When will informed critics of the free market come?

Offnews published an article by Petar Georgiev (better known under his pseudonym Volgin), which claims to reveal the origins of “neoliberalism” and expose unsavory facts about this philosophical movement. Leaving aside the fact that each self-appointed critic understands something different by neoliberalism, in this case it is used synonymously with libertarianism, the text is nevertheless interesting to consider, as the theses in it find a serious resonance among left-thinking readers.

Since the article is full of outright and sometimes laughable lies and non sequiturs, I will quote some of the passages so as not to be accused of building a straw man. Volgin begins with a very interesting statement:

Immediately after the end of World War II, an extremely unfavorable period began for fanatical defenders of the free market, for the fierce propagandists of the thesis that everyone should fend for themselves, that any state intervention is detrimental to society. At that time, almost no one believed the libertarian clichés, because it had become clear that the war was not won by private armies, not by the mythical “free market” and not by “healthy egoism”; it was won thanks to the joint efforts of many people, thanks to their solidarity, their readiness to come to the aid of those in trouble. Therefore, it is quite natural that after the victory over Hitler, most people continued to believe in such values, to rely more on solidarity and cooperation and less on egoism.

In fact, the same slogans as solidarity, the common good before the personal, social justice and the like are at the heart of the National Socialist and other collectivist ideologies, which, like Mr. Volgin, destroy "egoism" in the name of the interests of the people or the class. And yes, the war was not won by private armies, nor was it incited by them. A tragedy of such magnitude with over 50 million dead could only happen thanks to strong centralized states, controlling huge resources and completely uninterested in their meaningful use. Already in this first paragraph, several, to put it mildly, debatable beliefs of Mr. Volgin are evident, which he cites as empirically established facts:

1. The Second World War was a natural disaster, without any connection with the state policies of the preceding years. Obviously, the economic nationalism, trade restrictions, protectionism, collectivism in various forms that raged after the First World War had nothing to do with the disruption of international cooperation. Obviously, the Treaty of Versailles, the naval blockade, the occupation and hyperinflation in Germany were not directly related to the radicalization of the desperate German society that ultimately led Hitler to power.

2. In the same sentence, Mr. Volgin states that cooperation between people is possible only through state intervention, that people need central planning to realize the benefits of the division of labor. And if the author needs a leader-sun to illuminate the right path, then he does not need to impose it on others.

3. It seems that according to Mr. Volgin, the definition of “solidarity” includes forcibly taking from one to give to another. Voluntary solidarity without state coercion does not exist.

By mentioning Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", Volgin is trying to expose the most extreme representative of libertarianism. First of all, it should be mentioned that Hayek is neither the most prominent nor the most consistent liberal thinker, and it is frivolous to present himself as such. I would advise Mr. Volgin to study the personalities and books of Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe. But let's see what he says about Hayek anyway:

… [ A ]nd the second believes that the participation of state structures in the life of society should be reduced to a minimum and that everything should be left to the “invisible hand of the market”. The next few decades show the complete bankruptcy of this prediction. In Western Europe and America, the state not only does not hide like a frightened mouse, but, on the contrary, acts very proactively. Thanks to its active role, these societies prosper and ultimately emerge victorious in the Cold War.

In addition to the factual errors arising from ignorance/manipulative representation of Hayek, who makes quite serious compromises towards the state's involvement in people's lives, Mr. Volgin also demonstrates ignorance about post-war economic policies.

For Mr. Volgin's information: in 1944 the US federal budget was $54.5 billion in deficit (about 25.8% of GDP), in 1947 it was $13.4 billion in surplus. During the same period the government also laid off about 20% of its military and civilian employees. To the horror of Keynesians and other central planners, this sharp cut in government spending did not return the country to the darkest times of the Great Depression, but on the contrary - in the following years the strongest growth in modern history was recorded [1].

The situation is similar in West Germany – Ludwig Erhart’s pro-market reforms freed people from the shackles of the socialist plan and allowed them to accomplish the so-called “German economic miracle”. “Proactive” England (its government, to be more precise) on the other hand slowly sank into the swamp of nationalizations, militant unions, price controls and other progressive measures to make the broad masses happy, so that after a few decades the economic status of Great Britain was comparable to that of socialist East Germany.

The same policies lead to the "severe economic crisis" of the 1970s, acknowledged by Mr. Volgin, which, however, did not affect the vile Institute of Economics, which had the audacity to have sufficient funds. And if so far we have been moving in the realm of factual errors and manipulations, then in the last sentence of this paragraph we pass into pure absurdity. If an active state contributes to the prosperity of societies, why did the most active state in the world, the USSR, lose the Cold War?

In the following lines, Mr. Volgin engages in a righteous battle with those who do not believe in the greatness of the state, not missing the opportunity to denounce wealth as necessarily derived from robbery. By putting conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation, with politicians influenced by monetarism like Reagan and Thatcher under a common denominator and convincing them that they are libertarians, the author once again demonstrates his ignorance of the subject he is writing about. If he had made a little effort to study true libertarianism, he would have inevitably come across the page of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an organization that gave rise to the intellectual revolution.

However, this institute is not convenient for attack, because its history does not hide such piquancy as sponsorships by large corporations. The latter is not at all surprising, considering that certain corporations seek proximity to governments for protection from competition, for obtaining public contracts and bail outs. All forms of crony capitalism, no less incompatible with libertarianism than the pyramid called social security. With his point mentioning the bankruptcy of Lehmann Brothers as a result of libertarianism, the author only reinforces the impression of incompetence.

It's a pity that libertarianism has not yet met a knowledgeable, Bulgarian critic.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!