Political signals from the United States of North America communicate the fast retreat of globalist liberalism and its economical companions.
Not only Donald Trump but besides Javier Milei In Argentina they preach the return of classical liberalism, the arrival of libertarian ideas, or even conservatism. The planet has reached globalism, rising from the capitalist roots to which it would now return. The problem is that the process of pursuing globalisation was not accidental and its roots do not foretell that another tree will grow from it. Tomasz Wróblewski of the Warsaw Enterprise Institute on a YouTube channel called “Freedom in Restoration” just announced the end of both classical and progressive liberalism. According to Wróblewski, they are to be replaced by an alliance of "bigtech" with social conservatism, whatever that means. No 1 is presently able to foretell the effects. Are we so faced back to American roots, and Janusz Korwin-Mikke with Stanisław Michalkiewicz Can they open champagne for economical freedom?
"Capitalism was first replaced by hyperactive keynesism, which was the aftermath of planet War II and continued until the late 1970s. Keynesism was then replaced by mercantylism in its pure form, which combined the private privilege and power of the state [...] It is mercantilism that is now in a phase of complete decline. Both keynesism, which replaced capitalism and mercantylism, which replaced keynesism, trust on tremendous government power and state subsidies, which is untenable. Nor is it possible to return to the 1920s without being exposed to the turbulence of this turbulent period again." (J. C. Médaille, “Too large to fall? alternate to Economics, a course for a truly free market, the first title: “Toward a Truly Free Market: A distributist position on the function of Government, Taxes, wellness Care, Deficits, and More”, 2017, p. 236.
If we look at the “land of freedom” between 1853 and 1953, we will find that the American economy remained in recession or depression for 40% of that period (ibid., p. 21). From 1953 to 2005, the American economy was in recession only for 15% of that time. The illustration depicting the state of the American economy between 1900 and 2006 shows the left-hand side of "the economy of fluctuations, alternating euphoria and depression, while on the right side the changes are milder" (E. Tymoigne, "Business Cycles", Fresno, CA: economical Policy Institute, 2007; pp. 21-22). The differences are due to the implementation of Keynesian policy. "A policy that would usage the left-hand side of the illustration would simply not make it to the next election" (ibid.). The question is, what will Trumpists replace keynesism, which has exhausted its capacity under a pile of insolvent debts and gigantic bureaucracy? What should the U.S. return to if not to the policy of aggressive imperialism, which provided them with intense economical improvement in the 19th century despite the cycles of interior deconiment? The imperialistic nature of U.S. policy discusses without illusion John J. Mearsheimer in the "Tragism of Powers Policy".
Distribution studies of Médaille...
Peter Turchin notes that “the United States managed to disable the wealth pump during the era of advancement and the fresh Deal, but in the 1970s they allowed the egotistic elites to re-engage it. Britain followed a akin trajectory, even if it was delayed by respective years. In this country, the decline in comparative pay began after 1975. There are many indications that respective another Western democracies are going down the same downward slope" (Peter Turchin, "The Last Times". Elites, Counter-elity and the way of Political Disintegration”, 2024, p. 278). Turchin means a neoliberal economical policy that yet undermined the redistributive principles of Keynesism, leading to unprecedented wealth inequalities and concentration of wealth in the hands of 1% of the population. Since the creator of cliodynamics operates on his own first statistical models, the convergence of his interpretations with the economical distribution model is crucial and not accidental. "Keynes' principles may indeed be – he noted Friedrich von Hayek – the way to enslavement, but Hayek's principles have already proved to be a super-autostrade leading to the same, horrible goal. Since the Reagan administration, the planet Bank has forced Hayek's policy on all developing economies, and the results have been equally terrible" (Médaille, p. 22).
Friedrich von Hayek
Economics in Hayek's intent is simply a technological enterprise, free from morality. Justice is not an economical issue for him, unlike freedom. The word “justice” is utilized in “The Way to Enslavement” 3 times, while the word “freedom” eighty-seven times. It's not consistent. Freedom seems to be a moral concept and for specified there is no place in the "scientific" economy. The economical explanation of the "Austrian" Nobellist is so partial and arbitrary. Ultimately, it determines what is selected (target) alternatively than the choice itself, which is only a tool of action. Hayek, however, does not believe in the power of political reason to decently specify collective objectives. It so focuses on the selection of social tools as part of marketplace trials and errors. Consequently, morality and law constitute a tradition that persists in decisions alternatively than in reason. Jes?s Huerta de Soto in "Money, bank credit and business cycles" points out that disbelief in the political competence of reason is the biggest difference between Austrian school and its scholastic predecessor. For all scholastics, morality and law are regulations of reason for the common good. Hayek is not consistent and constantly shifts the limits of political competence of reason.
Keynes besides finds economics free of morality. The question of justice takes business and moves to the political domain of officials. Unless Hayek (at least in principle) recognizes the economical competence of reason to distribute goods of that kind, Keynes – under the influence of political necessity – replaces economical distribution in favour of political redistribution. The thought works until the bureaucratic costs cut the system. In both cases, the eventual effect is contrary to the rule of subsidiarity of the state, which is besides the freedom of citizens. However, due to the fact that Hayekism came only after keynesism can be argued, which 1 is the faster way to totalitarian slavery.
Capitalism is not a self-regulatory strategy that automatically balances supply and demand. Keynes correctly understood that it did not supply for a situation of competition on the basis of "dissipated knowledge" of marketplace participants or coded in social institutions as Hayek wanted. Marxist would say that the capitalist "conjunkture" of broad arch avoids working masses. Marks' theories, however, were tested with the same effect as Hayek and Keynes' theories. This was an invariably expanding government power and a decline in economical freedom. All solutions require government interference in the economical system, i.e. the conduct of economical policies, specified as political economics. It is not by accident that the epithet of "political economics" avoids like the fire of classical economists, treating their discipline, as learning about facts free from standards and values, that is, besides from politics.
This is simply a complete misunderstanding about which philosophical reasons I wrote in erstwhile texts in the pages of “Polish Thought”. No 1 someway treats chemistry as a valuable science, even though the laws of physics are completely normative for chemistry. Similarly, chemistry laws are standard for biology. Chemistry for biology, just like physics for chemistry are simply higher-level sciences. Without external standards, all affirmative sciences are in the incorrect ellipse of their own data. Classical economy, neoclassical chicago school and Austrian school are incomplete theories. no of them have a coherent production function as they arbitrarily reduce all economical operations to exchange processes and the normative processes for exchange ignore. They ignore the existence of means of production which are not goods produced for the market; the volume and prices of which are not regulated by the supply and request law. These measures are conventional prerogatives of the state: land (territory), work (population) and money (currency). For scholastics, it was the main object of political reason. Modern free marketplace theories like to restrict it, but in practice with the other effect.
What is economics?
Economics is simply a discipline that answers the questions of what to produce, how to produce, who to receive the fruits of labor. Economics is based on politics. This is the consequence of culture and civilization, whether economists like it or not. Ultimately, it works and results in what has been chosen, not the choice itself, which is only a means. "The real division will depend on the values (targets) prevailing in a given society or will reflect the values of the ruling class. The method chosen is mostly a derivative of the relation of power and not pure economics" (Médaille, Ibid., p. 42). The distributionist reiterates the creator of kiliodynamics again: "Unstability is due to 1 of the most fundamental principles of sociology, the iron law of oligarchy, which says that erstwhile the interest group acquires large power, inevitably begins to usage it for its benefit" (Turchin, Ibid., p. 278).
Paweł Lisicki in the introduction to the Polish prophetic edition in full work of the English distributionist Hilaire Belloc “The slave state” (1913) notes: “At the time of Henry VIII’s regulation and just after them, respective families took over 1 5th of all national assets—they were monastic and earthly property belonging to the Church [...] Robbery proved morally right. An oligarchy society was born alternatively of a free citizen society. It created a capitalist strategy that in the United Kingdom was characterised by a disparity between a narrow group of rich and massless people.”
Hillaire Belloc
The technological stamp of classical economics was expected to legitimize this state of affairs with the doctrine of the state – the night keeper of property. Adam Smith simply concluded that the government was "in fact established to defend the rich from the mediocre or those who have any property from those who have nothing at all" (quote for Médaille, p. 119). It is no wonder that economists tried to give their discipline a mark free from empirical valuation of science, breaking up with the ethical tradition drawn from Aristotle to the school school of Salamanca of the 17th century. The attack on the ethical framework of scholastic economics was assumed by the concept that “greed is good” Bernard de Mandeville ("The Fable of the Bees: or Private Vices, Public Benefits" of 1724). The qualities despised by the erstwhile moral code were to consequence in public good or simply a calming of conscience?
In a conventional ethical concept, the attributes of a state which is non-community means of production, namely territory, population and currency are subject to resolving justice, which constitutes the virtue (ethical efficiency) of the ruler (man of state, politics, manager, supervisor, etc.). It was she who made it possible to dismantle the feudal system, based on "libertarian" on private contracts. This was done by the Catholic Church through ethics and its based public law (legal justice). The perfidence of the "commercial" Anglo-Saxon concept is that resolving justice does not be at all. For everything brings to the exchange processes and governing exchangeable justice (also called compensatory or commutative). This enables oligarchisation or even privatisation of the state under a convenient pretext.
The fact that capital yet boils down to human labour and natural resources is of no importance here. The function of production simply assumes what it should calculate as a vicious ellipse in reasoning. This can be realized by assuming that a man appears on the marketplace like a robot produced in a factory. Of course, depreciation would be included in the cost of utilizing specified a robot. Meanwhile, the cost of amortization of a individual (education, education, rest, illness, old age) is not valued in the market. They are simply passed on to an worker and to non-economic factors specified as the state or families. The cost-publication mechanics uses the marketplace valuation of man (human work) as any commodity, although the production costs of this "good" are located outside the price system.
"In order for the economy to accomplish a balance, both forms of work, i.e. capital and real work, must receive a proportional share of profits. If we treat salaries and capital gains as a fair remuneration of different forms of work, then the account will always be the same. However, without resolving justice, 1 form of work (usually capital) will be overpaid [...]. This creates an immediate imbalance in the economy, leading to an excessive supply of capital and a shortfall in aggregate demand" (ibid., p. 71). Elites can (and want) be a 1000 times richer than masses. But they won't buy a 1000 times more shoes, houses, or chops. This is the core of the problem of capitalism with demand, described by G.K. Chesterton: “The capitalist always tries to cut his wages [...] and thus reduces the amount his client can spend [...] wants 1 and the same man to be mediocre and rich.”
A detailed description of the economical crises caused by this 19th and 20th centuries can be found in the trilogy E. Michael Jones "Fair Money", as well as Karl Marx. In the 19th and 20th centuries, military and economical expansion was a capitalistic way to solve these problems along the line of labour, land and currency markets. Imperialism and colonialism provided fresh territories, provided a population tributary and outlets. This caused the supply and request curves to become flexible, imitating the existence of a marketplace balance. From the point of view of exchange theory, everything looked fine. The costs incurred by the population in colonized territories were not taken into account by definition. Propaganda did the rest. A civilization mission was preached, the salvific effects of greed and... the free market. However, it was besides hard to ignore interior crises.
In specified cases, there were non-economic ways of restoring balance: philanthropy, welfare, government spending and consumer credit (lending) which entered the permanent repertoire of capitalism. The first 2 don't have trouble. The 3rd strategy is based on Keynesist policy, which has 2 very bad effects. Firstly, it gives birth to the powers and with them the growth of the state essential to service them. American Politologist John Mearsheimer in “Great Imagination. Liberal dreams and global reality" points out that classical liberalism (which he calls liberalism modus vivendi) has no chance in a modern state and must quit progressive liberalism. Secondly, keynesism generates an unrepayable debt. In the recession, all government is eager to increase spending by taking on a debt to stimulate the economy. However, there are no politicians willing to limit and repay debt in the economical phase of growth. It's just that no 1 wants to take out the wine erstwhile the organization starts. As a result, half of the policy pursued is becoming a structural part of the economy.
Keynesian redistribution...
the increasingly large parts of budgets at any point are not adequate to reconstruct economical balance. Therefore, since the 1970s, neoliberal perpetuum mobile has been used, allowing everyone to be mediocre and rich. We're talking about a kind of usury to confuse an opponent called a consumer loan. Unlike investment loans, the debt increases consumption without expanding the wealth of the economy. "There are no legitimate claims for profit either, and interest payments in this case are simply a transfer of wealth from the borrower to the lender without changing the net value of the wealth of society" (Médaille, Ibid., p. 59).
In Poland, the rules and practice of consumer credit are highly barbaric, which the author was able to see in individual for eleven years, working as a territory consumer spokesperson. The consumer bankruptcy institution introduced into Polish law is simply a signal that the strategy is dangerously approaching the wall. "To the degree that the economy depends on consumer credit, it is rather virtually a card house, and it has stability. In fact, usury is the most destructive way to increase request [...] The dollar borrowed present to increase request should be returned next day and will so reduce request in the next period by the value of the same dollar, plus interest due. The situation requires further loans, which, of course, only makes it worse. Eventually, the strategy collapses under its own weight” (ibid.).
The same is actual of the monetary strategy in which all money arises as a debt. Each debt creates only a basic amount but not interest. Interests must come from subsequent loans from which interest requires further borrowing and so on indefinitely, which implies an impossible agreement. An impossible repayment of all debts would mean that all the money would vanish from the marketplace and return to the barter. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the government does not actually issue its own currency but uses the issue for which it must pay interest. Half the poorness if society (or government on his behalf) were in debt on its own. Of the perfidious hidden privatisation of the state by the financial oligarchy Henry Ford He was going to say that if the population 1 evening understood how the financial strategy worked, a revolution would break out in the morning. Ford was right. In the ethical economy the right to issue money is granted to each maker of goods (the Chinese request specified a system). A loan-based absurdity in which a monopolisist (bankster), making no production, makes profits from the fact of ex nihilo currency issuance has no moral and theoretical justification. Elites only usage it due to the fact that they can, since they have dealt with the scholastic ban on usury and the Catholic Church.
It is so interesting what the Anglo-Saxon strategy will turn into. The mentioned Hilaire Belloc in 1913 predicted that in a slave state, unless he abandoned the amoral economical doctrine that founded it. "The future of an industrial society and, in particular, of an English society, if left to its own course, will prove to be a future in which prosperity and safety will be guaranteed to the proletariat, but the price of this warrant will be to renounce the erstwhile political freedom and establish for it the position of a real, though not nominal, slave. Meanwhile, the owners will be guaranteed their profits, the full of the smoothly working production instrumentarium and the lost in the capitalist phase of society's improvement the stabilisation [...] society will stabilise on this slave base, which formed its foundation before the Christian religion came” (H. Belloc, "The Slavery State", 2020, p. 164).
It is worth remembering that even Hayek provides for basic income. Paweł Lisicki notes that the imagination of a universal state with a work to work with minimal income and safety well describes real socialism. "No unemployment, no fear of being expelled from work, universal employment, small income for everyone, yet a narrow group of managers who exploits the remainder on behalf of the State" (ibid., p. 12).
Such characteristics are shared Olaf Swolkień pointing out that the Polish People's Republic, contrary to its name, was not a country of workers and peasants, but a state of organization nomenclature ("Who and how dismantled the PRL?" in: MP no. 7-8, 16-23 February 2025). Overproduction of elites centering power and resources in their hands selected aspiring to take over the power of strategy contestors, channelling the discontent of the masses for this purpose. The fall of the PRL drawn by Swolkienia perfectly corresponds to the explanation of social disintegration Peter Turchin presented in the paper “The Last Times. Elites, counter-elity and the way of political disintegration". Turchin discussing Slavic states of the erstwhile east bloc for unknown reasons omits Poland. He mentions Belarus or Ukraine as examples of work and work of political elites. Nevertheless, the explanation of social disintegration denies the stableness of the order of "slavery" within the meaning of Belloc, if we consider Lisicki to be specified a PRL. It is worth remembering that Belloc does not value but simply states erstwhile slavery is simply a functioning social system.
A chance for another system?
If Turchin is right, there is simply a chance of overthrowing the position quo and the bottom-up formation of the community within the subsidiary state. Médaille gives examples of functioning distituency economies: the Spanish Mondragón Cooperative Corporation, the economy of Emilia-Romana region, the Taiwanese “ground for a farmer”, microbanking, common credit and insurance companies, and worker share ownership schemes, e.g. Springfield Remanufacturing, owned by 727 workers, which has increased sales more than 10 times over 20 years of its existence. "When selfish ruling classes bring their societies to ruin, it's good to have an alternate – stories successful. And we, 99 percent, must request that our leaders act in a way that promotes our common interests" (Turkey, Ibid., p. 283).
It is controversial whether it succeeded Poles after 1989. How to do this without rejecting the economical paradigm, inactive in force in the Anglo-Saxon West, which led the Polish economical transformation? This paradigm is now losing religion even of its most fierce followers, specified as the abovementioned WEI Tomasz Wróblewski. And possibly that's where we gotta look at a real free market.
Vladimir Kowalik
Think Poland, No. 11-12 (16-23.03.2025)