p Just at present, neoliberalism is being glorified in the West in the search for remedies against communist ideas, for it is claimed that liberalism has pushed reaction into the background to become the dominant trend capable of defeating communism. Indeed, this is a very indicative attempt on the part of imperialism to use the banner of bourgeois liberalism as a cover.

p As I have said, bourgeois social thought and the bourgeois theory of social development in the 19th century were closely connected with the ideology of liberalism, which gave these theories their direction, filled them with political content and produced these theories to substantiate its political line. That is why the history of bourgeois liberalism is closely connected with the development of bourgeois sociology and the theories of social progress.

p At the turn of the century, bourgeois liberalism underwent profound change. Its one-time opposition to feudal-absolutist conservatism has long since become meaningless, thereby depriving the social theories connected with bourgeois liberalism of their relatively progressive features. The margin between conservatism and liberalism is becoming ever more tenuous. There have been ever more frequent crises and divisions in the liberal parties, with various leaders moving from one camp to another. Of course, bourgeois liberalism has not stopped trying to exert an influence on the working people and the working class. Indeed, the policy of small concessions and deception of the working people by bourgeois liberal catchwords is still current in various 338 capitalist countries. From time to time this policy alternates with the policy of open reprisals and suppression of the working class. In the epoch of imperialism, we no longer find any major liberal parties in the political arena, the banners being left without standard-bearers. But monopoly capital has refused to consign the political weapon of bourgeois liberalism to the archives. The parties of monopoly capital have tried to borrow some of its weapons, and use is also being made of the old speeches of bourgeois liberalism about free competition and democracy, which are given a new reading.

p But there is a most profound internal contradiction in the present attempts to revive bourgeois liberalism. On the one hand, monopoly capital has sought to ensure its influence on the petty and middle bourgeoisie, and on the other hand, it fears that these sections could unite on an anti-monopolist basis of opposition trends. One cannot say that there is no ground in the modern world for a revival of some ideas of bourgeois liberalism in the form of opposition to the reigning monopolies. But the monopolies, relying on their influence within the bourgeoisie, are trying to control the process and cut it short whenever it has posed any threat to them, seeking to use it ultimately to support the sway of the monopolies.

p “Free enterprise”, which is allegedly ensured by present-day capitalism, is brought to the foreground. The stereotype conception is roughly as follows: private property produces “economic democracy" and intensifies enterprise and personal initiative. This corresponds to “political democracy" which promotes the development of economic activity, whereas social property and the planned economy allegedly stifle personal initiative and result in “totalitarianism”, “etatism” and other political forms hampering the development of economic activity. In the process some critical remarks are allowed against the modern bourgeois state concerning its “interference” in economic affairs, etc.

p But the whole conception is deliberate demagogy and a reactionary Utopia. First, private initiative and enterprise are not the present, but the past of capitalism, and there is no return to it. It is confidence trick on the part of bourgeois propagandists to describe the present as the premonopoly period of capitalism. Second, today socialism alone can create the conditions for a steady growth of initiative and creative thinking and action by all the working people and every individual.

p When capitalism was taking over from feudalism, it did something to foster in men enterprise, vigorous action and bold initiative, and this explains the creative power of epochs like the Renaissance, the 18th century and partially the first half of the 19th century, but even then initiative was not displayed by broad sections of the people and did not become truly massive.

p Can there be any “free enterprise" under monopoly capitalism today? Lenin wrote: “Under such capitalism, competition means the incredibly 339 brutal suppression of the enterprise, energy and bold initiative of the mass of the population, of its overwhelming majority, of ninety-nine out of every hundred toilers; it also means that competition is replaced by financial fraud, nepotism, servility on the upper rungs of the social ladder."   [339•8 

p Today, under state-monopoly capitalism competition means suppression of enterprise even among the middle bourgeoisie, which is being kept away from the sharing of the pie by a handful of giant monopolies. The big monopolies have the petty bourgeoisie in a tight grip. That being so, can there be any initiative or enterprise among workers under capitalism? Thus, the tall stories about “free enterprise" relate to a past age. Perhaps the advocates of “free enterprise" intend to abolish the present situation and return to the past? But is there a force that could do this? Of the thousands of corporations in the USA, only about 50 are awarded major war contracts by the government. US News and World Report has stressed that the small companies seek to become satellites of the giants who secure the fattest contracts. But that is a system of vassalage and not of “free enterprise”. How is it to be abolished without serious social change?

p Of course, it is possible to fight the sway of the monopolies, and the only way to do this is to enhance the influence of the working class which develops towards control over social affairs and attainment of real power. In its democratic struggle, the working class unites all the anti-monopoly elements in a single tide. The reactionary Utopias preaching a return to the past can merely serve to divert sections of the middle bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois elements from this antimonopoly tide, without advancing them in any way to a realisation of their interests.

p The new methods of using a part of the legacy of bourgeois liberalism to promote the interests of state-monopoly capitalism were best illustrated by the developments in West Germany, where most was being said about the market economy, free competition and curbs on the power of the monopolies. What is the essence of this “neoliberalism”? Having read the statements of the neoliberal Chancellor Erhard, every sober-minded person must ask himself this question: where is the force that is capable of putting down the monopolies, restoring the “free market economy" and securing other benefits for the middle and even the petty bourgeoisie? Erhard said that this requires a “strong state”, which must and can keep the country’s economy going. But in this age of rapid technological developments requiring vast investments who can control the economy in the capitalist world? Of course, Erhard did not for a moment believe that the petty producer or even the middle bourgeoisie could do this. Nor did he intend to rely on the working class. 340 In present-day capitalist conditions the “strong state" is a state controlled by the monopolies. Having started out with liberal talk, Erhard ended with an apology for state-monopoly capital.

p The growing concentration of capital and the present level of technological development impel the monopolies to interfere in every element of the state apparatus so as to ensure stricter regulation of various aspects of social life and the production process, ranging from scientific research to labour relations. This tends to aggravate the class struggle, and impels the proletariat to take ever more vigorous action against this monopoly line by advancing the strike struggle and seeking to curb the power of the monopolies in an effort to have a greater say in economic and social affairs. When this conflict between the monopolies and the working people becomes highly acute, the FRG government acts as an arbiter, suggesting a compromise in order to prevent any further deepening and extension of the conflict. The FRG’s example shows that the government assumes the attitude of arbiter when the working-class struggle is especially intensified and when the refusal of some monopolies to compromise poses the threat of grave consequences for the whole capitalist class. Does this mean, as the neoliberals claim, that the state becomes an arbiter standing over and above the class struggle between labour and capital? Of course, it does not. The state acts as a representative of the ruling class of the bourgeoisie against individual “feudals” in order to protect the interests of the whole capitalist class.

p When assessing neoliberalism, one should bear in mind that the threat of isolation of the elite of monopoly capitalism from the whole nation, including the middle and the petty bourgeoisie, is an ever growing threat in the political life of the imperialist states, and many representatives of the monopolies are clearly aware and apprehensive of this threat. But how can one escape from this growing isolation? During his presidency, Franklin D. Roosevelt arranged some fairly bold compromises with the middle and even the petty bourgeoisie, but his policy inevitably resulted in the growing importance in political life of sections inclined to oppose the monopolies. That is why Roosevelt’s more resolute way aimed against the growing isolation of the monopolies is still a source of apprehension for the leaders of monopoly capital.

Here is another fact to take into account. Writing in the Saturday Review, Norman Cousins noted this paradox in the USA: “It is that some of the men who most loudly proclaim the virtues of the free enterprise system may reveal the least faith in it when the chips are down. They inveigh against an increase in federal powers, but ignore the powerful factor of government involvement when it comes to military projects."  [340•9  It is of course Utopian to expect a retreat from state-monopoly capitalism, back to the period of free competition. The neoliberalist 341 catchwords are being used in order to persuade the middle and petty bourgeoisie to have faith in the “creative powers" of capitalism, that is, ultimately to rely on the beneficial effects of the power of the monopolies, which are allegedly intent on using their power in the interests of “general prosperity”. When these promises are not backed up by action, they tend sooner or later to lose their attractiveness among the middle and petty bourgeoisie. The real way of fighting the power of the monopolies is for all the democratic forces to unite in a single anti-monopoly tide.