Neoliberalizm. Każdy ma swoją…

Neoliberalizm. Każdy ma swoją wizję o co w tym chodzi i ludzi którzy chyba być może są z tą ideologią (ideą? nurtem ekonomicznym?) związani: Friedman, Reagan, Thatcher, Obama? Neoliberalizm jako ideologia ekonomiczna i polityczna są okropnie mgliście zdefiniowane. Co nie podlega z kolei dyskusji to to, że termin „neoliberalizm” jest ulubioną obelgą światowej oraz wykopowej lewicy.
Jak to się stało, że neoliberalizm został ulubionym bluzgiem lewicy? Polecam poniższą lekturę: The members of this colourful alliance against neoliberalism are as united in their opposition to neoliberalism as they are diverse. This suggests that neoliberalism cannot be too clearly defined as a concept. Rather, it is a broad umbrella under which very different groups with various points of view can meet. In the church of anti-neoliberalism, there is a place for anyone who believes that neoliberalism stands in the way of reaching his or her political goals. Neoliberalism as a concept has its roots in Germany between the two World Wars. It is, therefore, necessary to explore the intellectual and political climate of this period, but also its historical background. In particular, we need to evaluate whether Alexander Rüstow was right to claim that economic liberalism had failed in Germany. Rüstow was a fierce critic of leaving free markets to their own devices. This is strange because it is very doubtful (to say the least) that such free markets had ever existed in Germany. For this reason we have to get acquainted with the history of Germany’s economic order. This was the same Alexander Rüstow who invented the term ‘neoliberalism,’ who popularised it first among his German colleagues, and who eventually even managed to have an international group of liberal thinkers, including the liberal/libertarian icons of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich August von Hayek, agree on this new term to describe their intellectual movement. If we want to understand Rüstow’s neoliberalism, we need to understand his basic interpretation of economic history. Throughout the 1920s he had been dealing with market structures and cartels. As we had seen earlier, Germany had become a country of corporatist capitalism, and the hundreds of cartels were a central part of this system. In his essay ‘Between Capitalism and Communism’ (originally published in ORDO, the journal of the German neoliberal movement, in 1949), Rüstow explicitly argues for a ‘Third Way’ between the two ideologies.48 He acknowledged that markets generally worked well under complete competition. However, he accused Adam Smith of holding a polemical grudge against the state that had made him neglect the necessary state-determined institutions of markets. This, so Rüstow claimed, caused the degeneration of the market economy into a system of untenable capitalism. In a long footnote, he went on to explain that he needed to insist on a differentiation between ‘the truly free market economy of complete competition’ and its ‘subventionist-monopolist-pluralist degeneration,’ which he thought of as a ‘pathologically degenerate variety’ of true market competition and for which he suggested the term ‘capitalism.’ However, the Social Market Economy became more and more ‘socialist (i.e. redistributionist)’ over time. Whereas Erhard had always insisted that the market was inherently social and did not need to be made so, in political practice the German welfare state grew bigger—much to the dismay of Rüstow. He complained that the German welfare state had developed into an overly complicated system since it was started under Bismarck.78 Rüstow also called for a more restrictive social policy as a prerequisite of the Social Market Economy. A social policy, he warned, could well turn into an anti-social policy if it burdened the public with excessive taxes. The result was that nobody wanted to self-define as a neoliberal anymore. The Germans had found other words to express the middle-of-the-road philosophy of neoliberalism, while the liberals outside Germany returned to dealing with classical liberal propositions, reducing the need to talk about ‘neo’-liberalism. Taken together, the criticism of laissez faire plus the recognition of the power of markets and scepticism of state power is the core of the neoliberal project as it was once formulated. This would almost make the Prime Minister a neoliberal in the original meaning of the word, although he would probably be surprised if he found out. However, Rudd’s policies suggest that he is less aware of the limits of government than he is aware of the limits of markets. If there is one lesson that we could draw from dealing with the early history of neoliberalism for our political debates today, it is this: Neoliberalism is a far richer, more thoughtful concept than it is mostly perceived today. First and foremost, it emphasised the importance of sound institutions such as property rights, freedom of contract, open markets, rules of liability, and monetary stability as prerequisites for markets to prosper and thrive. It seems that the global financial crisis has once again demonstrated how important these core insights of neoliberalism are. To those criticising neoliberalism today, the answer may well be just that: We need more of this kind of neoliberalism, not less. What we would need less of is only the rhetorical abuse of neoliberalism for political purposes.
Powyższa praca pokazuje historię idei neoliberalnej i wysuwa następujące wnioski:
– rynki są dobre i konieczne do rozwoju ekonomii i społeczeństwa
– rynki są zawodne, bo prowadzą do znacznych nierówności, monopoli i kryzysów. Do walki z tym potrzebne są silne państwowe instytucje.
– neoliberalizm jest szerokim gruntem ideowym który w pierwszej kolejności walczy o skuteczne, oparte o fakty albo zasadne przesłanki rozwiązania rynkowe.
– lewica kompletnie nie rozumie co to jest neoliberalizm i używa go analogicznie jak wykop używa słowa „lewak”: ktoś z kim się nie zgadzam ale nie umiem/nie mam czasu wyrazić w zasadzie dlaczego. Lewica wygrała, bo ta definicja często pada.
Polecam używać terminów zgodnie z ich realnym znaczeniem. A jeśli to znaczenie jest efemeryczne polecam używać innych terminów.
#neuropa #4konserwy #polityka #ekonomia #neoliberalizm