BobW
andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
I am happy to see that people are thinking about how to be effective liberals rather than dissing the ideal. Some clarifications are called for. First, Power. Liberalism is about limiting state power. Obviously it has its own limitations in limiting economic power. That's a reason we need to be socialists too. (Happy, now, Charles? THere's the red balloon.)
As to the question of political power to implement liberalism, to get it rolling again, I didn't leave that out either although I have no magic wand: I think that being proud liberals is a key to this.
Second, Justice. On one account, Rawls', justice: liberalism is about protection of justice. Justice requires equal political participation, hence universal suffrage, a fair chance to influence politics, hence competitive elections, and informs every stricture on what the state can do to you in the specification of extensive civil and political liberties. Moreover, neutrality on the good is another way of putting what Rawls calls the priority of justice. Other justifications for liberalism that do not make justice central are possible -- Mill has a utilitarian one. Neutrality on the good requires, I believe, that we not force the choice between alternative bases for liberalism.
--- Robert Wrubel wrote:
> 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 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
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk