Monday, October 29, 2018

Eric Schliesser — On the Crisis of Liberalism

Regular readers know (recall) that I believe the second wave of liberalism+ has ended and that it may not survive the present darkness. (In brief: first long wave: 1776-1914; second wave: 1945-2009. Some readers will say, good riddance, and to you I say, I hope you do better.) The present crisis is much visible in our daily politics (and headlines), shifting public norms, and the rising confidence of regimes and thinkers who, again, openly espouse hierarchical, ethnic, zero-sum, eugenic, and violent solutions to present conflicts.* While there is much urgent, practical work to be done to salvage institutions that may be at the core of a renewal, some reflection away from daily politics is also required. This also requires attention not just because we need polities that make minimal decency possible,** but also because we need (or so I assume today) properly functioning liberal institutions to meet humanity's great challenges -- environmental disaster, genetic engineering, ethnic conflict, -- ahead. To reflect one our shortcomings is a means of being liberal as well as a path toward its possible renewal. This is the second post (recall) in an open-ended series (see also here, here, and here).
What follows, then is the start of an attempt to display the existential challenges to liberalism that arise from within. I do not offer solutions to these challenges and so invite readers to chime in....
My thoughts: Modern liberalism is the result of the 18th century Enlightenment attempt to forge a new world order after the breakdown of the interregnum during which feudal Christendom had dominate the West since the fall of the Roman Empire and the remnants of eastern empire had gone its own way. The aim was to provide a naturalistic basis for the world order that had been organized around the great chain of being.

This gave rise to two challenges. The first was the presented by the issues around formulating a new order based on the rise of science and the antagonism between science and religion. The second challenge was presented by the dominant mode of production, industrial capital, that was replacing the dominance of agriculture under feudalism.

The result was bourgeois liberalism disguised in the garb of "democracy," even though bourgeois liberalism was largely a resurrection of the Roman republic that was dominated by the patricians as the ownership class. The feudal lords were replaced by industrial capitalists.

Political economy was organized around the idea that capital formation leads to growth and a rising tide lifts all boats ("trickle down"). Thus, the program of political economy was based on favoring capital over land (the environment) and labor (workers, who comprised the majority of the population).

This resulted in numerous paradoxes of liberalism as "internal contradictions"in the bourgeois liberal order when a rising tide didn't lift all boats and many people left left out. In addition, environmental degradation greatly increased with increased population coupled with economic growth.

The consequence is the present crisis of liberalism.

Digressions&Impressions
On the Crisis of Liberalism (I)

On the Crisis of Liberalism (II)
Eric Schliesser | Professor of Political Science, University of Amsterdam’s (UvA) Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences

See also

On The Mont Pelerin Society at 70; or the Transmission of the Ideals Political Freedom

6 comments:

Konrad said...

.
--OFF TOPIC --

I see that the social media platform “Gab” has been purged from the Internet because accused synagogue shooter Robert Bowers posted some comments on “Gab.”

So much for, “It’s a private company, so they can do whatever they want.”

So much for, “If you don’t like being purged from Twitter and Facebook, then start your own social media.”

The hypocrisy in American society is staggering.

David said...

I agree that we are in institutional transition, just as the transition that split the shaman/priest/ruler eons ago. There seems to have been various societies (Romans, Egyptians, Babylonians etc.) that flourished until they didn't. Perhaps it was their finite focus on the accumulation of physical resources (land, gold, slaves) that brought about their downfall.

I agree that the dark ages split the church/bank/government with a new 'Rome' emerging from the enlightenment leading to leaps in the Arts and Sciences as well as banking and government.

What I find missing is the more recent emergence of international corporations attempting to break free of the church(immorality), banking(monopoly fiat), government (regulations, taxes).

The international corporation, almost by definition, is a group of people that want to operate as an independent entity in the infinite realm.

Mars will be colonized by such a group. What morality guides this group's actions as they spend a new e- money while writing the laws and regulations to govern their actions?

International corporations are the new government, charitable foundations are the new church(basically no cap IRA's with 5% required minimum distributions with infinite lifespans), and the new banks will use e-money technology to transition away from republic control.


Andrew Anderson said...

and the new banks will use e-money technology to transition away from republic control. David

Though 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors might safely create a few deposits/liabilities, it takes government-provided deposit insurance and other privileges for banks to enable them to safely create many deposits.

Otoh, common stock is an ethically superb private money form that requires no government privilege. But, currently, why should a company wish to issue more shares when it can legally steal via loans from what is, in essence, a government-enabled counterfeiting for usury cartel?

David said...

Andrew wrote, “Otoh, common stock is an ethically superb private money form that requires no government privilege.”

The republic “one person one vote” replaced by

the international corporation “one share one vote”

Given the variety of institutions (dictatorships) that survive for decades with no vote, shares could be a step up if voting is what determines institutional longevity.

Andrew wrote”But, currently, why should a company wish to issue more shares when it can legally steal via loans from what is, in essence, a government-enabled counterfeiting for usury cartel? ”.

Corporate shares, in certain circumstances, are seen as more valuable since they carry the right to vote in proportion to ownership.

If you are a competent producer, would you rather trade your output for money issued by an institution you get more votes the more you sell to, or one that offers a single vote?

Andrew Anderson said...

Corporate shares, in certain circumstances, are seen as more valuable since they carry the right to vote in proportion to ownership. David

Yes, but my point is that current share-owners are loath to dilute their proportion of company ownership - not if they can legally steal instead.

And think how much more "equitable" our society would be if equity owners had not had the ability to bypass the need to share their equity? Yet that's exactly what government privileges for the banks do; they allow equity owners to bypass the need to share.

David said...

Andrew wrote: "Yes, but my point is that current share-owners are loath to dilute their proportion of company ownership - not if they can legally steal instead."

Yes, along with the loathing of the libertarians, which institution will flourish and become the system of the future?

People are searching for alternatives to the status quo of constraint which isn't necessarily an alternative to capitalism. Capitalism may just require the universe's infinite resources to reach its full potential.