The main sub­stan­tive achie­ve­ment of neo­li­be­ra­li­za­tion, howe­ver, has been to redis­tri­bute, rather than to gene­rate, wealth and income. I have elsew­here pro­vi­ded an account of the main mecha­nisms whe­re­by this was achie­ved under the rubric of « accu­mu­la­tion by dis­pos­ses­sion ». By this I mean the conti­nua­tion and pro­li­fe­ra­tion of accu­mu­la­tion prac­tices which Marx had trea­ted of as « pri­mi­tive » or « ori­gi­nal » during the rise of capi­ta­lism. These include the com­mo­di­fi­ca­tion and pri­va­ti­za­tion of land and the for­ce­ful expul­sion of pea­sant popu­la­tions (com­pare the cases, des­cri­bed above, of Mexico and of China, where 70 mil­lion pea­sants are thought to have been dis­pla­ced in…

To pre­sume that mar­kets and mar­ket signals can best deter­mine all allo­ca­tive deci­sions is to pre­sume that eve­ry­thing can in prin­ciple be trea­ted as a com­mo­di­ty. Commodification pre­sumes the exis­tence of pro­per­ty rights over pro­cesses, things, and social rela­tions, that a price can be put on them, and that they can be tra­ded sub­ject to legal contract. The mar­ket is pre­su­med to work as an appro­priate guide – an ethic – for all human action. In prac­tice, of course, eve­ry socie­ty sets some bounds on where com­mo­di­fi­ca­tion begins and ends. Where the boun­da­ries lie is a mat­ter of conten­tion. Certain…