Why I am not a liberal

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wrote this about two months ago. It was its problems and isn't a proper essay, but we don't use this board enough. The original context is easy enough to work out; I was originally going to edit it a little, but I think I'll let it stand as written. I'm happy to defend most of it, so long as criticism is substantial.

---

Anti-Liberalism

Given that I do not like to call myself a Marxist*, given the popularity of liberalism and related ideologies on the internet and given the increasing (and disturbing) tendency imported from America to equate "left-wing" and "liberal",a quick explanation of why there is an the anti-liberal aspect to this blog (presuming that it gets off the ground) is probably necessary. This post will, regrettably, deal in generalisation and simplification. But as this is a theme that I shall return to (repeatedly) I don't think this is a serious concern.

1. On one level I'm not actually anti-liberal at all; that is, to the extent that democracy, freedom of speech and other such basic rights can be considered as being "liberal". They sometimes are and, to an extent, with good reason. This is an important caveat, I think. My anti-liberalism lies elsewhere.

2. But one of my major problems with liberalism is actually its (fundamental and foundational) emphasis on rights and on liberty. Ultimately, liberalism holds that something is "good" if it maximises "freedom" and "bad" if it reduces or restricts it. Divisions within liberalism are largely concerned with the definition of "freedom" of "rights" and of "liberties" rather than anything more complex: compare New Liberalism (and its grandchildren), with its emphasis on "positive liberties" with the crazy world of American internet "libertarianism". They have apparently little in common (and in terms of public policy are often diametrically opposite - you only have to observe much of the opposition to the current administration in America to see that) but share common foundational assumptions and make judgements based on the same sort of critera). Liberalism does not, cannot, consider the possibility that restrictions on certain human behavior might sometimes be appropriate. Inevitably, liberal attempts to deal with this "problem" often reek of the worst sort of paternalism and double standards.

3. Which brings me to another issue I have with liberalism - its insufferable elitism. Liberalism is hardly alone in this respect (what was early Fabianism if not elitist? Are delusions of a "vanguard party" anything other than profoundly elitist ?) but of all ideologies with a universalist bent, it is clearly the worst offender historically (liberal opposition to universal sufferage was not exactly rare) and currently. Given that liberalism is an ideology of the Enlightenment (even to the extent of being an ideology of supposed enlightenment - there's a reason for the traditional liberal emphasis on the importance of education beyond altruism and the needs of capitalism) this is perhaps inevitable. I find this objectionable not just for the predictable issues that the son of a manual worker might have with elitism, but because contempt for ordinary people is, in my opinion, anathema to Socialism.

4. It must also (and finally for now) be recognised that liberalism is, above all, an individualist ideology and individualism is ultimately opposed to collectivism**. This may seem like an obvious point, but it's one that seems to be increasingly forgotten by much of the intellectual Left these days. It matters because there is no way that society can be significantly changed in a positive direction as a result of policies designed by an individualist thought process (another basic and totally obvious point, I hope) and because collective rights are ultimately incompatible with an ideology that places the rights and the liberty of the individual before everything else.

There is more to say, of course. But that can be left for later.

*Which isn't to deny being influenced by Marx and Marxism to an extent - though often as a reaction against it. Also, given the lack of knowledge of Marxism possessed by the average professed "Marxist ", "I do not like to call myself a Marxist" made more sense to write than "I am not a Marxist" as many, probably a majority, of self-identified Marxists cannot seriously be considered as such.

**Which isn't to say that collectivism must always deny the existence and rights of an individual. Still, individualistic ideologies seem to be as prone to do that as collectivist ones these days...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I actually manged to attract some abusive responses when I first wrote and posted this. Highlights:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

2. What's wrong with America's definition of liberal? We can call them what we want.

You can call people whatever you want, but then you can also call a tree a rock, if you want. Regardless, my main problem is a) with the tendency to assume that liberal = left wing and that left wing = liberal and b) that this is increasingly common outside the U.S.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is not to say that 'some liberals are elitist, therefore...' but to argue that liberalism is an inherently elitist ideology. I think I will now go further and argue that elitism is a critical element to liberalism and that it is impossible to have a non-elitist form of liberalism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At no point did I argue in favour of turning people into drones of the state. At no point did I argue against the achievements of individuals*. I am opposed to individualism, not to the existence of the individual. I actually think there are serious problems in drawing a strict line between the individual and the collective, but this is about isms.

*Though I would tend to downplay their historical significance for reasons that would bore most people here to tears.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I recall reading this in its original location. It certainly made me think.

What exactly is a "gormless twat"?

A vagina lacking in gorm.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting post, Al.

From my (admittedly not that great) understand of Marxism, isn't the end goal, after the proletarian revolution and the establishment of a communist state, the emergence of free and autonomous individuals and the "emancipation of the proletariat"? Admittedly, the Marxist definition of freedom is different from the libertarian/conservative definition, but the end goal is still a free society of free human beings, free of the obstacles of class division and unequal opportunity and with the freedom to pursue human needs.

I'm not a Marxist, so why should that matter to me?

Seriously though, Marx himself was extremely vague about what his end-state would look like and doesn't seem to have devoted much attention to it - what he wrote on the subject reads like a fairly standard utopia, not really worth much in its own right (contrast with, say, News From Nowhere or numerous stuff by French writers). But my point wasn't about the utopia at the end of the rainbow of historical materialism or of any liberal visions of a better world, but the practical side of ideology. Marxism does not rely on the freedom = good principle that is at the heart of liberalism (and which also explains the popularity of liberalism (in all its forms) on the internets), even if orthodox Marxism holds that the fight for basic liberal freedoms was/is something that Marxists should be involved in and even if an idea of freedom (though a radically different one, based on collective, rather than individual, rights) is the ultimate goal of orthodox Marxism.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

'Kay, before going to the original post

In my pre-emptive defense, I was still on heavy doses of tramadol at the time. A lot towards the end (especially) is kinda problematic. I know what I meant, but don't think it comes off quite as intended.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is not to say that 'some liberals are elitist, therefore...' but to argue that liberalism is an inherently elitist ideology. I think I will now go further and argue that elitism is a critical element to liberalism and that it is impossible to have a non-elitist form of liberalism.

Yeah, I'd like that bit explained, actually. I can see where you may have been coming from, but...

The obvious cheap response is that liberalism, as the ideology of capitalism and the bourgeoisie, is of course elitist due to its objective class position.

But, being more serious, my main point here is that liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of 'enlightenment'. This, in turn, implies a certain firm distance between the enlightened ones and the rest of the population - which is elitist. Of course, it isn't immutable elitism; the importance of education to liberal ideology can't be downplayed. I'll illustrate my point with an interest detail from the debates over the franchise in this country; John Bright (about as close to being a stereotypical 'radical' liberal of his time and country as possible) argued in favour of universal male sufferage except for the poorest parts of the working class on the grounds that they were insufficently educated and enlightened to deserve the vote. He actually coined the disgusting term 'residuum' (one of the key words of late nineteenth century political and social discourse) in that context. Most Liberals (and most liberals) didn't even go as far as Bright.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

4. It must also (and finally for now) be recognised that liberalism is, above all, an individualist ideology and individualism is ultimately opposed to collectivism**. This may seem like an obvious point, but it's one that seems to be increasingly forgotten by much of the intellectual Left these days.

Please explain. Most of the intellectual Left support more social freedom (i.e. read/watch what you want, make your own decisions about sex and relationships, etc.) than most on the right do.

Of course they do. Not quite sure what that has to do with my point though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It was going to be about the negation (by liberalism, by nationalism, by Marxism though I hadn't gotten to writing anything about that) of rights held by any unit - any collective - larger than the individual and smaller than the state. Which is rather a huge deviation from historic human experience built around such collectives.

Yeah, that's an interesting point. You should expand on it at some point

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I was questioning your assumption that the intellectual left is anti-individualism.

Ah, right. Well, I didn't make that claim. What I wrote was (basically) that much of the intellectual left appears to have forgotten that individualism is not compatible with collective rights.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

too often when posting I think you obscure what your own feelings actually are, and just provide a wealth of facts and 'hints'.   when defending a thesis you can really let fly, and it makes for a good read.

I think that's a fair comment, yes.

Anyway, if I wrote it now it'd be a little different (in particular there would be something on the distinction between Liberalism as an (essentially historical) political movement and liberalism as a diffuse ideology), but there's nothing embarrassing there... which is good, given the circumstances of when it was written.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Should I respond to that with my views as they are now or as they were in the Autumn of 2009?

Not that there are any massive differences, of course.