The structural crisis in Great Britain and the neoconservative revolution. Neoconservative revolution in Western countries

The decline in the efficiency of a socially oriented market economy and the loss of voter confidence in the state, which failed to ensure “general welfare,” prompted a search for new ways of developing society.

1. Neoconservatism

Supporters of the ideas of John Keynes, who advocated active government intervention in socio-economic relations, were unable to solve the problems that arose. Communists, social democrats and many liberals believed that in the current conditions it was necessary to further strengthen the role of the state in the economy.

This was opposed by adherents of neoconservatism. Its ideologists were Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Michael Novak. The main ideas of the neoconservatives were the revival of traditional moral values ​​and the modernization of the economy based on private entrepreneurs.

Neoconservatives regarded the welfare state as a bureaucratic monster that limited the freedom of citizens and crowded out the spirit of entrepreneurship. They called for a reduction in the role of the bureaucracy. The economic theory of neoconservatism was based on the ideas of Milton Friedman, the leader of the so-called Chicago school of economists. He believed that the state should support not the consumer of goods, but their producer by reducing income taxes. The expansion of production should ultimately lead to cheaper products and, consequently, to an increase in the standard of living of the population. Therefore, the main attention should be paid not to the redistribution of income, but to ensuring constant economic growth, increasing the efficiency and profitability of production. In this case, Friedman believed, new jobs would appear and prices would decline.

Neoconservatives argued that the “welfare society” had led to the decline of traditional Western moral values ​​and that the high level of social security was to blame.

Neoconservatives criticized people who preferred to live on unemployment benefits rather than on wages. Although there were no more than 2% of the working population, the citizens who worked and paid taxes had the impression that the idle people were being fed at their expense. It was noted that stable family relationships were replaced by an immoral “sexual revolution.” The outbreak of the AIDS epidemic, according to the views of neoconservative President R. Reagan, was a punishment from above for lax morals. He even opposed the allocation of public funds to fight “this infection.”

At the same time, they were not supporters of a complete rejection of state intervention in the sphere of socio-economic relations. The talk was about decentralization and partial reduction of social programs.

Decentralization meant the transfer of part of the functions for implementing social policy from central authorities to local ones. Social programs became targeted, when assistance was provided only to those citizens for whom it was vitally necessary. By convincing people to rely on their own strengths, to show initiative and responsibility, and to show solidarity with each other, neoconservatives tried to stimulate the activity of civil society and private business.

2. Socio-economic policy of neoconservatism

By the end of the 1970s. In the USA and many countries of Western Europe, neoconservatives came to power. The beginning of the era of neoconservatism is associated primarily with the names of Margaret Thatcher - Prime Minister of Great Britain from the Conservative Party, who took this post in 1979, Republican Ronald Reagan - President of the United States in 1980-1988, Helmut Kohl - leader of the Christian Democratic Union party and Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1982-1998.

The neoconservatives saw their main task in modernizing the economy. Therefore, their policies were often characterized as “revolutionary”.

• The new authorities refused to subsidize unprofitable industries. Those that belonged to the state were sold to private companies on preferential terms. So, in Great Britain for 1979-1998. the public sector shrank by 2/3, and the budget received 80 billion pounds sterling from the sale of state-owned enterprises.
• A significant part of municipal housing was privatized and transferred into the hands of tenants. This led to an expansion of the layer of owners.
• The policy of saving on budget expenditures played an important role, which led to a decrease in inflation and made it possible to stop the rise in prices. The number of civil servants began to be reduced. Privatization of housing freed local authorities from the costs of repairing houses, public service systems, etc.
• Social policy was reformed. Many social programs were transferred to local authorities. Part of the funds previously allocated as benefits to the poor was now provided to them in the form of a loan to open their own small enterprise, their own “business.” Special courses were organized for beginning entrepreneurs. Thanks to this, a significant part of those previously in need acquired a source of income independent of the state.
• Tax incentives were introduced for manufacturers who introduced new technologies and modernized production. This attracted capital from TNCs to developed countries and increased the level of business activity. Barriers to the free movement of goods, capital, and labor in Western Europe and the United States were gradually removed. The acceleration of integration processes has made it possible to make wider use of the advantages of the international division of labor.

The measures taken within the framework of the “neoconservative revolution” laid the foundation for the formation of the information society. Investments in industries that actively used the achievements of scientific and technological progress increased rapidly.

The main result of neoconservative policies was the structural restructuring of the economy. Prerequisites have emerged for further accelerated development of the most advanced industries. Energy and resource-saving technologies were introduced, and the process of automation and robotization of production began, that is, the use of more productive equipment.

For example, in the United States for the period 1979-1988. fixed capital in the manufacturing industry increased by 70%, and production capacity by 115%. In other words, the new equipment was approximately 1.5 times more productive than the old one. New enterprises in the biotechnological, chemical, electrical, electronics and instrument making industries were built in the UK.

3. Neoconservative modernization

The most consistent neoconservative modernization of the economy was carried out in the USA and Great Britain. This process was slower and more complex in the countries of continental Western Europe. This is largely explained by the fact that trade unions actively opposed neoconservative policies. They were concerned about the closure of unprofitable enterprises and job cuts, which led to a drop in the living standards of workers. For example, in the USA, as a result of a revision of social policy, the proportion of people living below the poverty line from 1979 to 1993 (the period of the “neoconservative revolution”) increased from 11.7 to 15.1%. Despite this, union resistance in the United States was relatively weak. Less than 16% of wage workers belonged to American trade unions, and their leadership traditionally focused on social partnership.

Neoconservatives in the US and UK have taken a hard line against trade unionism. In cases where trade unions organized strikes that harmed citizens and the country's economy, repressive measures were used. In the United States, the air traffic controllers union was defeated. The strike he started was declared illegal, the trade union leadership was brought to court, and military dispatchers took over work at the airports. In Great Britain, M. Thatcher, nicknamed the “Iron Lady,” did not make concessions to trade unions who opposed the closure of unprofitable coal mines.

In France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and other continental countries of Western Europe, wage workers were better organized. Trade unions united from 30 to 80% of workers. Therefore, rigid methods of implementing social policy turned out to be impossible.

The leaders of not all states shared the economic views of M. Thatcher and R. Reagan. However, in the context of the crisis of the socially oriented model of economic development, many of them were forced to resort to neoconservative methods of modernization. In France, they were used during the reign of Socialist President François Mitterrand (in power from 1981-1995), in Italy - by the government led by socialist Benedetto Craxi, in Spain - under Socialist Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez (leader of the Socialist Workers' Party in 1982-1996).

In general, neoconservative leaders sought to strengthen the social basis of reform policies. Thus, in Western European countries, representatives of trade unions were included in the management bodies of enterprises and supervisory boards of corporations, and they were provided with information about plans for the reorganization of production. Many corporations organized centers for advanced training and retraining of their employees.

Other forms of support for workers were also used when transferring production to high technology. Thus, the American corporation General Motors, in connection with the abandonment of assembly line production and the transition to the use of robots, guaranteed lifelong employment and a share in profits to highly qualified workers who avoided dismissal. Elements of worker self-government were introduced: each team itself determined the rhythm, order and duration of work, being responsible only for the final result.

Most of all, unemployment and layoffs affected workers in outdated professions and low qualifications. For example, the widespread introduction of ATMs led to massive layoffs of bank and savings bank employees. However, the state and corporations took it upon themselves to retrain the “new marginals” (at the same time, people receiving unemployment benefits lost them if they refused to attend advanced training courses). As a result, the rise in unemployment, as well as the fall in living standards, turned out to be a temporary phenomenon.

Self-test questions

1. What were the main features of neoconservatism that distinguished it from other ideological movements?
2. List and characterize the main activities of the neoconservatives aimed at modernizing the economy.
3. Name the statesmen who pursued neoconservative policies in their countries. Prepare a report about one of them using media and Internet materials.
4. Why do you think the reforms of the 1980s? called the term “neoconservative revolution”?
5. Tell us about the features of neoconservative modernization in the USA and Great Britain, on the one hand, and the countries of continental Europe, on the other.

The decline in the efficiency of a socially oriented market economy and the loss of voter confidence in the state, which ensures “general welfare,” stimulated the search for alternative ideas and development models.

Among supporters of the ideas of Keynes, Galbraith and other theorists of expanded state intervention in socio-economic relations in the name of smoothing inequality and maintaining high effective demand, no new approaches arose. Neoliberals continued to believe that the expansion of state functions in modern conditions not only does not threaten freedom, but, on the contrary, strengthens the guarantees of the rights and freedoms of citizens. Their main guarantor in the new conditions was no longer “natural law”, but the “general welfare” state itself, politically neutral, guided by rational considerations. Criticism of this state, populist tendencies began to be seen as posing a threat to the establishment of the tyranny of an incompetent majority, as a necessary evil that has to be endured in the name of democracy, although the growing role of social and other mass groups is becoming a source of threat to individual freedom.

As the American political scientist B. Gross believed, such an evolution of neoliberalism was capable of transforming it into the ideology of new totalitarianism, “fascism with a human face,” where the state and related structures would establish total control over citizens, limit their freedoms, believing that this is necessary in the name is for their own good.

An ideological movement such as neoconservatism has become an alternative to both neoliberalism and radicalism. He united various directions of ideological and political thought under the sign of traditional values: religious, national, cultural and political traditions, which for Western countries are associated with the ideals of democracy and free markets. In politics, neoconservatism is associated with the names of M. Thatcher, who was elected Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1979 and D. Major, who replaced her in this post in 1992, the Republican R. Reagan, who became US President in 1980, G. Kohl, Chancellor Germany in 1982-1998

The peculiarity of neoconservatism was that its adherents went to the polls under the slogans of change, turnaround, renewal, including through an appeal to traditions. At the same time, speaking about the preservation of traditional values, neoconservatives combined them with the needs of modernization, offering a new understanding of them.

Regarding the welfare state as a bureaucratic monster that patronizes citizens and thereby limits their freedom and crowds out the spirit of entrepreneurship, neoconservatives called for a reduction in its role. The main theorist of the economics of neoconservatism was M. Friedman, who believed that the main attention should be paid not to the redistribution of the produced product, but to ensuring its constant growth.

Advocating for the revival of the authority of the family, school, and church, appealing to the ethics of “democratic capitalism,” which presupposes respect for law and order, discipline, restraint, and patriotism, the neoconservatives received the support of the broadest sections of society. Their arguments were listened to by entrepreneurs and representatives of the “middle class” interested in reducing the tax burden, marginalized people who consider social programs insufficient, intellectuals concerned about the displacement of spirituality by rationalism and pragmatism. Neoconservatives referred to the fact that, due to active social policy, groups of people have emerged among the marginalized who consider it more profitable to live on unemployment benefits than to work. Although such people constituted no more than 1-2% of the active population of developed countries, working citizens paying taxes became convinced that they were feeding idle people, social dependents who did not want to work.

There was no talk of a complete rejection of state intervention in the sphere of socio-economic relations. The talk was about increasing the efficiency of the economy, its modernization, including through decentralization and partial reduction of social programs.

Social policy was reformed. Part of the funds previously allocated as benefits to the poor remained addressed to them, but in the form of a loan to open their own small enterprise, their own business. Thanks to this, a significant part of those in need acquired a source of income independent of the state.

The main opposition to neoconservative policies came from trade unions. However, the neoconservative leaders did not set the goal of crushing the trade union movement. Only in those cases where trade unions tried to carry out strike actions that were detrimental to citizens and the economy as a whole, repressive measures were used. In general, neoconservative governments sought to create a social basis for reform policies. In those countries of Western Europe where the majority of workers were organized into trade unions, their representatives were included in the administrative bodies of enterprises and supervisory boards of corporations, and they were provided with access to information about reorganization plans. Where the role of trade unions was smaller (in the 1990s in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, from 70 to 80% of employees were in trade unions, while in the USA - only 16%. On average, in developed countries, trade unions covered 26% of employees), other forms of worker participation in modernization were used. The measures taken within the framework of the “neoconservative revolution” turned out to be decisive in the formation of the information society. Tax incentives for manufacturers introducing new technologies have attracted capital from TNCs to developed countries and increased the level of business activity. The removal of barriers to the free movement of goods, capital, and labor between developed countries, especially in Western Europe, and the acceleration of integration processes made it possible to fully exploit the advantages of the international division of labor. In the 1980s-1990s. in developed countries, the average annual growth rate of real income per worker was 1.4%. This testified to the success of neoconservative policies.

In the 70-80s there was a change of ruling parties: 1979 – victory of the conservatives in England (Thatcher); 1980 - Republicans in the USA (Reagan); 1982 - Koll in Germany. The neoconservative wave of revolutions of the 1980s and 20th centuries is associated with them. By the beginning of the 1980s, through the crisis of the 1970s, it became clear that due to the structural crisis of the Western economy, an important restructuring had been carried out. The ideological basis of the neoconservative revolution - theories and concepts - took shape in the middle. 20th century (Hayek, 1947 “The Road to Serfdom”, Friedman). Hayek - spiritual father of the neoconservative revolution, opponent of Keynes. He defended the idea of ​​a self-regulating economy - the state should not interfere in the economy, the state 1st should provide a legal basis for free and fair competition, 2nd must help the unemployed and the elderly. A perfect economy does not exist in nature. The concept of spontaneous order, i.e. the natural desire of an economy in chaos for perfection, requires: 1). strictly fulfill contractual obligations, 2). refusal of intentions to appropriate someone else's property. Hayek insisted that crises are important and useful => renewal of the market economy. FriedmanThe main reason for the crisis is that there is an excessive amount of money in circulation => the state must monitor the amount of money in circulation (the essence of monetarism ). Keynesians led by stimulating demand. Monetarists – stimulate supply, reduce corporate taxes. High incomes so that they can be invested in production. Friedman proposed depriving trade unions of the right to influence wages => when wages increase, extra money is printed. Traits of neoconservatives: 1). Another direction of government spending is an attempt to reduce government spending on the social sphere, the struggle was waged in words, they did not dare to make radical changes => the danger of a social explosion when socialism exists. 2). Stimulating supply by reducing direct taxes on corporations. Indirect taxes grew (the risk of neocons). The decline in living standards did not cause a radical explosion. Social sector reforms : in Sweden – payment for individual medical services; in England - against unemployment benefits, for their reform, credit for starting a business; in France - to attract unemployed youth, courses, loans; in the USA - tax reform, based on Laffer's theory of proposals: social programs are the concern of the states; in England - privatization, streamlining relations with trade unions.

Declining living standards, restructuring of the Western economy.

19. Stages of European integration in the second half of the 20th century. and the formation of the European Union.

2nd half of the 20th century. There is a trend toward economic growth. and watered. integration – interstate and non-governmental organizations. After the 2nd M.V. the foundations of the European Union were laid after the collapse of the CMEA and the Warsaw Pact. There was successful political integration in Europe. In March 1948, the Brussels Pact of France, England, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg (Western Union) was an agreement on cooperation in military, economic, and political matters. and cultural spheres. In May 1948, The Hague Congress for the Unification of Europe. 1949 - The European Union was formed - the development of relations between European countries, the formation of a pan-European consciousness. Subsequently, England moved away from European integration for a long time, and Germany actively joined it. Polit. integration was replaced by the priority of economic relations. April 1951 - European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) France + Italy + and Benelux countries, 1957 on the basis of the ECSC - European Economic Community (EEC), goal: integration of the entire economic system of the participating countries. Formed: the Council - the highest body with the right to veto anyone, the Assembly - an advisory body, subsequently the European Parliament, the Court - an arbitration body. Within the framework of the EEC, the main direction of integration - the gradual removal of customs duties, the unification of financial legislation, and a common agricultural policy - were generally completed by 1968. Since the end of the 60s, the 2nd stage of integration. 1969 – program to complete, deepen and expand integration. The composition of the EEC expanded, by 1995 there were + 9 states. (Denmark, Spain, Austria, Sweden, etc.). Economical crisis of 1974 Western countries were forced to abandon speeding up integration. The result is that the foundations of the EEC agricultural policy have been strengthened (Green Europe program), a single European unit of account and coordination of fluctuations in national currencies (currency snake) have been introduced. At the turn of the 70-80s, the technical cooperation program of the EEC countries => Western Europe is the world's leading center for innovative economic development. In political integration, the role of the EEC Council has grown. Since 1978 - direct elections to the European Parliament. Since the 1st half of the 1980s, plans have been developed for a fundamentally new stage of integration - the creation of the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 formalized the European Union. The goal is to create a unified economic, socio-legal, information and cultural space. A single market for capital, goods and services has been formed. This agreement determined the target direction in the development of Western European countries for the future.

It so happened that the beginning of winter turned out to be colder than usual. And immediately there was talk that global cooling had begun. This means that Trump was right when he claimed that global warming is an invention of liberals and greens in order to push through their environmental projects.

Coincidentally, the cold winter came during the neoconservative revolution.

This is a revolution of the white majority, whose rights have been villainously neglected for the last 20 years. And it seems that the white man is tired of this situation. And if earlier he condoned all neoliberal innovations, seeing them as puppy rampage, now he seems to have decided that enough is enough.

And this is not in one particular country, the USA, but everywhere, and if in the twentieth century the world conflict was between capitalism and communism, now, in the twenty-first century, it has turned into a confrontation between neoliberals and neoconservatives.

Moreover, modern Russia is the clearest example of neoconservatism. This explains the hatred of Russia by neoliberals and the sympathy of neoconservatives.

A completely sad picture has emerged in modern Germany.

Take, for example, the CDU party and the future elections. Here it is an internal party conflict between the party leadership and the base. Most of its members are supporters of Christian and conservative values, residents of the outback and provinces. It was precisely these voters who predominantly elected Trump in the United States. The party leadership, in pursuit of the votes of marginal groups, made concessions on the issue of the traditional family, on the issue of national interests and the interests of the working population.

This was precisely contrary to its main base and electorate. The idea of ​​economic growth at any cost, the introduction of the Euro and a deficit-free budget and rabid humanism ultimately led to a decrease in real incomes of the population.

What does a simple worker care about the fact that the country has a record annual income, if he cannot feed his family alone and the state cannot guarantee him a decent old-age pension, security, if the state has billions to support refugees and has no money to increase the salaries of educators? kindergartens and benefits for single mothers.

For a long time, many conservatives chose the CDU out of inertia, until the Alternative appeared, which accurately captured the mood of the white majority.

It is no secret that the leadership of the Alternative and the majority of members of the AfD party were formed from the right wing of the CDU and the right wing of the Free Democrats, who do not agree with the loss of the country’s national identity, national culture and sovereignty within the European Union.

It is possible that in Germany the CDU election campaign in 2017 may manifest itself in slogans adopted from the Alternative and the CSU, the Bavarians, a party related to the CDU:

— limiting the influx of refugees;

— tightening the rules for distributing benefits;

— restriction of social rights for migrants;

— return to the values ​​of the traditional family;

- orientation towards the rights of the white conservative majority.

Otherwise, the CDU will have no chance at all of being in power again.

One can, of course, say that national self-awareness and a return to national interests are a regression of the world order, but one must also understand the fact that the liberal idea has gone so far that it has exhausted itself, and the next stage of its development will be an open market for goods, legalized pedophilia, bestiality and a change in the racial structure of Europe.

This is exactly what the supporters of neoconservatism do not want, whose interests were not taken into account by the neoliberals and betrayed by the leaders of the Christian and conservative parties in Europe for the sake of globalization.

The main thing is that the neoconservatives do not go too far and slide into nationalism.

I hope they have enough professionalism, political sense and a sense of proportion.