Rising populist parties in Europe and liberalism

Trotsky, one of the leaders of the October Revolution, defined fascism as the organization of society by monopoly capital in a totalitarian manner. Monopoly and big capital circles know that they cannot protect their profits without an authoritarian political power. Therefore, fascism is supported by capitalist forces, the big bourgeoisie, monopoly capital circles, and large landowners. We know the troubles that fascism brought upon the world from the period before World War II. 

The post-World War II period is known as the golden age of capitalism. Growth rates were high, and unemployment rates were low. Wages increased in real terms. Social rights expanded. Demands for the welfare state were vibrant. The search for a social state was influential. The end of this period was brought about by the regime of accumulation and economic crises in the 1970s. 

Today, in Europe, parties that can be described as the successors to the fascist parties before World War II are increasing their votes. Germany, France, and Italy are typical examples of this. These parties highlight poverty, unemployment, opposition to foreigners, immigrants, Muslims, and Middle Easterners, and the incompetence of center-right and center-left parties, and they approach the European Union with skepticism and criticism. They use harsh language against the political elites who have been prominent in politics for many years. They receive support from both US President Trump and Russian leader Putin. They are receiving significant support from both the masses that normally form the voter base of left-wing parties and from big capital circles. While monopoly capital circles pat these parties on the back on one hand, they are also winking at liberal democratic parties that advocate for savage capitalism and rampant liberalism, as well as social democratic parties that are not much different from them.  Apart from France and Germany, there are many examples of these from Italy to England…

Big capital circles that support populist governments and advocate for authoritarian administrations also support localization on the other hand. Because the weakening of the national, the public, and the social, the disempowerment of the central state, and the prominence of the local are in favor of big capital. 

Why, you ask? 

For this reason.

In liberalism, the state does not supervise the market. On the contrary, the market supervises and directs the state and society. In a liberal order, what is expected from the state is to act in favor of the market and on behalf of capital, to intervene in politics, society, and law, and to make legal regulations. The state is expected to make legal and institutional arrangements in the name and on behalf of the market in a liberal order. It is expected that society becomes a market society, and the citizen becomes a consumer, a customer, and an entrepreneur. Since competition is essential, citizens must also be entrepreneurial and competitive. The state should also support and encourage this. 

According to liberals, the state is not obligated to protect citizens from the ruthlessness of the market and savage capitalism. On the contrary, the state wants citizens to take their place in the market as entrepreneurs and encourages them to do so. Therefore, the state acts together with capital and works at the command of capital. That is why unorganized, non-unionized, cheap labor is preferred in liberalism. Wages are suppressed. Agricultural subsidies in the agricultural sector are reduced to a minimum. Strikes are banned on flimsy excuses. 

Since liberalism advocates for the state to be shaped, organized, and act according to the demands of the market, and for the market to manage and direct the state, the politics-law relationship is also problematic, alongside the politics-economy relationship in the minds of liberals. According to them, the law should operate in favor of capital. It should act as the guardian of the inviolability of property rights. It should remove all obstacles in front of free trade, free competition, and the free market, and immediately and severely punish those who want to be an obstacle. It should act according to the expectations and demands of capital. This is primarily what is expected of the law. 

In summary, liberalism is against the social, public, and national by highlighting identity politics, seeing the citizen as a customer, and liquidating the social nature of the state and placing the state at the command of capital. It is necessary to remind left-liberals, nationalist liberals, and conservative liberals of this.