False scarecrow of neoliberalism

Neoliberalism - a new doctrine to which many can throw all problems. And yes, often rightly so - only the Socialists often have no idea that they are not criticizing the opponent, but only another interpreter of the same principles.

Neoliberalism - a competitor of the Socialists on the field of the same principles
Neoliberalism - a competitor of the Socialists on the field of the same principles

Neoliberalism - A designation for many left-wingers similar to the red rag at the bull. The source of all evil.

But I think "neoliberalism" is just clever camouflage. There is no such thing. What exactly is neoliberalism in the view of leftists?

"What exactly is money, we don't know what a market is, what an invisible private hand is that is visibly asking for money from the state, we don't know and we don't know, but we need to delete people, delete humanity for money, for the market, for bigger fame of stock market speculation. Long live the free market rehabilitated by the states, let the speculations paid by the taxpayers live in tithes, let the treacherous welfare state die… So I want to go to Ireland, the tax haven, the mecca of neoliberalism at the Czech level, to rehabilitate banks and private pension funds and their speculation. Unfortunately, the same view is no longer shared by the 100 people who are currently moving out of Ireland. However, we will not accept this, as President Václav Klaus rightly said. "

- Lukáš Kraus, a member of the CSSD active in the professional background, co-founder of the CSSD ecological platform Zvonečník, a political scientist living in Scandinavia for a long time (Journal Referendum)

We can take Lukáš Kraus's texts as a classic template in describing that "neoliberalism" - it is the one casino capitalism, about the treacherous one free marketwho pays all of their pockets in subsequent grants. Every advocate of a free market and a small state is said to be neoliberal.

However, this whole argument and description of neoliberalism is absolutely misleading. Such neoliberalism is only a form of socialism.

Actually, it's quite amusing - Socialists A argue with Socialists B about what socialism is more correct.

Free market - let's regulate the state!

It is clear that not only Lukáš Kraus, but also many socialist commentators do not understand what a "free market" is. The free market is a system of voluntary cooperation. There is no free market without voluntariness, there is no capitalism without a free market.

If neoliberals want a central bank, if they want to regulate the banking sector, if they are defending bailouts to large companies, we cannot consider these people to be advocates for a free market. These are the same interventionists who, for example, are proponents of central planning.

Subsidies, bailouts, central banking, "PPP" projects, increasing the powers of the police at the expense of our privacy, artificial doctor's fees, mandatory fund savings - that's all it is a form of central planning, it is a form of economic socialism. Proponents of the free market and capitalism must strongly disagree with these means.

He is not a neoliberal supporter of the free market and capitalism.

Lukáš Kraus himself contradicts himself in the above quote - perhaps only out of ignorance. Statement: "Long live the free market rehabilitated by the states, let the speculations paid by taxpayers live in tithes… mecca of neoliberalism at the level of the Czech Republic, rehabilitate banks and private pension funds and their speculations"Is obvious nonsense. The market described by Lukáš Kraus is not a free market at all. It is a quasi-market, a system of state intervention, coercion from the position of (state) power.

It doesn't matter if these interventions have been begged by entrepreneurs themselves or by "speculators." It is they who are responsible for the impact of the interventions.

Further regulation of the market will not solve the situation - we will not extinguish the fire with petrol. The one who harms is obviously the state, as Lukáš Kraus writes (although he probably doesn't realize it). There is no need to regulate the market, it is necessary to regulate the state - by all possible means.

Ruptured? Anti-market!

All that is needed is to let people act and not interfere in their lives from the position of primitive doctrine that power (the state) is right.

This is the principle of the free market, the basic principle of capitalism. The principle I stand for. For this reason I have no need to defend any socialists, whether neoliberal or any other. For this reason, I do not need to vote for any current parliamentary party.

Neoliberalism is not a market-breaking doctrine. On the contrary, neoliberalism is as threatening to voluntary cooperation as any other economic socialism. It is a strong anti-market ideology.

PS: I actually agree with many in one - ODS or TOP09 are today neoliberal, ie socialist parties. Maybe it would be much more apt to start calling them neo-socialist.


  1. Lack-u,

    Socialism without planning is something like a gypsy village.

    Other companies with common ownership, and especially with a wider range of livelihoods, where everyone works for the good of all plan and especially central planning are in dire need. If they do not have a plan they must choose someone to lead them, whom they will trust. As a rule, both are combined, even in not purely socialist communities.

    But it is useless to talk about these things, we do not live in a vacuum or locked up in a monastery…

  2. I do not argue with you that a managerial function is performed by a certain person. The manager can also plan, but in the end he is responsible to the owner. And I'm talking about a situation where the state is the owner. Socialism is when the state owns all the means of production, that is, all enterprises. He can appoint managers as he pleases, and they can plan as they please, but they are responsible for creating and implementing this plan, in this case government officials.
    Cooperatives or different communities may be owned collectively by their members, but either strive for self-sufficiency or operate in a normal market environment, so they are something like a company with a special form of ownership with everything that belongs to it in a market environment. When a company is owned by its employees, it probably falls under the term syndicalism.

  3. Romane you write nonsense which, however, is based on the fact that you simply have no idea what socialism is. In socialism, you do not have to plan centrally; on the contrary, you can only plan at the level of the "enterprise" and its administrator. For example, the various forms of cooperatives around the world were an example of socialist ownership, you will surely cry out for horror. I was right. Do you understand that? Do you understand that you don't even know what socialism is? The fact that different communities own something does not mean that I decide and plan as a whole, but decision-making may not be central in socialism. In the same way, in socialism you can simply be a co-owner of some property, but a "managerial" function for one person, or ten, or a hundred. It will come out of the plan or it won't. All this gives you socialism.

  4. First of all, every economic activity requires planning. Someone has to determine what will be produced. The form of ownership plays an essential role in this regard. If all the means of production are owned by a collective (the state), then this collective must carry out central planning for the whole economy. Because the whole collective cannot do that, it delegates this power to a body such as government, local government, etc. This is quite difficult to separate from socialism, and since the article was about the state's interventions in the economy, I really have no problem using the word "socialist" in this context. although "interventionism" would probably be more accurate.

  5. What economic definition? When you confuse the planned economy with socialism, it's just a comic. I wanted to know if you know the term you are using. You don't know, it's just a sticker for you that you use for anything you don't like.

    I do not have to refute the claims of liberal economists because perhaps no liberal economist (I'm talking about someone with an economic education) is not stupid to claim that the definition of socialism is a planned economy. The planned economy, however, may not stand out in socialism. Socialism is mainly about the form of ownership and the presentation of a common interest in the interest of the individual. If the owners decide for an unplanned economy, they will have it and it will be socialism 🙂 Chapete?

  6. I don't think the next discussion makes sense. You yourself have not given any meaningful definition of socialism, you are only saying that the economic definition of socialism is meaningless and you do not even bother to say why. But you would have to refute the claims of liberal economists. I don't want to repeat myself, so there's nothing to talk about. Framing my education doesn't really belong here.

  7. Can you tell me your school? I'm really curious if it's a private nonsense, or we pay our taxes to spread nonsense. Because really Romane, it's overwhelming, but the planned economy can be in many systems, it has nothing to do with the definition of socialism.

    You probably got confused about socialism with the so-called real socialism or communism or state capitalism, or what all the names of the previous regime had. Right?

  8. "Therefore, any state intervention in the market environment can be described as a form of socialism."

    This could not teach you in school because it is the nonsense that liberals spread. You will not hear this in a lecture at any school of economics (perhaps with the exception of some liberal private institutes).

    In addition, socialism is not a planned economy, it also asks what kind of school you attended. The planned economy may or may not exist in socialism. It all depends on how the joint owners imagine the administration.

    Shocking, isn't it? 🙂

  9. We spin a little in a circle, don't we? I know the definition I have given here. I already studied it at school (apparently the teachers are the radical liberals themselves). In fact, there is nothing radical or narrow about it. Socialism is based on the planned economy, which requires the so-called collective ownership of the means of production. An unplanned or market economy requires private ownership. Everything else is in between and differs in the degree of private ownership and the degree of state intervention. From this point of view, you can also look at historical communities, and it doesn't matter what that kind of community is historically called (that is, if you are not a Marxist and the market economy is not a principle for you, but a historical stage). Gravity was gravity even before physicists called it that. Tribal communities stand aside a bit because they were relatively self-sufficient and required a minimum of exchange, but even there these principles worked.

  10. Roman, you find this definition only in a very narrow circle of economists, economists who profess radical liberalism (and even they can swear at each other socialist if someone has resorted a millimeter from the dogma professed by others).

    Do you not know the definition of socialism when you operate with it? For you, any state interference is socialism, but socialism is a relatively young ideology, and we have had state interference here since the beginning of human civilization. How to explain this discrepancy. For liberalism, only the narrowest fine-tuned definition (even Smith with the approval of state interventions and recognition of society and social values ​​is a socialist according to some fanatics :)) For socialism and slavery or feudalism about tribal communities who did not even hear about socialisms and liberalisms :)

  11. Interestingly, I have come across this definition since about 1990 and I did not find it particularly controversial. It has been used since the times of 19th century economists, ie for more than 100-150 years. So can you write a simplified definition of socialism here? And what do you think are the normal phenomena?

  12. Roman, this is not the economic definition of socialism. This is a simple statement by a liberal who calls anything other than liberalism socialism but forbids all others from applying this generalization to liberalism. Liberal socialism is called de facto and normal phenomena, which existed much more than before any socialism arose. Which clearly proves that this is just a general sticker fog.

  13. This is the economic definition of socialism. Liberalism, on the other hand, is completely devoid of central control. Any intervention in the functioning of the economy is thus a departure from liberalism and a penchant for socialism, which is confirmed by the fact that the interventions require more and more interventions and thus a greater inclination towards central management. These are the original definitions. What don't you think? That today the word liberalism is used for their program by groups that have little to do with the original idea is another fact. But the above are the original meanings of these words.

  14. Roman, so in socialism it is not necessary to speak in precise definitions, it is possible to expand it as needed according to the fact that some sign is the same. So why not do this with liberalism? Why can only the narrowest definition (which another group nationalizes for itself) be used there?

  15. Socialism means planned economy. Therefore, any state intervention in the market environment can be described as a form of socialism. It can also be called interventionism or protectionism, but that does not change the fact that it is basically an approach towards socialism and probably ending with it.

  16. I read the article and that is why I say that if it is right and uncritical for anyone I do not like to label as a socialist, then it is also right for anyone whom I do not like to label as a liberal.

    or admit from the article more than one plane and the desire to lie or to provoke snakes. you are the one who speaks blurry and the article is talking. or when someone turns to someone so blurry to speak to a man? Well, I turn to someone else and I can too.

    it is interesting to observe the hypocritical approach

  17. re lack: did you read that article? and do you know that this is a reaction to Mr Kraus' quote? that the article addresses mostly CSSD members or voters? What is untrue about the claim that today's economic crisis across the globe is caused by such "policies" that the CSSD is full of with their slogans: "resources are", "debts are not paid" and so on.
    PS: the author does not label everything, specifically names the points and concretizes the originator (a member of the Social Democracy, which itself declares moral hazard with one breath and with the other breath tries to identify this hazard with the right with the label of neoliberalism)

  18. in the article under which we discuss does not stick to everything pointlessly outside the millimeter-exact definition as socialism?

    What did you write about that blurry writing? 🙂

  19. re lack: "liberals who stick to everything in general socialism do not act flat"
    you are right, such liberals are also foggy, because the more precise definition of today's political scene is statism and bureaucracy (across the political spectrum of the House)

    You have, of course, spoken to all the liberals in the world that you know who calls what…

    I have no problem with socialism, some of its ideas as a basic help to those who innocently got into need are also my ideas, but this is not at all today, and if the liberals do not succeed, we will lose these conveniences again quickly (war, inflation…)

  20. but liberals don't care for them, it's all socialism. why shouldn't liberalism be treated in exactly the same way? aaa because a liberal can call everything a general definition but no one else can.

    Thank you for admitting with the last sentence to the fact that liberals who stick to everything in general do not act on socialism. 🙂

  21. re lack: needed goose? what is difficult to understand that one name should apply to one thing and not postmodernly blur and emotionally color it so that it can be beaten on the opponent's head? liberalism has clearly defined points that none of them in parliament meets

    by the way, this coloring was a lot of fun for the communists, as you remembered,
    I think it is clear that the article is a reaction to similar rhetoric that today seeks to discredit liberalism by equating it with today's anti-liberal and statist, morally hazardous financial system (global and local)

    everyone who wants to act on the level must speak in clear definitions, people who want to lie, or at least quarrel, speak “blurred”…

  22. Comical, everyone who does not have a very narrow definition of something is actually a socialist.

    Do you know what it resembles? Communists. All those who did not support only their very narrow definition were disgusting, ugly bourgeois right-wingers or right-wing deformers.

  23. thanks for that article. I would like to use it as a reference for those who accuse me of neoliberalism every time I defend the free market. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. That logical argument is not enough to remove the delusion that the neoliberal is "something like a liberal today." The mixing is intentional. The smarter ones mix because they know that the stupid ones will not distinguish it and that the word liberal will get dirty and devalued enough. And the stupider ones (which I personally witnessed) use the suffix NEO sometimes simply because they feel more educated themselves. It's such a fashionable word as NEO and you can make an impression on it even more stupid and even more uneducated.

    It could be waved over, but if their vote has exactly the same weight in the election as mine… So all you have to do is try to persuade and explain them and tutor them over and over again…

  24. re: Henry
    in a completely free society, the land would belong to someone, ideally to a local who cares about the region

    otherwise, see other objections. Novel -
    not even the state to which you pay more than half of your funds from the payment failed to prevent similar things spíše rather rather facilitated them by "muddy the water" with confused and exuberant laws

  25. @Henry:
    You can turn it around and ask how it is possible, when today's state is definitely not minimal, it has not intervened. You may ask why architectural atrocities were laid out for the Comanches, when the state had even greater powers than today. I do not think that the state is capable of ensuring such a thing.

  26. @kaktusak: There is a lot of truth in your post, provided we assume that libertarians like Lukáš Kubec (or I) only want unlimited free competition. But that's not the case.

    Even libertarians recognize values ​​and have axioms - in fact, only about one. The axiom is that every human being is the supreme owner of himself and the fruits of his labor. Violating this sovereignty is violence, and I reject violence. Violence is the domain of socialists, totalitarians, planners ... and even those neoliberals.

    It doesn't matter if a group of people declares themselves to be a party with a leading role, set up a planning commission and force others to submit to them, or if they create laws and snowshoes to use them to spend foreign money (for example from "renewable support"). ). In both cases, there are many who transfer their assets to the group of people (taxes-> redistribution) - because if they do not, they will experience physical violence (eg imprisonment).

  27. So I voluntarily admit that when I started reading the article, I didn't know what to imagine under neo-liberalism, and I still don't know after reading the article.

    However, I have no doubt that it is necessary to regulate the state as much as possible, and that freedom is above all and worth fighting for (even with confused cacti). I think that no one who thinks at least a little liberally should doubt, so he is at least free-spirited when he is no longer (currently) free in his actions and actions.

  28. @kaktusak:

    Your contribution is a typical example of leftist demagoguery. How can you write in one sentence about a "truly free environment" and deny this in the following sentences: "So why should powerful people follow any dogmas about the market and capitalism? It is simply advantageous for them to build a state, tax, regulate, subsidize. ”And“ You do not have sufficient skills, so you cannot enforce your visions, so you have no choice but to submit to the strong and successful. ”?

    And you put the crown on it with the phrase "Exactly according to the principles of the free market."!

    In your opinion, the market is probably something like "eat or be eaten" from the animal kingdom. Somehow you probably didn't notice that the author writes something about volunteering, which animals are not capable of.
    But people do, because something distinguishes them from animals. Do you know what it is? It is a free consciousness aware of oneself and the need to constantly make decisions, postulate value systems and follow them.

    For example, in order for the exchange to be voluntary and thus beneficial to both parties involved, it is not possible for one of these parties to initiate any kind of violence first. This requires certain rules or regulations that result from a certain value system. And you can't expect that from animals. From a man yes. On the one hand, there will always be those who try to initiate violence first, and on the other hand, those who will be forced to resist this effort.

    The only possible solution is to deprive the state of the power to provide anything but the defense of a certain minimum common value system.

    The author of the article hit a nail in the head. There is no difference between the current left and the right. Both political orientations are now firmly entrenched in the philosophy of collectivism, which serves as a cover for entirely personal benefits based, however, not on free competition but on forcing others to subordinate their benefit to those "chosen ones."

  29. If we are talking about a truly "free" environment without regulations and deformations, then success is crucial. Nobody asks how to achieve it, just like in nature. So why should powerful people follow any dogmas about the market and capitalism? It is simply advantageous for them to build a state, tax, regulate, subsidize. They have a bigger profit, otherwise they wouldn't do it. You do not have sufficient skills, so you cannot enforce your visions, so you have no choice but to submit to the strong and successful. Exactly according to the principles of the free market.

Comments are off.