5. THE IDEOLOGIES

Possibly one of the most egregious errors in the history of political thought has been having considered liberalism as a political doctrine, when what Adam Smith described in his essay "The Wealth of Nations" was simply an economic theory. Politics is always social, since its foundation lies in its interweaving with the society where it is carried out. Therefore, all politics is necessarily social; or, what is the same, "socialist", in the strictest and most exact sense of the word. What differentiates some socialisms from others is the degree of importance they attach to individual freedom over the general interest. Only totalitarian ideologies, such as orthodox communism, autarkic totalitarianism, or isolated, dogmatic theocracies, cannot be considered socialisms, because they are not composed of free societies by communities subject to the dictates of their ideologies or beliefs. Therefore, all political ideologies are socialist, but some are more liberal than others. For the same reason, all economic systems are liberal, but some are more social than others. The differences are in the greater or lesser intervention of the political system over the economic system, eliminating their tutelage, such as radical or libertarian liberalism, or totally depriving them of liberty, such as the planned economy of communism. If we call things by their names, anyone connected with a social activity is by definition a "socialist" in the same way that anyone who is connected to the economy is also, by definition, an "economist".

So we can say that there is only one political ideology, which we may well call "socio-liberal" but with differences of nuances regarding the degree of socialization of its economy or the liberalization of its society. Some central and northern European countries, which have endured the current economic and financial crisis reasonably well, have already adopted this centrist ideology in real practice, to the extent that the traditional left and right electorate is perplexed, without power. See clearly where the difference is.

After more than ten thousand years of relationships and exchanges that in one way or another we can call "socio-economic", the synthesis of all these experiences has come together in a model that consists of a formula of balance between four fundamental pillars: investment, production, consumption and public spending, which is deducted from a proportional part of the economic activity itself.

Governments, or in this case, managers, can do nothing but find the formula of a balanced fiscal pressure, which does not harm the productivity and profitability of companies, in a fair proportion between large and small, new and consolidated. In addition to supervising and regulating the labor market as freely and tolerable as possible, but without falling to extremes, and especially encouraging youth employment. Regarding consumption, apply the same proportional formula, recording less those essential goods, such as basic foods, prescription drugs or fundamental cultural goods, and more luxury or unnecessary.

With the performance of this balanced and proportional fiscal policy, which is not from the left or the right, as I said earlier, "socio-liberal" is where you should acquire your financial resources for social spending. This capital must be used, in addition to the current expenses of the State, which must be as close as possible to income, since the state that spends the most is not the most social, but the one that spends the best, to finance those works and services that the market, or that they are fundamental and cannot be left to the whim of their fluctuations, such as education or health. Financing public spending with credits is only justified for short periods of time, to stimulate the economy and employment during the cyclical fluctuations of the economy. Still, it is a disastrous practice when it becomes an established habit, because in this case, the state falls in the hands of financial speculators and can no longer regulate or combat them, in addition to losing their freedom and sovereignty. No state can have a healthy social economy or be free and sovereign if it is heavily indebted.

As for social inequalities, these are not due to the market economy itself, since it is perfectly legal for someone to get rich if they succeed in some profitable economic activity. But once wealth is acquired, wealth itself gives it a dominant position that allows it to compete with advantage. That is why public managers have to balance this effect by supervising more those who have more because if one part of society has problems in the long run, the other will end up having them too. Lastly, we must prosecute and punish any type of tax fraud, especially from the big fraudsters and tax evaders, as well as risky financial speculation or money laundering, the true scourge of the current financial system.

As radical as these proposals were, we cannot do without the free market economy and its financial support. In fact, one of the foundations on which this movement rests, such as advanced digital media, is the indisputable fruit of this dynamic model, so it is not about destroying it but making it compatible with real democracy and with the fundamental needs of citizens.