N eoliberalismu s is the Social Democrats. Kurt Beck said in a keynote 12,000-word essay in a full page of the FAZ from last Monday. If you listen to the speeches at the reunion event of the legal successor of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, is the opposite of neo-socialism. This provokes the question, what is the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism, which is found at least as empty words in the basic program of the SPD. And the good old Hans-Jochen Vogel (the one with the clear case) should his party. Lafontaine, Gysi, Bisky and "punished" because of his past as an East German SED District Secretary (O-tone in his welcoming speech the third session of the 10th Congress of the Party of Democratic Socialism - the Left) can not be accused of Hans Modrow, they have not said what they want. The joyful support of Chavez, Morales and the other "oppressed" of the South American continent, the Democratic control of the property and the nationalization and "municipalization" of all sectors of the economy end the chance of individual freedom last. In order to understand the intersections between Christian Socialists, Social Democrats and the Democratic Socialists better, it is probably easiest to describe, while they are together. Perhaps it can be seen, what they really want. And what this Sake produced.
So what is "neoliberalism" really?
In the thirties, when it was the cause of freedom probably not looking good, was the discussion between independent and liberal spirits violently if the previous "laissez-faire" - liberalism would be able, once again the collectivist dictatorships like the real world or the National Socialism to push back. Added to this was the realization that a completely free competition not due to different initial conditions leads to a desired ideal balance, but to distortion, dominant positions and cartels, which are able to their interests to prevail over others through.
The result: competition needs rules. The freedom of the weak, protect against the majority before the strong and the front of the potential monopolist. A Lexander Rüstow coined this idea of the guarantee of individual freedom, the concept of neoliberalism in the Colloque Walter Lippmann , in which many intellectuals from all over the world participated.
That same year Walter Eucken, professor in Nazi Germany, the manifesto of the later Ordoliberalismus: "The fundamentals of economics." The most urgent read command.
At a time in the future pillars of our democracy be done in the Mounted SA Service or the presumed acquisition of the academic year of the Nazi party to join, the associate professor published at the University of Freiburg under the Rector Martin Heidegger a new definition of economic and social systems, which forced the real existing socialism and Nazism as an ideology and glorify, the action of their economies on a par.
Both are to Eucken centrally planned economies, which imposes a centrally planned economic agents, how they should behave. It does not matter how the office is legitimate or what ideology they follow. Crucial is that the central force every individual needs to follow the plan even if he is not the interests of the citizen or individual undertaking.
A market economy requires, therefore, that citizens can freely dispose of their property. Only in this case it is possible to decide in a competition itself, sold at what price at which business partners a product or a service offered to be purchased or claimed to.
The hope that the second world war, Europe freed from the command economy was not fulfilled. On the contrary. Armored weapons to be turned end the triumph of Stalinism Half of Europe. A similar circuit as in 1939 gathered at the foot of Mont Pélerin discuss how the then appears possible "road to serfdom" (FA Hayek) could be averted. Named after the mountain think-tank was born. For the reputation of the Mont Pelerin Society ineternationale, the fact that not Popper, Eucken and Ludwig Erhard be listed on the side of the notable Members , but only the eight Nobel laureates in economics. Two years later leads
Ludwig Erhard in the coup, what will later be called "economic miracle" (Erhard: There are no wonder). On a Sunday afternoon announced by the then officials of the administration of the occupied by the Western Allied powers at the end of the forced economy. Lucius D. Clay accuses him the next day to have changed allied right hand, he says laconically. "I have abolished"
The end of the social market economy begins 1957 with the dynamic introduced by Erhard PAYG pension. And it starts with Germany's gradual decline. Does any event Gabor Steingart in his first book, "Germany, the descent of a superstar" in 2004. Finally coming to an end the neo-liberal era in Germany in 1967 with the adoption of the Stability and growth law by the large coalition. This cast in legal text is the Keynesian economic policy before now four objectives that were before it was adopted in almost all the beautiful regularity achieved. Then never: External balance, price stability, full employment and a balanced budget. Only the price stability has been achieved on a regular basis: the (neoliberal) monetarist policies of the independent Bundesbank.
Forty years later we have more than 5 million people out of work and around € 7 trillion national debt. The growth was in the past few decades so far behind the European average, that in the UK Spain or higher average incomes are achieved as in Germany.
The "de-privatization" of the major risks posed by the unfunded social security resulted in fact lead to a creeping expropriation in particular the middle and lower income groups who had to make on average about 60% of their earned income for tax and social security (including the "employer share") and thereby excluded from any private capital formation were because they needed the remaining money for living expenses. Of their income they are no longer themselves, but the democratically elected legislature, and all sorts of self-government institutions decided Board of Directors of the Federal Labour Office to the Television Council (the Council called on Russian Soviet way).
Today we live in a centrally planned economy with a focus on its Bürokratiemoloch and a declining market area except that financed the whole of its value. A further complication is that a significant portion of this market area because of the high cost pressure for what is commonly welfare state called, and a social budget of around € 700 billion (about half of gross domestic product) is either adopted abroad or in the underground economy.
Even the American expression of neo-liberalism can not imply any social indifference. You do not want a state, but less state than the Neo-Marxist dominated equilibrium theorists and socialists. Milton Friedman was about not only reduce the welfare bureaucracy and the negative income tax, which only calculates the tax office tax burden and is entitled to transfer payments and calls the difference or deposits. But also those who are unable to earn their income entirely self, for living in dignity.
is also the neoliberal school agree with the "globalization critics" means that a globally integrated economy needs rules. The key medium of "neoliberalism" The British Economist has published a wooden boat on desiccated soil, as the Doha round failed World Trade Organization to the developed countries to open their markets to agricultural products and the relevant subsidies not abolish particular on exports to the Third World did. Lost, those who are not involved in globalization. And the World Trade Organization appeared in the enemy to not at all. Why?
Who neoliberalism grounded as little known as Kurt Beck, has probably more than just an education gap. Who him as a "market radicalism" defamed, as Oskar Lafontaine knows best, not where he is talking about. From a small Number of great men, who have kept in a difficult time against the prevailing zeitgeist and spiritual greatness out their theories and research on its part, that we know today, how could we protect the freedom of the weak.
Beck, Lafontaine, summer, Bsirske and the rest of them let it be said: The opposite of freedom is slavery. The opposite of a competitive economy, the centrally planned economies, the opposite of a liberal constitutional state is a dictatorship and the opposite of private is the "de-privatization" as the economy Rürup something called. Who's polemic against neo-liberalism for the freedom of all people. As long as it is one, not the "socialism" will, must be forced to. Even if he stands alone, or constitutes a minority. Nothing in between.
0 comments:
Post a Comment