Neoliberalism and the Revenge of Rentier Capitalists

It is not the aim of this chapter to embark on an in-depth study of a topic that Serge Audier (2012) addressed very ably in his exhaustive historical and theoretical work.¹ Our purpose here is simply to lay out its main characteristics while finding reasons for its success and putting its theoretical weaknesses into perspective.

In 1936, the American journalist Walter Lippmann organized a conference in Paris dedicated to the revival of liberalism. This school of thought was facing the dual disasters of the Great Depression and the rise of totalitarianism. The Walter Lippmann Colloquium aimed at promoting a new type of liberalism to combat fascism, communism, and government intervention by gathering all big names of the non-Keynesian (non-Marxist) branch of economics. But a split immediately emerged between the pure renovators, who would become, roughly speaking, the ordoliberals, and those who leaned toward liberal radicalism. It was the latter who would claim over time the label of neo-liberal, if not ultra-liberal, for themselves.