While political-cultural antagonisms increase, the dominant ideology loses its efficiency.

In other words, the discontent of the people, the actions of the trade unions, the demands for rights and security increase the concerns about the future of order in the governments, bureaucrats and media of the capitalist states themselves. Governments are starting to think about measures to limit the freedoms of capital in the short run in order to protect social stability and the long-term interests of capitalism. On the dark side of these thoughts, there is a tendency to limit strikes, protest rights and freedom of expression.

Under the influence of this pressure, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, explains that they are “determined to suppress the upward trend of energy prices” and speaks of “immediate intervention in the markets” and “the search for a new market model”. Belgian Energy Minister Tinne Van der Straeten says “markets are not working, urgent reform is needed”. In France, the government nationalizes the electricity distribution company EDF. Despite this nationalization, the EU administration states that it will not demand the disintegration of this monopoly by supporting France.

In Britain, water privatizations made during Thatcher’s time are described as “fraud” by one of those who did it. The video clips shared by millions of wastes spilled into the sea from water treatment plants, the obscene salaries and bonuses of the bosses of the energy and transportation sectors, the energy bills that are expected to exceed the average worker salary this winter, the waiting times of even cancer patients in the national health system, the expropriation of all these sectors, This leads to a growing demand among the people for the increase in taxes on capital. In this environment, strikes that disrupt daily life are popularly supported, and even the possibility of a coordinated de facto general strike is welcomed.

In the face of the food price crisis, demand for government intervention in the economy is being targeted by demands for massive one-time taxes on the four giant companies The Archer-Daniels, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus, which control 70 to 90 percent of the global grain trade.

In short, the balance between “democracy” and “freedoms” begins to deteriorate, and the contradiction begins to pass into an unmanageable phase.


The balance between “democracy” and “freedoms” will continue to deteriorate, the contradiction will continue to go into an unmanageable phase, and economic and cultural polarization will continue to deepen even if there is an efficient “separation of powers”, “dual structure”, “independent” media and a constitution that secures them. If it is, after this point, two possibilities can be mentioned: Either the process starts to shift to the right and turns into “fascism as a process” with the support of the capitalist classes determined to protect freedom, or the rights and freedoms continue to expand and limit “freedom”. In this last case, too, there are two possibilities: Either the process gains momentum and begins to go beyond capitalism, as I pointed out earlier. Or a new consensus emerges between the capitalist class and popular classes that allows to regulate the contradiction between democracy and freedom in this new situation (perhaps on a new capital accumulation regime).

A new liberal democracy, different from the one in the last 30-40 years, may be shaped that can respond to the demands of the people, the working class and various identities to a certain extent, and preserve the “freedom”.


However, in the exemplary countries of liberal democracy, the “separation of powers” system and the “dual” structure of the state (the relationship between the appointed and the elected) have been rapidly eroding in the state structure in recent years. The Trump administrations in the USA and the Johnson administrations in the UK tried to weaken the independence of the judiciary and bureaucracy by adopting the practices seen in underdeveloped countries such as Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Tunisia and Egypt. Johnson’s government even tried to suspend parliament. During the administrations of both politicians, lying, involvement of politicians in corruption, and “companion” relations became commonplace. Both politicians invested in social polarization, demonizing their opponents during the Johnson Brexit referendum, while Trump was going to the elections. He made special efforts to ossify Trump supporters with lies and even to encourage armed “uprising”. With the election of Trump, Johnson was forced to resign and they were removed from the administration. However, they both inflicted incurable wounds in the structure of the liberal democratic state and accelerated the disintegration of social reality.

Now, while the political-cultural polarization deepens in many developed countries, especially the USA and England, the dominant ideology loses its efficiency, and within the fragmentation experienced in the “social reality”, political-cultural camps are formed, one of which sees the “other” as a threat to the lifestyle and an enemy in conflict with the national interest.

In this case, the possibility of forming a new liberal democracy that allows to re-arrange the contradiction between democracy and “freedoms”, to form a new consensus, to expand the rights of the people and the working class, to respond to the demands of various identities, and to preserve the “freedom”, is becoming increasingly distant. So the struggle for rights and freedoms becomes more and more important.

In this environment, the tendency of the state, hence the bureaucracy, to intervene in the economy and market relations, and even to limit the “sacred” right to property, in the European Union, whose only administration ideology was liberalism, and in central countries such as England, Germany, France and even the USA, is among the alternatives. is entering, the tendency to limit the right to strike is also being revived. On the other hand, an Oxford University study shows that in Europe, the proportion of young people desiring “a strong leader” has doubled in the last 20 years to reach 60 percent. Obviously, “times” are changing rapidly.


Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button