Political Theory

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

Marko — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:23:19 GMT

Dondoolee:

Marko:

Dondoolee:

They are all liberal, in the classic sense when applied broadly and historicly.

Socialism was considerd liberalism, the left-Hegelians were liberals, if you read for 1800's lit, for example, The Brothers Kazamov; Dostoevsky would call Prodhoun, Bakunin, and Kropotkin liberals. I think the roots of liberalism shows a lot of overlap of all ideas, just look at the liberal French revolution.

I think the French Revolution is a good example for what you are trying to say. I think liberalism would even more often than its more theoretical postulates also refer to the generally shared personal preferences of the people deeming themselves liberals. So revolutionary France, with its authoritarian republicanism was to be be thought of as a radically liberal state as long as its authoritarianism was in the service of shaping society towards the preferences commonly held by liberals.

Correct, and capitalism was not the foundation which brought the revolution together. And if you look at Thomas Paine, who was by all measures a liberal, had some oddball views economicaly and otherwise (especially with the French revolution)

I would also add that this confusion must had been a great contributing factor for liberalism's downfall. Because if you are going to be a liberal, not because you assert there should be a limit to politics, but because you desire your preferences (for anti-clericalism, for civic nationalism or for cosmopolitanism and for egalitarianism) empowered by the state then you might as well turn to the real thing and become a socialist instead.

This is why I would also be careful not to take the characterisation of socialism and fascism as one and the same too far. They are the same in the sense that they agree (with the ostensibly liberal Jacobin radicals) that the state is a legitimate way for shaping of society and achieving your goals. But the goals which they intend to achieve with the use of the state could hardly be more different - because their personal preferences could not be more at odds.

This is why at the end of the day every socialist hates the fascists more than he does the doctrinal liberals and every fascists hates the socialists more than he does the doctrinal liberals. While liberals would make it impossible for them to impose their vision on society, they would at least not impose a counter-vision on it.

Even economic socialism which is seemingly shared by the socialists and the fascists is fundamentally different in its purpose for each, because for one it is a project of egalitarianism and for the other a project of hierarchism.

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

Andrew Cain — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:20:30 GMT

Dondoolee:
But it still sythesizes' some form of capitalism. In fact, I think corporatism is the backbone of the fascist model. Check out "the Spanish Miracle" under Franco, in which he Spain went from an extreme protectionist economy (still a form of corporatism) to more liberalized laws.

Only as a facade. It's not actual capitalism.

Dondoolee:
On top of which there are aesthetic differences (which should be obvious): ex: fascism = state, socialism tends to have a more international outlook

Communist socialism tends to have that but actually Marx talks a great deal about how communism is a German ideal or a product of German philosophy.

Dondoolee:
Was Hegel a liberal? I think he was ( his theory of history seems to indicate it) . So if Hegel was a liberal, does that mean that fascism is a product of liberal thought. If I were to draw a tree w/ branches of liberalism, would fascism be on it?

No I don't think he was because his practices and theories were more in tune with the right Hegelians. He aggrandized the state as being the realization of societal interests and everything that the state did was apart of the flow of history regarding will. The state was the ultimate exerciser of the catalyst of history [ will ]. He was just a standard intellectual apologist for the state and he is notable because of his confused and chaotic writing style.

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

William — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:12:03 GMT

Marko:

Dondoolee:

They are all liberal, in the classic sense when applied broadly and historicly.

Socialism was considerd liberalism, the left-Hegelians were liberals, if you read for 1800's lit, for example, The Brothers Kazamov; Dostoevsky would call Prodhoun, Bakunin, and Kropotkin liberals. I think the roots of liberalism shows a lot of overlap of all ideas, just look at the liberal French revolution.

I think the French Revolution is a good example for what you are trying to say. I think liberalism would even more often than its more theoretical postulates also refer to the generally shared personal preferences of the people deeming themselves liberals. So revolutionary France, with its authoritarian republicanism was to be be thought of as a radically liberal state as long as its authoritarianism was in the service of shaping society towards the preferences commonly held by liberals.

Correct, and capitalism was not the foundation which brought the revolution together. And if you look at Thomas Paine, who was by all measures a liberal, had some oddball views economicaly and otherwise (especially with the French revolution)

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

William — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:26:32 GMT

Laughing Man:

Dondoolee:

I wouldn't call it socialist. It is a syncretic economic doctrine, a type of old-school "Third Way" thing.

'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State' is certainly a socialistic motto. You brought up before the term 'left-Hegelians' well what this is right here is the conservative or rightist faction of Hegelianism which propounds that the full realization of societal advancement, morals and rights is realized through the state apparatus. The state essentially is a representation of the society. It's socialism of the right. Now the difference between this and what left-Hegelians like Marx was trying to do is pronounce that civil or collective interests are the same as private interests. Hegel liked to think there was constant conflict between the two but Communism according to Marx would be the realization that they aren't different. Fascism are destroying the private interests and retaining the collective interests, Marx is merely trying to converge them or at least announcing that they will inevitability converge. In either class, the collective interests retains itself as the highest aim so while they may go about it in a different fashion their end goals are still the same.

But it still sythesizes' some form of capitalism. In fact, I think corporatism is the backbone of the fascist model. Check out "the Spanish Miracle" under Franco, in which he Spain went from an extreme protectionist economy (still a form of corporatism) to more liberalized laws.

On top of which there are aesthetic differences (which should be obvious): ex: fascism = state, socialism tends to have a more international outlook

Good point on the right Hegelians: Assuming this is true, that the roots of fascism start w/ the right Hegelians, it address' my main question about it. Was Hegel a liberal? I think he was ( his theory of history seems to indicate it) . So if Hegel was a liberal, does that mean that fascism is a product of liberal thought. If I were to draw a tree w/ branches of liberalism, would fascism be on it?

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

Jackson LaRose — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:45:42 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
I disagree, Fascism is socialism with a different face, and modified rhetoric

Good point. Remember, Mussolini was a syndicalist before he founded the black shirts. Instead of differentiating the true men from the un-men along class lines, it was modified to be an ethnic distinction. The Raza, or the Volk, versus all those percieved as threats (Socialists, soft parlimentarians, the church {not in Franco's case}, other ethnic groups, etc.) against the "true race". Within the "chosen people", fascist movements were intensely collectivist (Hitler's SS nordic breeding programs, for example). They were called National Socialists, after all. The class struggle was simply replaced with the race struggle.

nirgrahamUK:
It is a reaction against Liberalism, just as socialism is a reaction against Liberalism.

As the politicians were diluting the purity of the people, and softening once great (semi-mythical) empires of the chosen people. I would say fascism also was a direct reaction to socialism as well, since they (socialists) wanted to eliminate national and ethnic distinctions.

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

Andrew Cain — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:27:21 GMT

Dondoolee:

I wouldn't call it socialist. It is a syncretic economic doctrine, a type of old-school "Third Way" thing.

'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State' is certainly a socialistic motto. You brought up before the term 'left-Hegelians' well what this is right here is the conservative or rightist faction of Hegelianism which propounds that the full realization of societal advancement, morals and rights is realized through the state apparatus. The state essentially is a representation of the society. It's socialism of the right. Now the difference between this and what left-Hegelians like Marx was trying to do is pronounce that civil or collective interests are the same as private interests. Hegel liked to think there was constant conflict between the two but Communism according to Marx would be the realization that they aren't different. Fascism are destroying the private interests and retaining the collective interests, Marx is merely trying to converge them or at least announcing that they will inevitability converge. In either class, the collective interests retains itself as the highest aim so while they may go about it in a different fashion their end goals are still the same.

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

Marko — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:45:45 GMT

Dondoolee:

They are all liberal, in the classic sense when applied broadly and historicly.

Socialism was considerd liberalism, the left-Hegelians were liberals, if you read for 1800's lit, for example, The Brothers Kazamov; Dostoevsky would call Prodhoun, Bakunin, and Kropotkin liberals. I think the roots of liberalism shows a lot of overlap of all ideas, just look at the liberal French revolution.

I think the French Revolution is a good example for what you are trying to say. I think liberalism would even more often than its more theoretical postulates also refer to the generally shared personal preferences of the people deeming themselves liberals. So revolutionary France, with its authoritarian republicanism was to be be thought of as a radically liberal state as long as its authoritarianism was in the service of shaping society towards the preferences commonly held by liberals.

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

William — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:39:44 GMT

Laughing Man:

nirgrahamUK:
I disagree, Fascism is socialism with a different face, and modified rhetoric. It is a reaction against Liberalism, just as socialism is a reaction against Liberalism. (Classical Liberalism). The mutual enmity between socialists and fascists is merely product differentiation from two retailers that sell substitutable goods. (forgive the terrible analogy)

Well I never said fascism wasn't contradictory. That what is really is. It's socialism with a different face but its reactionary against Bolshevik socialism. Paul Gottfried is a good lecturer to listen to concerning the subject of Italian fascism.

I wouldn't call it socialist. It is a syncretic economic doctrine, a type of old-school "Third Way" thing.

This is Mussolini's manifesto, outlying the philosophy:

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

A small segment from it:

" Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts

The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State (13). The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14).

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16)."

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

Andrew Cain — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:45:29 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
I disagree, Fascism is socialism with a different face, and modified rhetoric. It is a reaction against Liberalism, just as socialism is a reaction against Liberalism. (Classical Liberalism). The mutual enmity between socialists and fascists is merely product differentiation from two retailers that sell substitutable goods. (forgive the terrible analogy)

Well I never said fascism wasn't contradictory. That what is really is. It's socialism with a different face but its reactionary against Bolshevik socialism. Paul Gottfried is a good lecturer to listen to concerning the subject of Italian fascism.

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

William — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:40:06 GMT

Fascism to me seems to typify the word "reactionary", and a direct rebellion against anything on the "left" (which would include capitalists). It built its principles off of nation building, authoritarianism, and imperialism. The thing is though, it did so off of 1800's "revolutionary" language . They still seem to be a product of 1800's liberal (broad sense) philosophy in that it seems to be the pinacle/ bastard offspring of continental Germanic and Italian "liberal nationalism".

Hence my confusion when drawing a tree and branches of liberalism

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:01:33 GMT

Laughing Man:
Dondoolee:
How is fascism and nazism not a branch off of liberalism?
Fascism is a movement of reactionary conservatism against socialism. It came about in Italy because of Boshevik labor unions

I disagree, Fascism is socialism with a different face, and modified rhetoric. It is a reaction against Liberalism, just as socialism is a reaction against Liberalism. (Classical Liberalism). The mutual enmity between socialists and fascists is merely product differentiation from two retailers that sell substitutable goods. (forgive the terrible analogy)

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

John Jensen — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:44:50 GMT

David Boaz gives a short history in Libertarianism: A Primer.

Paraphrasing: The first use of the term was in Spain, early in the 19th century. "Liberales" referred to the Spanish middle class that was opposed to the Serviles (who represented the aristrocracy / Ancien Regime). In Britain, they were the Whigs (liberals) vs the Tories. In the 19th century, the term "liberal" came into wide use (the Whigs became the LIberal Party). The term "classical libreral" didn't emerge in the US until after the label "liberal" was absconded around 1900. Outside the US, the term liberal is still sometimes used to refer to individual rights and the rule of law (South Africa, Iran, China, etc.). In the 1950s, Leonard Read borrowed the term libertarian from the philosophers and it has been the label of choice for many ever since.

At the turn of the century, I guess the Democrats didn't want to be associated with slavery anymore, so they ran off with our name. SOBs.

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

Andrew Cain — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:23:04 GMT

Dondoolee:
How is fascism and nazism not a branch off of liberalism?

Fascism is a movement of reactionary conservatism against socialism. It came about in Italy because of Boshevik labor unions

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

Angurse — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:18:06 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
That is a very good point. Everyone in the end, acts in their own self-interest, no matter how pious or self-abasing they seems to be.

But the ideologue is blinded by their righteousness to believe their self-desire is now the Right thing to do. The egoist (or agnostic, since the only thing on the web are non-Stirnerite definitions of the word "egoist") does not hold such pretension, merely acts according to their will, with no presupposed notion of righteousness.

So, two contradictory statements, ever read 1984? If everyone acts in their own self interest then one's righteousness is just them acting according to their will.

Jackson LaRose:
No. That is an unnecessary justification to want to dance with the girl. You simply want to dance with her.

What? That isn't a justification at all. He simply does think she should dance with him. The reasons as to why are the justification.

Jackson LaRose:
This is all possible, but unnecessary considerations to act.

It doesn't change anything whether he considers them or not.

Jackson LaRose:
I think we should agree to only destroy one thread with our rants. We both (I think) have our definitions posted on this thread, and our reasoning for them. Let's let that be enough here.

OK? You should probably have said that without attacking my definition prior though.

Re: Terminology: Liberalism

William — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:16:02 GMT

It's not so much what I consider liberal. It is my issue with words like "classic liberalism", as I don't think that "classic liberal" is an entirley accurate statement of the 1800's mentality (not that it doesn't fit under liberalism). What I want to know is exactly what was meant by the use of the word in the 1800's. What was the "philosophy of liberalism" in the broadest sense of the term.

It seems to me to mostly imply "equal rights of man", an antagonistic attitude towards hierarchies, a moral code based upon humanism, and a general rebellion against feudalism, religion, and 1800's conservatism (especially the continental kind). It also seems to imply an "equal" ruling of man be it constitutionalism, republicanism, anarchism, socialism, etc.

And also;did, how, and why did the word evolve? How is fascism and nazism not a branch off of liberalism?

And with those implications should technocratic, beauracratic, elitist, scientism type progressive types fail to be called liberal when considering the older way it seemed to be used (esp in Europe)?