Liberalism Doesn't Work

Attempts to come out of crisis are directly connected with refusal of fundamental liberal dogmas

Surmounting structural crisis occurs, as a rule, at the expense of sharp change of a policy - together with its carriers. It is natural: after all usually it brings matters to crisis. As Alexander Lebed told: "One shouldn't change horses in midstream, while it's necessary to be done with donkeys!"

In 20s years of last century punctual following to liberal economic dogmas brought the world to the Great Depression; present global economic crisis is in many respects caused by consecutive and universal carrying out of liberal economic policy, expressed mostly in the notorious Washington consensus. Quintessence of modern liberalism in economy is in making the state to serve the needs of not people but global markets (to be more exact to global corporations monopolizing them).

It is natural that attempts to come out of crisis are directly connected with refusal of fundamental liberal dogmas. Necessity of taxation of speculative capitals, restrictions of corporate compensations, taxes to extraconsumption, qualitative strengthening of state regulation is seriously discussed. The European Commission urged to impose the tax on financial transaction which should bring more than 50 billion euro a year. Not only Stiglitz but also ultraliberal for Russia Jeffrey Sachs in his book "Cost of Civilization" directly writes: "Within 30 years the USA followed wrong direction, reducing governmental role in domestic economy", he is indignant with a policy of "gratification of rich" and holds up as an example the countries of Scandinavia with their high taxes, social justice and ecological stability.

Refusal of liberalism isn't limited to only economic sphere. In politics we see obvious crisis of traditional democracy - from the Patriot Act and creation of the department of national security in the USA up to use of human rights, on the one hand, as pretext for destruction of the whole societies and, on the other, as a tool of protection of terrorists and ethnic organized crime from Israel to Russia.

The general tendency of refusal of liberalism to the full is reflected also in Russia: new wave of privatization is postponed, the state corporations are in full bloom, representatives of party in power more and more often recognize 90s years as time of the national treachery, impossibility of development without massed direct state investments isn't discussed at all.

Economic management of Russia basically consists of liberals - but they have no place to disappear: liberal dogmas are helpless in conditions of high corruption and monopoly due to which sharp rise in prices for oil is accompanied by falling of standard of living, by increase by 2 million beggars (the third city of the country!) and complaint about shortage of money. Every step not even to notorious modernization but to simple common sense leads away from liberal dogmas.

As usual refusal of ideology has general, scale character and relates not only to harmful but also its useful sides - such as following minimum democratic character (at least among insiders) and freedom of speech.

Example is given not by some stranger but by seeming the main liberal of Russia - president Medvedev. Just recently he liberalized the Criminal Code (up to two months of imprisonment for "drawing of the heavy physical injuries which entailed on imprudence death of the victim"), with approval he treated new, in the spirit of podrabineks, view on history and signed superliberal Law "About Budgetary Organizations" threatening social sphere degradation.

However clouds became darker, conditions - both economic and political - ceased to be friendly to liberalism and the president frowned. The first who risked to express different opinion - Prokhorov - remained though with trousers but without party and far out of policy. The second - Kudrin was dismissed in Boris Yeltsin's style (unless the corresponding document was signed "on the armor" of not tank but of the presidential "Mercedes Pullman"). Meanwhile liberalism is at least respect of different from yours points of view (the author of these lines used it repeatedly in polemic with liberals), not just reflex blows following principle "Who is not with us is against us".

Medvedev's transformation - is not a change of a style by one person or even ruling group. It is symbolical and fast enough process symbolizing decline of habitual liberal ideals.

It is a sign of crisis, at that global economic and possible internal political appear only displays of global, ideological crisis of liberalism.

Mankind refuses it floating into direction of unknown coast as seafarers once left rendered habitable and cozy coasts for the sake of unknown - and often fruitless - lands.

Eventually democracy - generation of industrial technologies and their replacement with postindustrial ones dooms it as well.

Though to us over whom black sun of the Middle Ages raises with frightening speed objectivity of that process can hardly serve as consolation.

Send by mail

Print