Geoffroy de Lagasnerie summary: "Last Lesson Given by Foucault"

We are coming back and now we want to offer a little and brief summary about how was our meeting in order to discuss about the work about Foucault writen by this author. 

We discussed particularly about some key points:

-Differences between Liberalism - Neoliberalism

-Are we still in a "Homo Oeconomicus" rationalism?

-Was then, Foucault, a Neoliberal?

Foucault will say that there is a fundamental difference between liberalism and neoliberalism that Lagasnerie did not collect: labour. In Marxism theories, labour is a work force that you sell and other pays to you. Nonetheless, in Neoliberalism labour is not a work force: it is a truth with which the subject can understood itself.

Main differences Liberalism-Neoliberalism:

Laissez-faire, do not intervene.	Must intervene under the ground.
The homo economicus is a partner with whom you exchange.	Homo Oeconomicus is not a partner, is a businessman himself, he is his own capital, his own business.
Disciplinary Societies.	Control Societies.
Still believe in the totality and universality.	Charge against any principle of totality, backing the plurality.
It is still not as stressed the role of the experts (When the king is removed, we must to be governed by rules).	The role of experts is much more main in all fields.
Economics is a science of prices and resources.	Economics isa science of  rational decisions.

Economics is the space that offers a better veridiction ground. Neoliberalism is adjusted to control societies, it is the place par excellence of government, the structure is always in economic terms. This may not fit with the idea of Deleuze, because he does not see a predominance of one type of place. 

What would today replaced the entrerprise-form, the entrepreneur of itself? Is there a new diagram where the pre-eminence would not be economic, but biological, for instance? How would it be? 

Photo Credit: Karl-Ludwig Poggemann