The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet system was a blow formidable various forms of socialism, were in favor of their political or contrary to it. One of the main effects was the evidence of the impossibility of an economy based on planning. Evidence that not only affected the leftist political movements in democratic countries, but those nations that still remained as socialist dictatorships (China or Vietnam, for example) that began to liberalize their economies, while maintaining the political rigidity of their regimes.
There is no perfect system of free market as there is no perfect democracy, not a theoretical or practical level (perfect political theory is reserved for totalitarian dictatorships and personal tyrannies; in practice, to any system), but the case of socialism market economy is still far from perfection that Western democracies, although some appear to move in that direction.
The big problem with socialism is that democratic countries failed (perhaps for lack of trying) to analyze the causes of the collapse, unlike the Asian communism if he did, at least in part. His position was (or still is) even expect a collapse of Western capitalism, thinking it will happen, sooner or later, according to their dogmatic manuals. But to say that the free market system (capitalism vulgar) has intrinsic crises the system itself is a truism, like saying that all living things have diseases or that all rocks on the surface of the earth experience changes over time. Would it matter if you only suffer crises capitalism, which is not true, at all.
However, it is not surprising that, from more moderate socialist even the most fanatic, the current financial crisis they think the long-awaited opportunity, with or without reason. As they and their movements have been partners of power in the West, to a greater or lesser extent, had to find a culprit at all costs that do not imply. And that culprit is what is so often called Neoliberalism. But what does that mean for Western socialism?
For many people, even from a religious point of view, in my opinion wrong, the liberal system, neo or retro, is the kingdom of greed. But greed is not capitalism itself, is simply human. In the sense, that every human being can be greedy, regardless of their ideology or beliefs. Greed like inordinate passion to become ever richer, just in order to have more.
Certainly, the greedy is more likely in the capitalist system to get richer, because otherwise the system needs to join the political party in power and thrive within it ( as in the case of the call Nomenclature) to access those goods that are closed to all other citizens. But that’s not greedier a person living in the first system to another who lives on the second, much less the system itself. Also, in the West, there leftist political party that participated in power, not having their own greedy that have become rich at the expense of the party or the public purse.
For others, the universal free trade, free movement of capital, competition law and free movement of people, are themselves harmful and, according to them, are the cause of poverty throughout the world and the economic gap between the First World and the rest. But that belief itself that is harmful, for false. And it is, because in reality there is no real global free trade, nor a real freedom of movement of capital, no real competition, free of oligopolies and monopolies, let alone a free movement of persons.
But we must add that, where this has worked best, has created wealth and diminished the differences between nations. And in those Western countries where it has increased the social difference between poor and rich are the same where competition is restricted, where capital flows less because it has been hijacked by those who are oligopolies, where the bureaucratic difficulties to create small businesses has increased where trade has largely delivered superstores deprotecting the small trader, where the real limits on the movement of people and their establishment in other regions have brakes political or social difficulties . Where, in short, liberalism gradually dies with law abusive, intrusive in the area own family and people and where a large part of the capital that should be used to create wealth is through taxes, to the hands of politicians it wasted. That’s not neoliberalism or retro liberalism, is the modern form of collectivism, the road to totalitarianism.
Neoliberalism does not exist at the global level nor full so any democratic country, in the other, much less.
From a strict point of view, the Western democracies have almost nothing to liberals. They have become paternalistic bureaucracies, “megacéfalas and plurisómicas”. The division of power, which is a good swelling has misrepresented various government with many skills in the same fields. The European example is classic: EU, State, Autonomous Regions and Municipalities, in the Spanish case, councils or similar. To all this must be added a plethora of tips, commissions of experts, advisers, Public Enterprises and other parallel bodies that absorb resources from taxes. Although not exist any corruption, the level of waste of all this would be just as stifling bureaucracy. UN And we do not talk…
In economic good times all that waste of resources can be masked, but the crisis produces constriction of the productive economy, with a ripple effect that is encompassing all sectors. It’s like a parasite, while his host is healthy only affects you, but if the patient may have caused death. And as any organism that reproduces, has created and multiplied a new political style: he who has never worked on their own, or in private enterprise. It’s a new social class, as the Soviet nomenclature, covering both the Right and the Left. And as such, always tends to grow and refuses to be reduced.
A fact that proves is that most of the demonstrations and social conflicts in Spain and other European countries are encouraged or directed by people who are part of the bureaucracy and are supported by a large majority of the political class , which looks like a threatens any reduction in their number . Emphasis is placed on the alleged defense of social rights such as health and education, because they are by far the two sectors of the bureaucracy that more staff have, the more hypertrophied by the perennial prejudice of the Left (and part of the right) to private initiative. They may seem claims of class rights, but it is actually a defense of corporate privileges.
Now, finally, creating all that excess personnel in charge of the public purse is socialist mentality. Since World War II economic planning and then have been the leitmotif social doctrine and Western political practice. There were attempts to return to a more liberal, but have always been tactical movements of conservative governments, rather than a true global strategy. Moreover, in many cases, the policies pursued have benefited a minority, hurting most. The concentrations of capital have created (or reinforced) financial oligopolies, energy, weapons, food, pharmaceutical, which prevent true competition, which is vital in a liberal economy, and that, therefore, detrimental to the interests of citizens.
Moreover, the total eradication of poverty is an ideal and, therefore, impossible. There is no evidence (and much evidence against) a non-liberal system is able to globally reduce more effectively than the operation of one true free market. And not only reduce, but also to reduce the gap between rich and poor, at least for them to come out of a subsistence minimum and reach the ability to have income remaining to allocate to savings, culture, leisure…, to what is often called quality of life. And to work well you need economic liberalism are clear boundaries, as the landmarks of an estate, you can not break through a multitude of paths not mandatory or prohibited obstacles to the initiative of individuals, their own aspirations and universal hope improve.
To put it short: to distribute wealth must be created. If not created, you can only share poverty.
"La novedad que debe enunciarse en términos sencillos y llanos es que la familia constituye una comunidad de amor y solidaridad, que no encuentra su fundamento último en la ley que le otorga la reglamentación (...), sino en la capacidad (en sí misma misteriosa, pero indudablemente típica del hombre) de amar familiarmente y de fundar sobre este amor una comunidad de vida." Prof. F. D'Agostino