Society vs. the Market: Alain de Benoist’s Case Against Liberalism

Posted also at the NovelleDroite Substack.

Society vs. the Market: Alain de Benoist’s Case Against Liberalism

Review of Alain de Benoist’s “Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market”

What if the very foundations of our modern society—individualism, free markets, and universal rights—are not pillars of progress but harbingers of decay? Alain de Benoist’s “Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market” offers a provocative critique of the ideological forces shaping the West. By dissecting liberalism’s philosophical premises and societal consequences, Benoist calls for a reimagining of our communal and cultural priorities. This review explores his arguments and their implications for our understanding of politics, economics, and identity.


Alain de Benoist’s Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market1 profoundly critiques liberalism, the dominant ideology in contemporary Western societies. Originally published in 2019 under the title «Contre le libéralisme: La société n’est pas un marché», translated by F. Roger Devlin, the work dissects liberalism’s philosophical premises, societal impacts, and its manifestation as an economic, political, and cultural force. Benoist’s central thesis revolves around the assertion that liberalism reduces society to a marketplace, undermining the very fabric of communal, cultural, and moral life. This review explores the book’s structure, key arguments, strengths, and potential shortcomings.

Alain de Benoist’s Against Liberalism opens by establishing liberalism as the dominant ideology of the modern West, characterized by its roots in individualism, market values, and economic rationality. From the outset, Benoist critiques the Enlightenment’s legacy, particularly its emphasis on universal reason and individual liberty. He argues that liberalism’s prioritization of self-interest and economic growth over communal and cultural considerations has contributed to societal decay. This framing sets the tone for a work that seeks to expose liberalism’s philosophical inconsistencies and its societal consequences.

Central to Benoist’s critique is his rejection of individualism as the foundation of social organization. Liberalism, he contends, isolates individuals by prioritizing self-interest and reducing social bonds to contractual relationships. This atomization undermines collective structures such as families, communities, and traditions, which give life its deeper meaning. In contrast, Benoist advocates for communitarian and conservative values that emphasize the interconnectedness of individuals within a shared cultural and moral framework.

Benoist also critiques the dominance of market logic in liberal thought, which he argues reduces society to a marketplace where all values are subordinated to economic principles. He takes aim at the concept of homo economicus—the model of humans as purely self-interested agents—and argues that it commodifies every aspect of life. Neoliberalism, in Benoist’s view, represents an intensification of classical liberal principles, marked by deregulation, privatization, and the erosion of state sovereignty. This, he contends, exacerbates social inequalities and undermines societal cohesion.

A particularly notable section of the book examines Benoist’s critique of Friedrich Hayek, a leading figure in the Austrian School of Economics.2 Benoist challenges Hayek’s emphasis on spontaneous order and market efficiency, arguing that this perspective overlooks the social and moral costs of unfettered capitalism. He accuses Hayek of advancing a vision of society that prioritizes profit over human dignity and cultural continuity, framing it as an inadequate response to the complex needs of human communities.

Another key dimension of Benoist’s analysis is his interrogation of the relationship between liberalism and democracy. He questions whether liberalism is truly compatible with democratic values, suggesting that liberal democracy often privileges individual rights over collective well-being. In his view, this emphasis on procedural fairness and neutrality undermines the substantive values necessary for a cohesive and flourishing democratic society. Benoist argues that participative democracy, rooted in shared cultural and moral principles, is compromised by liberalism’s focus on individual autonomy.

Benoist further critiques liberalism’s embrace of cultural and moral relativism, which he sees as a denial of shared values and traditions. By promoting radical individual autonomy, liberalism erodes the foundations of identity and belonging. This is particularly evident in debates over multiculturalism and globalization, where Benoist argues that liberalism contributes to the dissolution of distinct cultural and national identities.

Grounded in philosophical tradition, Benoist engages with thinkers such as John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, and John Stuart Mill to develop his critique. His arguments draw on communitarian and conservative perspectives, offering a compelling counterpoint to liberal orthodoxy. Benoist’s analysis of neoliberalism and its impact on societal cohesion is especially relevant in light of contemporary challenges, including rising economic inequality, cultural polarization, and the erosion of public trust. His insights resonate with current debates about the limits of market logic and the need for alternative frameworks of social organization.

Importantly, Benoist does not dismiss liberalism outright but acknowledges its internal diversity and historical evolution. He distinguishes between classical and modern liberalism, as well as between economic and political liberalism, providing a nuanced critique that avoids oversimplification. His analysis invites readers to reconsider the premises of liberal thought and its impact on society.

In Against Liberalism, Benoist delivers a thought-provoking critique of liberalism, capitalism, and individualism. The work challenges readers to reflect on the societal consequences of these ideologies and to explore alternative frameworks rooted in communal values and cultural identity. While the book has its limitations—particularly in articulating concrete alternatives—it succeeds in sparking a necessary and urgent debate about the future of modern societies. For those interested in critiques of capitalism from a non-leftist perspective, Against Liberalism offers an essential and stimulating read.

Order Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market here.


1

Benoist, Alain de. Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market. Translated by F. Roger Devlin, Middle Europe Books, 2024.

2

In the coming months, I will be featuring my own translation of this essay, titled ‘Hayek: A Critique,’ which was written in 1990. This essay was originally published in Éléments issue #68 under the title “Hayek: le loi de la jungle” (Hayek: The Law of the Jungle). An abridged English translation first appeared in The Scorpion issue #15 in 1991. The first full English translation appeared in Telos Journal issue #110 in 1998. This essay appears as a chapter in “Against Liberalism” which was translated by F. Roger Devlin.

3 replies
  1. Emil
    Emil says:

    Anglin’s enthusiasm for China once again knows no bounds. It seems to me to be a specifically American peculiarity to enviously hail the faceless high-rise facades, escalators and shopping arcades of the Chinese as something desirable. The crazy thing about the whole thing is that the so-called West is rotten inside from the liberalist mind virus, and thus not only provoked its fall, but accelerated it, not only through endless mass migration from third world countries.

    The Chinese have been able to watch and analyze this grotesque spectacle from afar for decades so as not to repeat the same mistakes. And to draw logical conclusions. The Chinese, like the Americans in the past and still do, can be boundlessly wasteful with their resources and energy consumption, while in the West eco-socialism is destroying their own industry.

    The Chinese have indeed engaged in massive industrial espionage with us and continue to do so. They copy our ideas (at least those that are useful) and manufacture products much more cheaply than we do, of course also by exploiting their own population. In addition, China has acquired whole swathes of land with industrial facilities in the West (such as the Hamburg container port), bought up or taken over countless of our companies, and the West is massively indebted to China.

    But we must not forget one thing: No advanced civilization lives forever, just as little as an individual, what goes up must come down, and China too will one day perish or be displaced by other emerging powers. Helmut Schmidt had already foreseen and warned of the coming world power China in the 1980s or earlier. His warnings fell on deaf ears.

    In communist societies, whether in the former Eastern Bloc or in China, which for decades were based on material deprivation and renunciation, there was enough initiative and idealism to drive reconstruction. China also has the great advantage over us of having a national, ethnic and cultural identity.

    A good example is the Chinese high-speed trains, which were based on a principle developed by the German company Siemens (see e.g. Transrapid and ICE 3), but which was politically prevented by the liberal, economically incompetent eco-socialist Germany because it allegedly “damages nature”. The Chinese bought up the patents because they recognized the potential for their own infrastructure.

    West Germany, which experienced the so-called economic miracle after the war, pumped trillions into the East after the fall of the Berlin Wall (see also “solidarity contribution”), and was dismantled piece by piece, especially by the French, and integrated into the supranational EU-SSR and its undemocratic “commissions”, even sacrificing its hard currency, the Deutschmark, for the euro.

    And it has handed over and “outsourced” all national competences to Brussels and Strasbourg. This went on seemingly unnoticed for quite a while. While Eastern Europe was to a certain extent properized and participated as a recipient of payments, Germany was degraded to a cash cow.

    https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/

    The pseudo-elites in the Bundestag, many of whom have not even graduated from university, who have no idea about economics and who have never had to assert and prove themselves on the free market, are more interested in fulfilling their “transatlantic obligations” as an obedient satellite state (they have above-average involvement in pro-American and pro-NATO lobby organizations). They have now decided on the total sell-out of the middle class, on whose back a massive “redistribution” is being carried out.

    And that is towards the ever-growing poverty segment at the bottom (including an army of millions of unemployed migrant welfare recipients), and the transnational corporate conglomerates at the top (shareholders mostly the Jewish “Big Three” Blackrock, Vanguard & State Street, who all own each other and suck the capital out of entire state budgets), which can relocate their production facilities abroad at any time.

    They have even tacitly accepted that their own “allies” are turning off the Russian gas tap with cheap energy by blowing up the pipelines, and continue to pay billions in support to the corrupt Jewish friend and warmonger Zelensky, although he has now even arbitrarily cut off the remaining gas supply to the EU-SSR. A vicious circle was set in motion: Where energy prices are as high as in Germany, no one will invest, and even the supplier industry is disappearing due to bankruptcy.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4glyjx9m71o

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.