Capitalism as a social movement: the corporate and neoliberal reconstructions of the American political economy in the twentieth century

Transitional justice for whom? Contention over human rights and justice in Tunisia

“…The Tunisian case underscores the shortcomings of the conceptualization of neoliberal capitalism as a background factor that either enables or constrains collective actions. It shows, in line with recent work on neoliberalism as a social movement (Chouhy, 2020;Schneirov & Schneirov, 2016), that neoliberalism may involve and operate through the interplay of movements from above and below whose identities do not necessarily correspond with one another.…”

“…It directs our attention to how the so-called 'rights-based approaches' to development adopted as part of resistance discourses can have the effect of normalizing and thereby serving capitalist power relations by unwittingly reproducing the individualization of structural problems and performing an imagined legal subject divorced from actual relations of exploitation (D'Souza, 2019). This normalizing function is not limited to some international and domestic human rights NGOs that have been criticized for their legalist and positivist approach to rights and justice and, as Schneirov and Schneirov (2016)'s work reflects, subaltern groups can also participate in the (re)production of the neoliberal discourse and individual rights holder subjectivity.…”

The manipulative business and society

“…Other research could focus on the connections between capitalism and social norms, perhaps using social movement theory as the underlying construct. The connection between social movement theory and capitalism was proposed by Schneirov and Schneirov (2016), who argued that capitalists are eligible protagonists for social movements, and that social movement theory itself should be take into account the wider social environment. In their words, “Once we recognize how major features of capitalism and the state are constantly being created, modified, and reconstructed by social movements, we can stop reifying the distinctions between movements on the one hand and parties, state institutions, and the corporate economy on the other.” These authors apply this wider interpretation of social movement theory to the development of four modern capitalism characteristics: (a) managers have become major corporate stakeholders, and therefore focus on profit maximization; (b) corporate income has largely shifted toward the wealthy; (c) “normal” practices of sub‐contracting supply functions and employing a large proportion temporary contractors; and (d) a new transnational capitalist class emerged as “American leaders pushed less‐developed nations to cut government welfare spending, deregulate business, privatize state‐owned enterprise, liberalize trade policies, and tear down capital controls”.…”

“…For example, society's search for a deeper truth and meaningfulness to life has led to a secular counter‐movement referred to as “workplace spirituality” (Ashar & Lane‐Maher, 2004). Researcher Ashar and Lane‐Maher, among others, have identified the social movement's characteristics (such as values of consciousness, relationships, collaboration, community, and sustainability); what is needed now is recommendations by researchers on how this trend can become an effective social movement in supplanting the neo‐capitalism movement described by Schneirov and Schneirov (2016) and discussed above. One relevant and interesting idea is the application of “social movement entrepreneurship” (Wilson, Van Luijk, & Boit, 2015); another is the emergence of social movements through social media (Ravanoğlu Yilmaz, 2017).…”

“…Other research could focus on the connections between capitalism and social norms, perhaps using social movement theory as the underlying construct. The connection between social movement theory and capitalism was proposed by Schneirov and Schneirov (2016), who argued that capitalists are eligible protagonists for social movements, and that social movement theory itself should be take into account the wider social environment. In their words, "Once we recognize how major features of capitalism and the state are constantly being created, modified, and reconstructed by social movements, we can stop reifying the distinctions between movements on the one hand and parties, state institutions, and the corporate economy on the other."…”