[lbo-talk] Liberalism; caveat liberalus

Robert Wrubel bobwrubel at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 5 12:12:39 PDT 2007


Marvin: I think you've resolved the quarrel, admirably. The main omission in Andie's position is power. Liberal values are just ideals, without power. Universal suffrage is an easy example: voting doesnt mean much if corporations choose all the candidates and write all the subsequent legislation. The other factor Andie left out was justice. We've had these liberal values and institutions for quite awhile, but we don't have justice. The difference between socialism and liberalism, in their pure forms, is that socialism puts justice first.

Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:

Charles wrote:


> andie nachgeborenen
>
> ...I think it's much more important for
> socialists to mention all the time that they are
> liberals
> ^^^^^^
> CB; Not whereever you go. Here. Everytime you list your elementary liberal
> political principles, as on this thread, mention that history has
> demonstrated that those ideals cannot be achieved in reality ,in fact,
> without ending the capitalist mode of production...
=========================================== I can't agree with either of these propositions. Andie conflates liberalism and socialism and democracy, and Charles suggests that the democratic rights (presumably free elections, speech, assembly etc.) and benefits for which people have fought cannot be achieved "without ending the capitalist mode of production". Having read and mostly agreed with what Charles has said in the past, I think he'd want to rephrase that to more accurately reflect what he's getting at.

The historical record instead shows:

1. "Liberalism" was never, as such, "democratic". The rising liberal bourgeoisie wanted parliaments, but only for itself and the "improving" landed aristocracy in order to check the authority of the absolutist state - particularly its power to tax and spend. So it fought for and won the restricted franchise based on property.

2. The artisans, small farmers, and emerging factory workers were the "democratic" classes. They wanted a vote untethered to property in order to elect representatives who would legislate in favour of their interests - public education, health care, old age security, union rights, shorter hours and minimum labour standards, unemployment insurance, cheap credit, better housing, etc. So they fought for and won universal suffrage - and later supported the same rights for women and racial minorities

3. The demands of the democratic classes conflicted with the interests of the propertied classes because of the corresponding requirement for higher taxes and spending. The predominant ideology of the working class was socialism, which expressed a set of interests and values mostly at variance with the liberal ideology of the urban and landed capitalists. Socialist and liberal ideology was not one and the same, as Andie presumes.

4. The bourgeoisie eventually succumbed to demands for the universal franchise because because a) it had no choice if it wanted to end the turbulent disorder engendered by the mass campaigns for the extension of the franchise, and b) in so doing, it saw the opportunity to stem the growth of revolutionary anticapitalist ideas within the working class and to steer it onto the path of gradual and incremental reform within the framework of the existing system. This speaks to Charles' point: The people DID achieve in reality the right to vote, to peaceably assemble, and to form their own organizations without ending capitalism.

5. We should therefore view modern liberal democracy is a contradictory phenomenon, neither wholly deserving of praise nor of condemnation. It has served historically as a means for the popular classes to win reforms which ameliorated their conditions - which forced even hitherto revolutionary parties to adapt to electoral politics - while it at the same time has given capitalism unprecedented popular legitimacy.

6. Broadly speaking, liberal democratic institutions have served as an indispensible "shock absorber" or "safety valve", depending on which metaphor you prefer, during times of social stress. By allowing liberal and social democratic parties to govern and pass limited reforms which have gone some way to meeting popular demands in such periods, the electoral system has been able to deflect and absorb social discontent which would otherwise destabilize and threaten the foundations of the capitalist economy and state. During periods of relative prosperity, when popular political interest and activity wanes, the centre of political gravity tends to shift to the right and the political parties, led by resurrected conservative parties, whittle away in varying degrees at reforms previously won.

7. The important point to note is that the masses have not tolerated the system because they have been converted to liberal values or because the are easily fooled. They have tolerated it because they have been able to make gains through it, which were a natural outgrowth of their struggles in the street. Ultimately, the only other means available to them would be armed struggle, which people engage in only as a desperate last resort when all peaceful channels for change are blocked.

8. In the final analysis, the political follows the economic. If and when the ruling class is no longer willing or able to improve conditions - and the two usually go together - revolutionary ideas within the population will necessarily develop. Capitalism hasn't been tested in this way since the 30's, which explains the long decline of the revolutionary left. It's success in broadly raising living standards explains why the reformist left has moved right over the generations in order to compete with the conservative parties in the electoral arena.

___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list