Against Community attempts to the explore the political rhetoric of "community" with reference to the politics of the United Kingdom in the era of neoliberalism. Specifically, what is the material and ideological function of discourses around community? How have these shifted over time in the politics of the mainstream of the United Kingdom - from the birth of neoliberal politics in the late 1970s, to the Blairite highpoint of the late 1990s to the Serco-sponsored austerity jamboree of Cameron's "big society"? Why the attraction of community so strong that the likely incoming Labour government feel the need to endorse it in the concept of "one nation"?
Against Community begins by exploring the ideas of community within the early German neoliberal theorists, showing community to be a central concern of the "shock doctrine" reconstruction of post-World War II Germany. Even as early as the later 1940s and 1950s neoliberal reform was accompanied by rhetoric of "community". This idea of community was partially inspired by the work of Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt on parliamentary democracy, endorsing the idea that "Democracy requires [...] first homogeneity and second [...] elimination or eradication of heterogeneity". Against the sketching of neoliberalism as being intrinsically anti-state, the neoliberals followed Schmitt in believing the free market required a strong, but small "moralising" state - precisely under the idea of "community".
The need for homogeneity, with the attendant suppression of dissent and class conflict and a strong "police" state is ably demonstrated by the British transition to neoliberalism - all done under the rhetoric of community. The relative stabilisation of neoliberalism under Blair was accomplished under its sign. Cameron's de-toxification of the Tory brand was done with the cleansing community of the Big Society, while his austerity is being done under the community of "keeping calm and carrying on", the dark nostalgia of retro nationalism.
Against Community shows how the rhetoric of community, rather than being in opposition to the harshest violence of the market, is its ideological partner. Rather than being an opposition to nationalism, community is an endorsement of the specific form of (racist) nationalism required to discipline workers under neoliberalism. Rather than an alternative to capitalism, as some on the left would have us believe, community operates as the sphere in which capitalism reproduces itself. Rather than providing a lightweight alternative to a heavy-handed welfare state, "community" provides the ideological cover for the emptying of its function into private hands.
Explores the early rhetoric of community in the Mont Pelerin Society, the original ur-think tank of neoliberal thought. Drawing on Carl Schmitt, early neoliberal theorists like Wilhelm Röpke and Alexander Rüstow created the idea of "community" as a necessary part of the roll out of neoliberalism. Rather than being opposed to community, neoliberalism, even in embryo, was always accompanied by the idea of "community". These ideas were first practiced with the creation of the German “social market” in the aftermath of World War II.
Though famous for the seemingly anti-community statement that "there is no such thing as society", this chapter shows how Thatcherite politics drew heavily on the idea of community. The idea of the nation as a community in her battle against the unions. Thatcher and her think tankers had read the German neoliberals carefully, especially Röpke. The UK was to follow the idea of the German social market. While Thatcher was a foot soldier for the market, she was also a populist and small-c conservative, and it was community that provided the bridge between the two.
The interest in "community" was a central plank of New Labour's politics, to the extent that commentators have sometimes referred to them as "communitarian". While Blair cited communitarian philosophers in interviews, with Etzioni and Giddens as court philosophers, the Blair era resounded with the idea of community. Community was the ethical core of New Labour's politics, said to be the true core of socialism that was the continuity of the move from Labour to New Labour. While the realism of the market was accepted from Thatcher, love of "community" was to be what made Blairism distinct and still a “socialism”. Ideas like "community partnership", "care in the community", the need for “community leaders” and “building community” abounded under Blair. That these ideas were, in fact, the means to strengthen the hand of neoliberalism provides a case study for community within neoliberalism.
Under Cameron community is back, but under the idea of a "Big Society". Many of the same theorists are the talk of the possibility of a post-liberal politics, based around community are mooted in think tank circles, particularly in the "Red Toryism" of Phillip Blond (himself a crypto-theocratic medievalist). The Big Society was seen in the early period of Cameron's leadership as the spine to his policy programme, endorsing radical decentralisation and localism, and the idea that the "community" can often provide better than both the market and the state. The "community", however, in reality means a stronger market and a stronger state required for austerity. "Community" means Serco. “Community” is the end of the NHS.
What should we make of Miliband's move to a "one nation" stance? We can see it fermenting in the work of Baron Maurice Glasman, whose Blue Labour stance led to the "unfortunate" dalliance with both the EDL and outspoken opposition to immigration. Appeals to community, the idea that community is necessary homogeneity that neoliberalism requires. Miliband’s “one nation” is the continuation of neoliberalism under the hope of avoiding the class conflicts brought on by austerity.
Summing up the ideological use of community in neoliberalism.
This was a pitch for a book upcycling my PhD thesis. Sent to a publisher on Monday, 26 Nov 2012.