your arguments echo Patrick Deneen’s “post-liberal” writings and interviews. I do not share his analysis, hostility to liberalism/utilitarianism/capitalism.
I would rather say: liberalism is itself the unique value substrate, although it emerged from earlier cultural achievements and learning processes, including Greek philosophy, Christianity, and Protestantism.
The fact that other cultures find it hard to achieve the same learning processe should not surprise us as these processes take centuries.
Interesting, I am not familiar with that individual. I do take issue lumping together “utilitarianism” and “capitalism”, they are distinct. As a side issue I also take issue with fundamental conception of “capitalism”, primarily due to it being a Marxist concept and Marxist framing to the Market Place, a natural phenomenon, inherent in human society since the dawn of time.
I do not agree that liberalism is a unique value substrate, not in the sense of how I have used the term “substrate” in this thread.
Liberalism emerged in nascent form in Britain in the 17th Century, but mostly in practice in the 19th century. That leaves at least 16 centuries of British history, society and culture, before Liberlism turned up. Liberlism could only come about with those 16 centuries of British culture before it, it is a product of it. Therefore, it cannot be the substrate I am referring to.
Moreover, I am speaking of the excesses of Liberlism which has caused many, if not all of the issues we are experiencing today. That is not to say Liberlism as original conceived is inherently good or bad. What I am saying is we are seeing the effects of Liberlism taken to excess. My argument is that the solution to the excesses of Liberlism is not more Liberlism.
The answer, in my view, is to repair the substrate so that it once again can be doped with Liberlism, however this time with error checking, and limiting principles.
I understand your point … its the point of so called ‘postliberalism’ (Patrick Deneen in the US, John Milbank in the UK). What I would argue is that liberalism based on Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, … is what allowed the West (especially Holland, England, …, USA) to soar ahead of all other civilisations and times with the unprecedented prosperity take-off since 1800. The substrate’s value is that it prepared and enabled this take-off which also allowed for more social liberties. The post-liberals (Deneen, Milbank) are not secular, but religiously grounded.
I agree. Although I wouldn’t encapsulate it as Liberlism, I would say it was the Englightment that enabled the Anglosphere to create modernity.
However, this does not mean Liberalism taken to its logical extremes is not the root of the problems the West is experiencing. Liberalism is the entire paradigm we have been living under for many decades, no deviation, all parties. It is just now we are seeing the zenith of Liberalism, having run full cycle to its logical conclusions, which is utter catastrophe.
I do not disbelieve that Locke and Smith would not recognise what we have today as Liberalism. What I am arguing is they did not predict what it would become, and the damage it would cause.
I just wanted to raise a point on this. It is my view that it is not the lack of time that has passed in other societies and cultures that prevent them from ‘realising’ Liberalism, I believe it’s that they cannot manifest it. One might argue that it is almost uniquely an Anglo phenomenon, which was foisted upon the rest of the West in the wake of WW2.
The Anglosphere was trundling along with Liberalism for decades before the broader West really adopted it, save a few outliers that are specifically and uniquely aligned with British-like culture through shared heritage. It is the very reason why Fascism did not take root in Britain at that time, nor Communism. Whilst both were either threatening or ravaging the rest of Europe.
It also may be argued this is the same reason why the EU seems to try so desperately to be truly Liberal, yet gets it so consistently wrong at almost every turn. It’s simply not within them, collectively.
Yes, the elites from these European counties can attend Cambridge and Oxford, Harvard and Stanford, they can imbibe Liberalism from these Anglo Universities. But their people do not, it is not their cultures. If this is true of Western European countries, what does that say about the rest of the world…
This is, I believe, why it is Anglo countries that are struggling with and suffering under the excesses of Liberalism the most.
3 Likes
I won’t take this thread off-topic, but do remind me to at some point discuss this with you. Personally, I would argue that capitalism is (or should be) an economic system dominated by Darwinian dynamics, which is not something that we live in because large corporations influence the state, manipulate markets, and become effectively “uninvadable” in spite of poor business practices (big corporate entities have insane amounts of bureaucracy and corporate bloat but are not punished for being inefficient because they have enough power to maintain dominance and manipulate the rules by which the game is played). But equally, maybe we are living in the ‘true’ capitalism, and I am just trying to redefine the word in the same way that the new liberals do with the word liberal.
This is just the problem with words and labels, though. The label isn’t the thing, the thing is the thing and the label is just what you call it.
2 Likes
Happy to discuss economics any time, even in this thread!
I agree entirely with what you have written, no argument from me at all. My issue is with the Marxist framing of “Capitalism”, which lumps in markets with cronyism. I also refuse to use the framing and language of the political enemy.
The problems you describe are cronyism, which is the opposite of markets. They are diametrically opposed. The system we suffer under is big business cronyism. Iconically, directly caused by the perverse mix of government and private enterprise. Which the very people espousing Marxist rhetoric want more of. Even more ironically, combining state and private enterprise is a cornerstone of Fascism - an irony the left never fail to ignore.
In summary, I agree entirely with what you wrote. I just don’t call it capitalism.
1 Like
let me put my cards on the table: I am a libertarian. btw. I am here because I think Rupert Lowe is liked here and he seems to be a libertarian too: he is advocating for more entrepreneurial economic freedoms, deregulation, small state etc. … and asked for his favourite books he cited Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and ‘The Fountainhead’. Further, he says he adheres to Austrian Economics (Mises, Hayek). I wonder what this implies for your attitude/appraisal of Rupert Lowe.
That is interesting that you perceive Rupert Lowe as Libertarian. I wouldn’t necessarily categorise much of what Restore Britain is currently saying as “Libertarian”, specifically around border security and identity.
To answer your question specifically, I approve of many, if not all of the policies Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain are espousing. I have not met Rupert Lowe, however I think he represents many positions I hold.
I am sympathetic to Libertarianism, however I do not call myself Libertarian because of its weakness on nation state, identity and criminal justice. However, in terms of Economics, I would align with Libertarianism. Hayek, Mises, Milton Friedman et al.
To address what I believe your meta-question is: I get the impression many in this place also view Rupert Lowe favourably.
thx … btw. there are more libertarians who are more nationally (and monarchically) inclined … e.g. Hans-Hermann Hoppe
