary increase of inequalities does not affect, nor does it undermine the “legiti-
macy” of the capital, but, on the contrary, streamlines generalization and deepening of the
capitalist ethos beyond the owning classes and the affluent sectors of the working class.
Likewise, the grounds of this analysis also underlie Foucauldian propositions that emphasize
neoliberalism as a new governmentality that is not exerted on conducts, but that nests in the
production mechanisms of those conducts; a generalized rationale-normativity where com-
petition, efficiency and usefulness are undertaken as the “personal” self-accomplishment,
making businessmen from their own individuals (Foucault 2004; Dardot and Laval 2007).
54   H. MACHADO ARÁOZ AND P. LISDERO

under its sphere of influence. The neoliberal phase’s specifics are related to
the leap of scale in the extension and intensity that financialization has
reached in the contemporary world economy; a leap that has only been
possible through the formation of a new power conglomerate, of a power
structured around a complex institutional network that articulates the
core of the great finances and which is made up of the large financial insti-
tutions to their full extent.
Another complimentary type  of literature on neoliberalism, which
places emphasis on the great transformations of the global political econ-
omy, is that provided by the Regulation School (Aglietta 1979; Lipietz
1986; Boyer 1986). Such literature proposes thinking about neoliberalism
as the result of the crisis arising from the Fordist accumulation regime or
from organizational capitalism, and the restructuring of capital under a
new post-organizational or flexible accumulation regime. In fact, flexibility
can be understood as a euphemism to allude to the dramatic increase in
power and in the ability to manage capital in different areas: the work-
force, the production processes, the dynamics of technological innovation
and the informational, merchandise and material flows, and energy inputs.
Broadly speaking, big companies gain a greater capacity to stipulate over
social life arrangements based on the restructuring of labor markets and
on the control over consumption patterns. The acceleration in the pace of
technological innovation, the shrinking of the life cycle of products, the
hyper-transportable characteristic of production factors, diversification,
globalization, and ultra-segmentation of consumption patterns come out
as another side of the discarding rate of the workforce and the increases in
the demands for the “retraining” of the workforce, the substantially grow-
ing precarity of working conditions, and the fragmentation of salary scales
and work status. This occurs in a wider context of drastic increase in social
inequalities and the reconstitution of global rates of surplus value which it
entails. Many strands roughly outline the new social, cultural, and political
landscape of flexible accumulation: the degradation or the loss of social
welfare mechanisms, the uncertainty of life caused by the arresting of pro-
fessional development, the widespread growth of consumption as a social
prescriptive and regulating phenomenon, and the transformation of a pat-
tern of accumulation which is more focused on rent extraction than on
profit making. In this way, the relationship between macroeconomics,
society, and culture, Bauman’s analyses of the liquid aspect of modernity
(1999, 2005, 2006, 2007) lead to a precise grasp and a synthetic under-
standing of the zeitgeist of the neoliberal era.
   NEOLIBERALIZATION AND NEW COMMODIFICATION FRONTIERS…    55

Without attempting to achieve thoroughness, and without undertaking

an all-integrating reconstruction, we believe this selective review of the
different perspectives on neoliberalism to be illustrative enough to realize
the extent to which we are faced with interpretations that are too fragmen-
tary, bound to circumstances related to a specific time, or too generalized
and non-specific. Although these are necessary as starting points, we feel
that the analyses of neoliberalism which try to define it through its charac-
teristic economic policy instruments and/or general state policies, its ide-
ological foundations, the changes in capitalist technologies for the
realization of value, or the consequences and effects for each of them, are
not comprehensive enough to understand/apprehend neoliberalism as a
historical-political category; that is, as a structural metamorphosis of the
eco-world-system that effectively marks a geological-anthropological mile-
stone, in which the phagocytosis characteristic of the social metabolism of
capital triggered a crisis of “global exhaustion” and, immediately after-
wards, it gave place to an new threshold of commodification/super-­
exploitation of vital energies.

A Critique of “Progressive Reasoning”: Elements

for a Redefinition of Neoliberalization Processes

In the whole conception of history up to the present this real basis of history
has either been totally neglected (…). History must, therefore, always be
written according to an extraneous standard; the real production of life
seems to be primeval history, while the truly historical appears to be sepa-
rated from ordinary life, something extra-superterrestrial. With this the rela-
tion of man to nature is excluded from history and hence the antithesis of
nature and history is created. The exponents of this conception of history
have consequently only been able to see in history the political actions of
princes and States, religious and all sorts of theoretical struggles, and in
particular in each historical epoch have had to share the illusion of that
epoch. (Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, 1846)

Marx and Engels’ warnings regarding the conceptions of history that

neglect the real processes of organic, material—thus emotional—life
become extremely relevant to the debates about neoliberalism taking place
in Latin America, and particularly speaking, to the deviations in “
­ progressive
56   H. MACHADO ARÁOZ AND P. LISDERO

reasoning.”10 Rephrasing what they have stated, it should be emphasized

that the “overcoming of neoliberalism” is not something that depends on
“the political actions of princes and States”: it is something more complex
and goes far beyond “religious and theoretical struggles.”
As we have stated in other works (Machado Aráoz 2015a, b, 2016),
interpreting the cyclic patterns of “progressive governments” since a post-­
neoliberal interregnum11 now seems to us an egregious theoretical error
with dire political consequences. According to our understanding, the
“progressive reasoning,” or the populist cause, if you would prefer, has
been forced into a conception of neoliberalism that defines it in terms of
political economy’s aporias instilled by its most illustrious doctrinal men-
tors, that is, the contrasts of State versus Market, Keynesian economics
versus monetarism, nationalization versus privatization, protectionism
versus free trade, and so on. In this way, a new perspective was constructed
from which “neoliberal” ends up being a qualifier for a certain type of
public policies or a modality of states, governments and/or political leaders,
rather than a historical-structural phase of capital.
From these concepts and diagnoses, the “overcoming” of neoliberalism
has been conceived, and it is currently conceived as well, as a consequence
of a renewed state interventionism, oriented to the recovery of a national-­
developmentalist path and to the vindication of “political autonomy”
(Laclau 2005), that is, of contractual or significantly pure autonomy.
Adding to the confusion, the passing from the “Washington Consensus”

10
 We refer to the core of the argument—both for its main leaders and main figures, and
for the organic intelligentsia they have displayed—that has been formulated around the expe-
riences of progressive governments in Latin America, their policies and discourses, mainly the
ones in which they present themselves as “the” alternative to neoliberalism.
In this case too, it should be noted that these experiences and processes created impacts
that cross the boundaries of territory, dogging a large part of political and intellectual forces
from other latitudes into giving in and identifying themselves with this stance. For instance,
the Argentine experience was echoed in Podemos, in Spain, Siryza, Greece; Jean-Luc
Mélenchon and the Left Front had echoed in France, among others.
11
 We say “interregnum” because, although the ruling Left pictured itself ushering in a
post-neoliberal era, as we know, that did not last long. Even so, for such sectors, the recent
changes in several governments in the area conceived as a “return to the 1990s”—some
emblematic examples include Temer in Brazil, Macri in Argentina, Kuczynski in Peru, Piñera
in Chile, and even Moreno in Ecuador—would reinforce the view that the progressive gov-
ernments truly meant a “way out” and/or the “overcoming” of neoliberalism. Nowadays,
they place their hopes in Maduro’s “resilient” government, Evo Morales’ re-election and the
return of the ousted leaders in Brazil, Argentina, and Ecuador.
   NEOLIBERALIZATION AND NEW COMMODIFICATION FRONTIERS…    57

to the “Beijing Consensus,” which took place in the first decade of the
new millennium, enabled a growing cycle in the economy based mainly on
the chronic and fluctuating export of raw materials. This change restored
the illusions around a nostalgic return to the world of Keynesian econom-
ics and the Welfare State.
In fact, it can be foreseen how, in this way and for the sake of the
“struggle against neoliberalism”, the naturalization of capitalism is estab-
lished in a scenario where the political struggle is constrained by the phan-
tasmagorical entanglements of capital: to the progressive reasoning, the
greatest libertarian and emancipatory ambitions are defined in terms of a
horizon of “growth through social inclusion” integrating the expansion of
consumption with the “extension of rights.” In such a context, the fantasy
of state-centered developmentalism functions as a dialectical pair of “neo-
liberalism” as a phantom, its cyclical reverse side of adjustment and repres-
sion policies (sensu Scribano).12
From our understanding, the underlying problem of such positions
stems from an oversimplified conception of reality in a plain version of
ontology which ends up conceptualizing neoliberalism merely at a level of
the great structures and political processes. Such type of ontology ulti-
mately defines what is political and the political aspects of social life from
a strictly state-centered and anthropocentric perspective. To a large part of
the Left and critical thinking, even some supposedly Marxist literature,
neoliberalism implies a structural change in capitalism. However, this
“structural” change is basically understood at the following levels: at the
level of major political, economic, and ideological actors; at the level of the
state apparatus, its institutional, legal-ideological, and social-normative or
repressive framework; at the level of the global market and the dynamics

12
 Here we take Scribano’s contributions (2004) into account to think of a series of pro-
cesses that have their epicenter in the body, and particularly, in a series of affectivities partially
structured as the embodiment of the social aspect. On the basis of these processes, social
actors seek to maintain their world of life without problematizing them, because that is how
they obtain certainty, foresight, and an unquestioned set of practices. Here is where the
notions of phantoms and social fantasies are inscribed as a specific chapter of these practices
whose objectives bare a relationship to conflict avoidance. Fantasies prevent conflict-related
situations in a journey in which perceptions and sensations take something particular as uni-
versal. To this effect, the fantasy has a hint of hope or illusion which is contrasted with the
phantom, since they are built from the perceptions that they bring forward the failures,
frustrations, and defeats, thus disabling the capacity for action of the subject. After practice,
the phantom becomes a perception associated with a feeling of threat and of social fear that
later redefines the new practices.
58   H. MACHADO ARÁOZ AND P. LISDERO

of global accumulation, the large economic corporations and the transna-

tional, intergovernmental, multilateral systems that have an interference
and a prominent role in their functioning; and finally, at the level of the
large and increasingly complex and sophisticated networks of production
of signs, symbols, and meanings which are associated with communication
companies, think tanks, universities, and formal and non-formal “educa-
tional” systems. In short, to most part of the Left, neoliberalism is a neo-­
imperial geopolitical project, one that is complex and not exempt from
conflicts and contradictions. Moreover, this project is linked to global
power strategies from these great actors and class coalitions of the world
elites.
And although neoliberalism is undoubtedly all that, and the structural
transformations of capitalism in the transition to this third millennium
have to do with all those actors, processes and phenomena, it clearly is
much more than that. In a certain aspect, neoliberalism is a historical-­
structural phenomenon that overflows with magnitude, depth, intensity,
and complexity all those great geopolitical, geo-economic, and geo-
cultural changes bound to the radical project of reforming the world “in
the image and likeness” of Mont Pelerin’s ideas of society. They overflow
it because such transformations have been settled in a new regime of gov-
ernmentality, whose weight and effect in reality are related to its capacity
to permeate and conquer “personal” life. It has ceased to be, therefore,
only a matter of great actors and elites and it has pervaded social life as a
whole, crossing the borders of the structure of different class strata and
invading the innermost areas of everyday life.
This new governmentality-rationality-affectivity has expanded porously
as an “unnoticed” echo of governmental practices imposed by the well-­
known political and economic reforms, thus dramatically impacting on
the—material, spiritual, and affective—conditions of people’s everyday
lives. In such a way, neoliberalism has been territorialized and incarnated,
that is, it has taken root in the Earth and in human bodies, creating not
only a new governmentality, but also a new “geography,” a new material-­
spiritual base for human condition.
If we look beyond the anthropocentric ideas of Foucauldian biopolitics
and take into account the complexity and integrity of social metabolism
and how matter and energy flows—including work flows—connect the
physiology—and the affectivity—of the bodies with the planet’s biospheric
totality through social metabolism itself, then it should be noted that the
structural mutation of capitalism, under neoliberal pressure, implies a
   NEOLIBERALIZATION AND NEW COMMODIFICATION FRONTIERS…    59

drastic change at all levels of strata and dimensions of existence. Hence,

this means that we are facing the “metamorphosis” of a regime of social
relations which has affected both the space-time macro-scale of living mat-
ter in general and the micro-scale of the ultimate and most elementary
pores of vital sensibility—those that reside at the level of living human
organisms.
In this subsequent phase of such geological and anthropological “Great
Transformation,” that has meant the mutation of the law of value in the
world of life, the transition from the contractionary cycle of the 1990s to
the expansive period of the 2000s, by no means, has meant an “overcom-
ing of neoliberalism”; on the contrary, it has led to its consolidation and
deepening. The expansion of global economy at Chinese growth rates has
involved a massive increase in the intensity and volumes of exploitation,
extraction, mobilization, transformation, and consumption of nutrients,
raw materials, and mineral and energy resources of the planet. So much so
that, even though we have entered the Age of the Anthropocene/
Capitalocene (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000; Angus 2016), we have far
surpassed the limits for the system to regenerate itself and we have frac-
tured several of the most fragile and important ecological cycles and equi-
libria on which Life on Earth depends. But also, such consumerist
expansion—its eco-biopolitical effects regarding the colonization of desire
by the rationality of calculation and the commodification of emotions—
has meant a drastic erosion of the most elemental political grounds, and of
the material basis of the political aspects of existence, which are the living/
sentient bodies of human species. Neoliberalism thus places emphasis on a
dimension that is intrinsic to it, but which, in our days, acquires an unusual
global expression. We should focus our efforts on redefining such global
expression, that is, the daily aspect that constitutes it as a fantastic machine
for metabolizing vital energies—specially the affective ones—in order to
subsume them in the expanding logic of commodities; to coagulate the
forces for change, reaffirming one and only possible future.

Neoliberalization: The “Progressive” Experiences

as an Expanding Re-influx

We have seen in Venezuela many revolutionary intellectuals who practically

and theoretically fought against a government that is representational of the
system (that of Rómulo Betancourt), and who, with the passing of time, a
few years later—for most part—became part of the cultural bureaucracy of
60   H. MACHADO ARÁOZ AND P. LISDERO

that same government (...). What is most serious, however, does not reside
in that, but in that such artists and intellectuals are the major producers of
ideological surplus value for the system. We complete our theory, then, by
adding a fundamental and necessary corollary: ideological surplus value is
produced proportionally to the revolutionary potential of those who pro-
duce it. (Ludovico Silva [1970] 2017: 224)

Ludovico Silva, a Venezuelan sociologist, has coined the term “ideological

surplus value” to provoke dogmatic appropriations of Marxism and, at the
same time, to highlight the particular features of a method of production
that has increasingly concentrated more and more efforts in the elabora-
tion of a kind of “spiritual wage,” as it could be perceived in the 1960s in
Latin America. On such a basis, subjects become “alienated” from a spe-
cific cluster of vital energies in return for living in the security that “this is
the only world possible.” Thus, following the teachings of Marx’s Economic
and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Silva establishes a proportional rela-
tion between “revolutionary potential” and “volume of production of sur-
plus value,” that is, he directs the focus toward the mechanisms from
which “critical” energies can be at the same time a vital reservoir of the
processes of re-production. Here is where the question about “progressive
reasoning” leads us to question ourselves about the way in which the sub-
ject’s legitimate aspirations for change were constituted—from a new col-
onizing influx of everyday affectivities—at the core of the neoliberalization
process in progress, thus configuring a colossal machine that preys on
“hopes.”
In this way, “progressivism” developed in the globally widespread post-­
neoliberal stage in Latin America has not only set the conditions for the
development of a series of ideological practices that we define above as the
fantasy of “development with inclusion” and its supportive counterpart,
the phantom of the “neoliberal adjustment,” but also the consequences
following it go beyond region frontiers. We are facing a world-system
where the internationalization of markets is intimately related to the pos-
sibility of reinventing territories and what is “productive” in them. In this
context, Latin America is now re-discovered as a large open-pit mine for
the extraction of a series of “progressive” experiences that promise to be
the new fuel for the renewal of the global political economy. What seems
to be behind the renewed interest of European progressive politicians in
the region is the setting up of a true production enclave of ideological
surplus value.
   NEOLIBERALIZATION AND NEW COMMODIFICATION FRONTIERS…    61

So as to ponder a little more on this hypothesis, we can understand that

the re-territorialization of the global influxes of capital have their political
correlate under the expression of “global progressivism,” whose emer-
gence can be reconstructed from the parallelism between the colonizing
tendencies of the “inner planet,” as renewed deposits of energy reserves,
and the establishment of extractive colonialism. Thereby, vital energies
only enter into global scales as they need to build on the sources of pos-
sible untamed leaks, as re-assurance of political productivity that guaran-
tees the sensitive conditions for extraction processes. The unknown inner
planet and its power—as there could exist passions whose existence “would
negate” what “is being”—is territorialized as an input for a machinery of
social relations that needs to re-invent the limits of “what is processable.”
In such contexts, the mechanism that involves managing the perceptions
that lead us to think that “this is the only change we can aspire to” becomes
paramount, and hence it becomes an asset structuring “future profits.”
In other words, managing the affective dimension as a political condi-
tion is one of the main keys at a global level for the processes of creation
of value and capital appreciation. Hence, if Latin America has been the
territory where the sources of rebellions against neoliberal experiments
sprang early—let us consider the moment when the following emerged:
Zapatismo in Mexico, the MST in Brazil, the Movement of the indige-
nous people in Ecuador, among many other pioneering experiences in the
fight against the neoliberal policies of the 1980s and 1990s—then, it is not
unthinkable that the contribution of such political expressions, which
sought to embody those disruptive energies and which had a leading role
in the political local scenes of the “post-neoliberal era,” was their innova-
tion in governance systems agile in metabolizing “ructions” into
“bearableness.”
In this sense, the renewed interest of the “European progressives” in
the “models” or “tools” deployed in Latin American experiences to
“defeat neoliberalism” can be considered a fantastic mechanism for the
transfer of ideological surplus value. It creates tension, on the one hand,
on the processes of rearrangement of the global macroeconomy and, on
the other hand, the establishment of some of the theoretical impostures
mentioned previously from which “progressivism,” far from being built
up to protect against neoliberal advance, sets the material conditions for
its expansive renewal.
Unquestionably, these local contributions to neoliberalization must be
put under tension in ways in which this phenomenon is expressed in the
62   H. MACHADO ARÁOZ AND P. LISDERO

complexity of the Global South. If one of the distinctive characteristics of

the current process is its totality, it seems necessary to broaden our range
of understanding about the ability to set up a planetary structure of prac-
tices which, despite their extension, are constituted as pores and specifi-
cally in different regions. In this manner, several authors seem to provide
similar descriptions of the processes that we have been pointing out. In
this regard, Mbembe makes the following observation about the African
reality: “The lumpenradicalism [comparable to what we have defined here
as progressivism], whose growth was boosted by the access to digital tech-
nology, works by gathering categories and expressions of emancipation
and redirecting them towards causes and practices that have nothing to do
with the quest for freedom and equality, or with the general project of
autonomy.” (Mbembe 2017: s/n)
To conclude, if the radicalism of the neoliberal expansion in Latin
America during the 1980s and the 1990s implied its own renewing influx,
as we have been discussing, then the limit of its expression, fits into the cur-
rent form of “progressivism” with which it expanded during the first decades
of the new millennium, can also be found in the dimensions involved in its
own process—as well as in the reconfiguration of its new limits. Thus, it is
provocative to extrapolate the experimental analogy, which abounds in texts
and discourses on neoliberalism in Latin America. On its basis, it is claimed
that these territories were protagonists of the essays on some policies that
later spread and shaped the world as we knew it toward the end of the sec-
ond millennium. In this regard, we might well ask ourselves in what sense
can continuities be established between the “highly promoted” era of the
resurgence of what is neoliberal, which characterizes our current days, and
the limits of what we have called “progressive experiences.” What we have
offered here as an answer, while thinking on some connections between
“progressivism” and neoliberalization, implies redefining the latter empha-
sizing its ability to capture and process disruptive energies, giving rise to a
global governance based on the possibility of commodifying affectivities as
a condition for the production and realization of capital.
The lines of flight and indetermination of these processes make up a
research agenda which is not set in tandem with but is integrated into the
possibility of acting critically regarding the complex realities that are
imposed as the “only ones possible.” In this way, we hope that the reflec-
tions presented in this work can contribute to the construction of
­hypotheses full of hopes which escape the phantoms and fantasies involved
in the neoliberalization processes.
   NEOLIBERALIZATION AND NEW COMMODIFICATION FRONTIERS…    63

References
Aglietta, M. (1979). A Theory of Capitalist Regulation. London: New Left Books.
Ahmad, A. (2004). Imperialismo de nuestro tiempo. Socialist Register, 40, 75–98.
Albo, G. (2004). La vieja y nueva economía del imperialismo. Socialist Register, 40,
131–164.
Anderson, P. (1999). Neoliberalismo: un balance provisorio. In E.  Sader &
P. Gentili (Eds.), La trama del neoliberalismo. Mercado, crisis y exclusión social
(pp. 11–18). Buenos Aires: Clacso – Eudeba.
Angus, I. (2016). Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the
Earth System. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Bauman, Z. (1999). Modernidad líquida. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura
Económica.
Bauman, Z. (2005). Amor líquido: acerca de la fragilidad de los vínculos humanos.
México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Bauman, Z. (2006). Vida líquida. Barcelona: Paidós.
Bauman, Z. (2007). Vida de consumo. Madrid: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2002). El nuevo espíritu del capitalismo. Madrid:
Akal.
Boyer, R. ([1986] 1989). Teoría de la regulación: un análisis crítico. Buenos Aires:
Ceil-Conicet.
Brenner, N., Peck, J., & Nik, T. (2010). Variegated Neoliberalization: Geographies,
Modalities, Pathways. Global Networks, 10(2), 182–222.
Castel, R. (1996). La metamorfosis de la cuestión social. Una crónica del salariado.
Buenos Aires: Paidos.
Collado, P. (2005). ¿Metamorfosis del trabajo o metamorfosis del capital? Revista
Herramienta, 30, s/n.
Crutzen, P.  J., & Stoermer, E.  F. (2000). The Anthropocene. Global Change
Newsletter, 1, 17.
Dardot, P., & Laval, C. ([2007] 2013). La nueva razón del mundo. Barcelona:
Gedisa.
Dávalos, P. (2012). La democracia disciplinaria. El proyecto posneoliberal para
América Latina. Quito: CODEU.
Delano, M., & Traslaviña, H. (1989). La herencia de los Chicago Boys. Santiago de
Chile: Ed. Ornitorrinco.
Duménil, G., & Lévy, D. (2004). Capital Resurgent. Roots of the Neoliberal
Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Duménil, G., & Lévy, D. (2012). Una teoría marxista del neoliberalismo. Rebelión.
http://www.rebelion.org/docs/114472.pdf. Accessed 6 Apr 2018.
Foucault, M. ([2004] 2007). Nacimiento de la biopolítica. Buenos Aires: Fondo de
Cultura Económica.
Garretón, M. A. (2012). Neoliberalismo corregido y progresismo limitado: los gobier-
nos de la Concertación en Chile 1990–2010. Buenos Aires: Clacso.
64   H. MACHADO ARÁOZ AND P. LISDERO

Harvey, D. (2004). El ‘nuevo’ Imperialismo: acumulación por desposesión.

Socialist Register, 40, 99–128.
Harvey, D. (2007). Breve historia del Neoliberalismo. Madrid: Akal.
Laclau, E. (2005). La razón populista. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Lipietz, A. (1986). New Tendencies in the International Division of Labour:
Regimes of Accumulation and Modes of Regulation. In A. Scott & M. Storper
(Eds.), Production, Work, Territory: The Geographical Anatomy of Industrial
Capitalism. London: Verso.
Lora, E. (2001). Las Reformas estructurales en América Latina: Qué se ha refor-
mado y cómo medirlo (Working Paper). Inter-American Development Bank,
Research Department, 462, pp. 1–50.
Machado Aráoz, H. (2015a). Post(?)neoliberalismo, extractivismo y el colonial-
ismo del siglo XXI. La encrucijada nuestramericana desde una perspectiva eco-
socialista. In C.  Jiménez & A.  Tauss (Eds.), ¿Pensar el fin del capitalismo?
Escenarios y estrategias de transformación socio-ecológicas. Bogotá: Universidad
Nacional de Colombia.
Machado Aráoz, H. (2015b). Crítica de la razón progresista. Una Mirada marxista
sobre el extractivismo/colonialismo del Siglo XXI. Revista Actuel Marx
Intervenciones, 19, 137–174.
Machado Aráoz, H. (2016). O debate sobre o ‘extractivismo’ em tempos de res-
saca. A Natureza americana e a orden colonial. In G.  Dilger, M.  Lang, &
J. Pereira Filho (Orgs.), Descolonizar o imaginário. Debates sobre pós-­extrativismo
e alternativas ao desenvolvimento. Sao Paulo: Fund. Rosa Luxemburgo  –
Elefante Editora.
Mato, D. (2007). Think Thanks, Fundaciones y profesionales en la promoción de
ideas (neo)liberales en América Latina. In A. Grimson (Comp.), Cultura y neo-
liberalismo. Buenos Aires: Clacso.
Mbembe, A. (2017, December 28). Le lumpen-radicalisme et autres maladies de
la tyrannie. Le Monde. http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2017/12/28/
le-lumpen-radicalisme-et-autres-maladies-de-la-tyrannie_5235406_3212.
html. Accessed 6 Apr 2018.
Nun, J. (2003). La teoría de la masa marginal en Marginalidad y exclusión social.
Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Panitch, L., & Gindin, S. (2004). Capitalismo global e imperio norteamericano.
Socialist Register, 40, 19–73.
Plehwe, D., Walpen, B., & Neunhöffer, G. (Eds.). (2006). Neoliberal Hegemony.
A Global Critique. New York: Routledge.
Puello Socarrás, J. F. (2015). Neoliberalismo, antineoliberalismo, nuevo neoliber-
alismo. Episodios y trayectorias económico-políticas suramericanas
(1973–2015). In L. Rojas Villaga (Coord.), Neoliberalismo en América Latina.
Crisis, tendencias y alternativas. Buenos Aires: Clacso.
   NEOLIBERALIZATION AND NEW COMMODIFICATION FRONTIERS…    65

Scribano, A. (2004). Combatiendo fantasmas. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones MAD.

Silva, L. ([1970] 2017). La plusvalía ideológica. Caracas: Fundación para la cultura
y las Artes.
Therborn, G. (1999). La crisis y el futuro del capitalismo. In E. Sader & P. Gentili
(Comps.), La trama del neoliberalismo. Mercado, crisis y exclusión social. Buenos
Aires: Clacso – Eudeba.
Von Hayek, F. ([1944] 2011). Camino de Servidumbre. Madrid: Alianza.