How will we get rid of liberal dogmas and neo-liberal rote learning?

Turkey has structural problems in its economy such as a high budget deficit, a high foreign trade deficit, and a high current account deficit. We also have problems such as high inflation, high exchange rates, high external debt, high unemployment, and high interest rates. Moreover, these problems are structural. They are not cyclical. 

The Turkish economy has never been fully brought into the formal sector at the desired scale. There is no tax justice. Income distribution is distorted. The gap between wealth and misery, between the rich and the poor, is so deep that Turkey is unfortunately always among the top countries in rankings of countries with distorted income distribution in research on the subject.

When it comes to the economy, these are the results of talking about rent, repo, interest, the stock market, and foreign currency instead of production, investment, exports, and employment. They are the result of neglecting agriculture and discarding agro-industry. They are the result of failing to find a solution to the decrease in agricultural land and the fact that the population working in agriculture is both decreasing and aging. They are the result of surrendering to the prescriptions of the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund). They are the result of liberal democrat, social democrat, nationalist, and conservative cadres and different parties following the same program while in power, which strictly implemented the January 24 (1980) decisions, of which Turgut Özal was the architect and which were later implemented with the support of the September 12 coup plotters. They are the result of liberal political economy and neo-liberal preferences. Unless these preferences change fundamentally, there is no salvation. This subject needs to be thought about at length. 

HOW DID LIBERALS CONVINCE THE MASSES?

We must admit that the great success of neo-liberalism is its ability to make such an anti-human, justice-deprived, and anti-equality ideology accepted by the masses as if it were the only real ideology, as if it were the norm of human nature, as if it were without alternatives, and as if it were the only, most appropriate, and unique worldview suitable for the natural flow of life. Moreover, among these broad masses that it has adopted and convinced are the poor, the workers, the oppressed, and the destitute. Even though they have caused thousands of financial collapses, economic crises, hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies, tens of thousands of people committing suicide due to these, and millions of people suffering from hunger and poverty in our country and the world, neo-liberals have been able to convince millions of people of neo-liberal ideas once again, every time, as if they had no responsibility or fault in these events, as if neo-liberalism were a law of nature, and as if it were the absolute and inevitable result of political economy. Every time, they have been able to make millions of people believe in this reactionary, savage, and inhumane idea. 

In England, Margaret Thatcher, the leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister known as the "Iron Lady," came to power in 1979 with neo-liberal rhetoric. In the USA, Republican President Ronald Reagan won the election in 1981 with this rhetoric. Turgut Özal, a staunch admirer of these two politicians, is the architect of the January 24 decisions. He won power in 1983 with this rhetoric. All three politicians believed that the program they implemented was absolute, unique, indisputable, and without alternatives. Thatcher frequently defended her program with these words: "There is no alternative." In English, it was briefly referred to by the initials of these words as TINA.

According to this mentality, competition is inevitable. Inequality is natural. Those who are strong in the market and compatible with the market survive. Talents are not distributed equally. Therefore, it is normal to have casualties. It is in the nature of the business. Therefore, there are great similarities between liberalism and Social Darwinism. 

According to them, it is meaningless and unnecessary to feel sad or remorse for those who cannot compete, those who trip and fall while competing, those who start life from behind, and those who are disadvantaged. Because these situations and these results are inevitable. They cannot be prevented. Because people are not equal. Not being equal is not a bad situation either. Nature is like this too. Those who are more skilled, those who are born luckier, those who are born richer, those who evaluate opportunities better, those who have a better nose for business, and those who study in better schools have no conscientious, moral, or human responsibility, obligation, or debt towards the poor, those who start life from behind, those who cannot get a good education, or those who are born disadvantaged. Because it is God's command that they are like this, or it is the result of their own incompetence, laziness, or stupidity. Everyone is responsible for themselves. No one can hold society and the rich responsible for them being in this situation. 

WHAT IS THE REAL PURPOSE OF PRIVATIZATIONS?

According to liberals and neo-liberals, privatizations, the complete withdrawal of the state from the economy, the liquidation of the social state, and the weakening of labor unions are priorities. In their eyes, the private sector is categorically efficient and profitable. The public sector, on the other hand, is categorically inefficient and loss-making. 

However, as seen in the world, after economic crises, the state takes from the public purse and puts into effect bailout packages for giant companies that are failing or about to fail. Tax amnesties come to the agenda. Debts are wiped out or postponed. As we always emphasize, in capitalism, profits are privatized, and losses and debts are nationalized.

In reality, privatizations have nothing to do with efficiency or profitability from an economic or financial perspective. Because in economics, there is no relationship between ownership structure and efficiency, or between ownership structure and profitability. A state company can be efficient and profitable if managed well, just as a private company will lose money if not managed well. It may even go bankrupt and fail.

What happened after the privatizations in the world and in our country has refuted the theses of neo-liberals, whether it is about the privatized public institutions working more efficiently or offering higher quality services or products at a lower price. While public resources were transferred to private companies, and very important factories were sometimes sold below the value of the land or the price of the goods in their warehouses, the money that went into the state's coffers, that is, the nation's pocket, before privatization, went into the pockets of certain companies after privatization. Privatization has turned into looting and plunder.

In parallel with these developments, the share that laborers receive from the national income has steadily decreased. Those who make a living by their labor have become impoverished. Income distribution inequality and injustice have deepened even further. To give an example from the USA, in the 1980s in the USA, the richest 10 percent of the population increased their household income by 16 percent, the richest 5 percent increased their household income by 23 percent, and the top 1 percent increased their income by 50 percent. The remaining 80 percent of the population became impoverished. Especially the poorest 10 percent lost 15 percent of their income. In 1977, while the average income of the richest 1 percent in the USA was 65 times higher than the poorest 10 percent, this gap rose to 115 times in 1987. 

THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR IS CONSTANTLY DEEPENING

While liberals and neo-liberals advocate for reducing taxes paid by the rich, suppressing wages, and cutting social state expenditures, they base their theses as follows: If the rich earn higher incomes, they earn more. If they make more profit, they invest more. This situation brings about a more efficient use of resources. Thus, employment increases. More employment increases the welfare of society. 

However, the reality is not like this. It is the opposite. As the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The income distribution gap deepens. The tendency to make money from money increases even more. Stock market games come to the fore more. Financial crises become more frequent. This causes the poor to pay a heavier price. 

According to liberals and neo-liberals, the free market, free trade, free competition, the free movement of goods, services, and capital, and the freedom of investment and enterprise are also the foundation of democracy. 

However, a truly participatory democracy is a democracy in which all segments of society intervene in politics with class consciousness and in an organized manner. This is the order that neo-liberals fear the most.