Tahir: I hope you will offer your definition of substantive equality.
I don't see what this has to do with whether we should have free competitive elections in which everyone gets to vote for for representive leaders, a limited government and a free press, andthe like. At the risk of sounding end-of-history-sh, what have you got that is better?
Tahir: Well whether I have anything better is not the point. The argument of communists, as well as philosophers such as Hegel that I mentioned, was that "something better" can only come out of a critique of what is. So no critique means "nothing better" to me. The idea of communism has no real substance outside the critiique of capitalism. My critique of liberal democracy was in that same spirit, not because I was comparing it point for point with some blueprint that I have up my sleeve. Your points above are all about an obviously deep satisfaction with the institutions of liberal democracy, which is one of the two main political expressions of capitalism (see below). I fail to see how they can be compatible with substantive equality.
(Maybe you would like to first of all give your view of the distinction I made between formal and substantive equality.)
Liberalism and democracy are of course not quite the same thing despite their conjoining in our discourse. Liberalism is precisely minimal government - you are right - in the interests of capitalism. It originates in the struggle of the early capitalists against the vestiges of feudalism to do their business as they saw fit without interference from government. This is quite different to the communist idea of NO government within a communal society. As for democracy, if one takes this literally as 'people's power' then of course it refers to the power of the people against some other, namely those who are not of the people. Again this would have been the aristocracy. I think that there can still be some progressive content in democracy, in areas that you mention such as free press, freedom of association, etc. where these are still absent. But if one believes that a communal society is both possible and necessary, then one would envisage an end to democracy, because in a clas! sless society there would be no other whom the people would want to have power over. As for elections, well that cannot be divorced from liberal democracy as we know it unless we specify some quite different context. Within a communal society there could certainly be some choosing of representatives in certain forums, but it would be nothing like democracy for reasons already suggested. I would never vote for a professional politician as my "representative", since I think that elections are just another way of oppressing the masses through demagoguery and the illusions of free and meaningful choice.
>Why is this not good enough, because it alienates us to the core of our
>being, i.e. from what makes us human, namely our species bond with our
>fellow human beings. This alienation creates cynicism, despair, outsiders,
>meaninglessness, etc.
Liberal democracy does this? Wow, who woulda thunk.
Tahir: Lots of people do and you damn well know it.
>The idea that we have developed the most rational system of governance,
>implied in Justin's quote above, is frightening in its "end of history"
>type of sentiment. The view from a suit?
Maybe, but I believed this long before I wore a suit on a regular basis. Look, I am very aware of the limitations of liberal democracy. I live in Illinois, where politics is a corrupt circus. It would be improved by the elimination of vast fortunes, public ownership of productive assets, public campaign financing, powerful unions, worker control of industry, and citizen's groups, and so forth.
Tahir: How on earth will you get these things through "minimal government"?
I support these things in part for that reason. Our current way of doing it is not the most rational.
But when it comes to getting rid of the core elements of liberal democracy: competitive elections, universal suffrage, representative government, and extensive civil and political liberties, it is difficult for me to imagine a change that is also an improvement. Maybe that is a failure of my imagination. Please enlighten me. I am not being sarcastic.
Tahir: look the critique comes down to this: they are about freedom to exploit. Take away that freedom and you've taken away half of what you were expounding, minimal government etc. That's WHY we have right wing populist movements, Justin. They want lots of government because they think that you can restrict the freedom of capitalists through that and improve 'the small man's' living conditions. But the big capitalists have the reigns of power and they will use that maximal government to secure their interests and when this strong arm stuff is no longer needed they will ditch it and start the next cycle of liberalism. So we all dutifully trot off to the polls and signal with our ballots that the next wave of liberalism or conservativism, whichever the case may be, in the cycle can begin. But the circle remains unbroken. Liberals like you are a little better than the stopped clock that is right twice a day. You are on the crest of the wave for about half of the time, fondly im! agining that it is because you were right, then the wave dumps you and you have to wait for the next wave of liberalism to come along and make you feel vindicated again. But it is the cycle itself that we oppose.