LIBERALISM 1 page

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 378.

Liberalism is a political *ideology whose central theme is a commitment to the individual and to the construction of a society in which individuals can satisfy their interests or achieve fulfilment. The core values of liberalism are *individualism, *rationalism, *freedom, *justice and *toleration. The liberal belief that human beings are, first and foremost, individuals, endowed with reason, implies that each individual should enjoy the maximum possible freedom consistent with a like freedom for all. However, although individuals are ‘born equal' in the sense that they are of equal moral worth and should enjoy formal *equality and equal opportunities, liberals generally stress that they should be rewarded according to their differing levels of talent or willingness to work, and therefore favour the principle of *meritocracy. A liberal society is characterised by diversity and *pluralism and is organised politically around the twin values of *consent and *constitutionalism, combined to form the structures of *liberal democracy.

Significant differences nevertheless exist between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is distinguished by a belief in a ‘minimal' *state, whose function is limited to the maintenance of domestic *order and personal security. Classical liberals emphasise that human beings are essentially self-interested and largely self-sufficient; as far as possible, people should be responsible for their own lives and circumstances. As an economic doctrine, classical liberalism extols the merits of a self-regulating *market in which government intervention is seen as both unnecessary and damaging. Classical liberal ideas are expressed in certain natural rights theories and *utilitarianism, and provide one of the cornerstones of *libertarianism. Modern liberalism (sometimes portrayed as social or welfare liberalism) exhibits a more sympathetic attitude towards the state, born out of the belief that unregulated *capitalism merely produces new forms of injustice. State intervention can therefore enlarge liberty by safeguarding individuals from the social evils that blight their existence. Whereas classical liberals understand freedom in ‘negative' terms, as the absence of constraints upon the individual, modern liberals link freedom to personal development and self-realisation. This creates clear overlaps between modern liberalism and *social democracy.

Significance

Liberalism has undoubtedly been the most powerful ideological force shaping the Western political tradition. Indeed, some portray liberalism as the ideology of the industrialised West, and identify it with Western civilisation in general. Liberalism was the product of the breakdown of feudalism and the growth, in its place, of a market or capitalist society. Early liberalism certainly reflected the aspirations of a rising industrial middle class, and liberalism and *capitalism have been closely linked (some have argued intrinsically linked) ever since. In its earliest form, liberalism was a political doctrine. It attacked *absolutism and feudal privilege, instead advocating constitutional and, later, representative government. In the nineteenth century, classical liberalism, in the form of economic liberalism, extolled the virtues of laissez-faire *capitalism and condemned all forms of government intervention. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, a form of social liberalism emerged, characteristic of modern liberalism, which looked

more favourably upon welfare reform and economic intervention. So-called ‘end of ideology' theorists such as Francis Fukuyama (1992) argued that the twentieth century had culminated with the final, worldwide triumph of liberalism. This supposedly reflected the collapse of all viable alternatives to market capitalism as the basis of economic organisation and to liberal democracy as the basis of political organisation.

The attraction of liberalism is its unrelenting commitment to individual freedom, reasoned debate and to balance within diversity. Indeed, it has become fashionable to portray liberalism not simply as an ideology but as a ‘meta-ideology', that is, as a body of rules that lays down the grounds upon which political and ideological debate can take place. This reflects the belief that liberalism gives priority to ‘the right' over ‘the good'. In other words, liberalism strives to establish conditions in which people and groups can pursue the good life as each defines it, but it does not prescribe or try to promote any particular notion of what is good. Criticisms of liberalism nevertheless come from various directions. Marxists have argued that, in defending capitalism, liberalism attempts to legitimise unequal class power and so constitutes a form of bourgeois ideology. Radical feminists point to the linkage between liberalism and *patriarchy, which is rooted in the tendency to construe the individual on the basis of an essentially male model of self-sufficiency, thereby encouraging women to be ‘like men'. Communitarians condemn liberalism for failing to provide a moral basis for social order and collective endeavour, arguing that the liberal society is a recipe for unrestrained egoism and greed, and so is ultimately self-defeating.

LIBERTARIANISM

Libertarianism is an ideological stance that gives strict priority to liberty or *freedom (specifically ‘negative' freedom) over other values, such as *authority, *tradition and *equality. Libertarians thus seek to maximise the realm of individual freedom and minimise the scope of public authority, typically seeing the *state as the principal threat to liberty. This anti-statism differs from classical anarchist doctrines in that it is based upon an uncompromising *individualism that places little or no emphasis upon human sociability or cooperation. The two best known libertarian traditions are

-62-

rooted in, respectively, the idea of individual *rights and laissez-faire (literally ‘leave to do', meaning unconstrained by *government) economic doctrines. Libertarian theories of rights generally stress that the individual is the owner of his or her person and thus that people have an absolute entitlement to the *property that their labour produces. Libertarian economic theories emphasise the self-regulating nature of the market mechanism and portray government intervention as always unnecessary and counter-productive. Although all libertarians reject government's attempts to redistribute wealth and deliver social *justice, a division can nevertheless be drawn between those libertarians who subscribe to anarcho-capitalism and view the state as an unnecessary evil, and those who recognise the need for a minimal state, sometimes styling themselves as ‘minarchists'.

Significance

Libertarianism has influenced a number of ideological forms. Libertarianism clearly overlaps with classical *liberalism (although the latter refuses to give priority to liberty over *order); it constitutes one of the major traditions from which the *New Right draws; and in the form of socialist libertarianism, it has encouraged a preference for self-management rather than state control. In embodying an extreme faith in the individual and in freedom, libertarianism provides a constant reminder of the oppressive potential that resides within all the actions of government. However, criticisms of libertarianism fall into two general categories. One sees the rejection of any form of welfare or redistribution as an example of capitalist *ideology, linked to the interests of business and private wealth. The other highlights the imbalance in libertarian philosophy that allows it to stress rights but ignore responsibilities, and which values individual effort and ability but fails to take account of the extent to which these are a product of the social environment.

MARXISM

Marxism is an ideological system within *socialism that developed out of, and drew inspiration from, the writings of Karl Marx (1818–83). However, Marxism as a codified body of thought came into

-63-

existence only after Marx's death. It was the product of the attempt, notably by Friedrich Engels (1820–95), Karl Kautsky (1854–1938) and Georgie Plekhanov (1856–1918), to condense Marx's ideas and theories into a systematic and comprehensive world view that suited the needs of the growing socialist movement. The core of Marxism is a philosophy of history that outlines why *capitalism is doomed and why *socialism and eventually *communism are destined to replace it. This philosophy is based upon *historical materialism, the belief that economic factors are the ultimately determining force in human history, developed into what Marx and Engels classified as ‘scientific socialism'. In Marx's view, history is driven forward through a dialectical process in which internal contradictions within each mode of production, or economic system, are reflected in class antagonism. Capitalism, then, is only the most technologically advanced of class societies, and is itself destined to be overthrown in a proletarian *revolution which will culminate in the establishment of a classless, communist society.

However, there are a number of rival versions of Marxism, the most obvious ones being classical Marxism, orthodox Marxism and modern Marxism. Classical Marxism is the Marxism of Marx and Engels (although Engels' Anti-Dühring, written in 1876, is sometimes seen as the first work of Marxist orthodoxy, since it emphasises the need for adherence to an authoritative interpretation of Marx's work). Orthodox Marxism is often portrayed as ‘dialectical materialism' (a term coined by Plekhanov and not used by Marx), and later formed the basis of Soviet communism. This ‘vulgar' Marxism placed a heavier stress upon mechanistic theories and historical inevitability than did Marx's own writings. However, further complications stem from the breadth and complexity of Marx's own writings and the difficulty of establishing the ‘Marxism of Marx'. Some see Marx as a humanist socialist, while others proclaim him to be an economic determinist. Moreover, distinctions have also been drawn between his early and later writings, sometimes presented as a distinction between the ‘young' Marx and the ‘mature' Marx. The ‘young' Marx developed a form of socialist humanism that stressed the link between communism and human fulfilment through unalienated labour; the ‘mature' Marx gave much greater attention to economic analysis and appeared to subscribe to a belief in historical inevitably. Modern Marxism (sometimes called Western or neo-Marxism) has tried to provide an alternative to the mechanistic and determinist ideas of orthodox Marxism by looking to

-64-

Hegelian philosophy (see *dialectic), *anarchism, *liberalism, *feminism and even *rational choice theory, and has been concerned to explain the failure of Marx's predictions, looking, in particular, to the analysis of *ideology and the *state.

Significance

Marxism's political impact has largely been related to its ability to inspire and guide the twentieth-century communist movement. The intellectual attraction of Marxism has been that it embodies a remarkable breadth of vision, offering to understand and explain virtually all aspects of social and political existence, and uncovering the significance of processes that conventional theories ignore. Politically, it has attacked exploitation and oppression, and had a particularly strong appeal to disadvantaged groups and peoples. However, Marxism's star dimmed markedly in the late twentieth century. To some extent this occurred as the tyrannical and dictatorial features of communist regimes themselves were traced back to Marx's ideas and assumptions. Marxist theories were, for instance, seen as implicitly monistic in that rival belief systems are dismissed as ideological. The crisis of Marxism, however, intensified as the result of the collapse of communism in the Eastern European Revolutions of 1989–91. This suggested that if the social and political forms that Marxism had inspired (however unfaithful they may have been to Marx's original ideas) no longer exist, Marxism as a world-historical force is dead. The alternative interpretation is that the collapse of communism provides an opportunity for Marxism, now divorced from Leninism and Stalinism, to be rediscovered as a form of humanist socialism, particularly associated with the ideas of the ‘young' Marx.

NAZISM

Nazism, or national socialism, is an ideological tradition within *fascism that is fashioned out of a combination of racial *nationalism, anti-Semitism and social Darwinism. The core of Nazi *ideology is a set of racial theories, encouraging some to define Nazism as ‘fascism plus *racialism'. German Nazism, the original and archetypal form of Nazism, portrayed the German people as supremely

-65-

gifted and organically unified, their creativity resting upon their blood purity. For the Nazis this was reflected in Aryanism, the belief that the Aryans or Germans are a ‘master race' and are ultimately destined for world domination. The Jews, in contrast, were seen as fundamentally evil and destructive; in Mein Kampf ([1925] 1969), Hitler portrayed the Jews as a universal scapegoat for all Germany's misfortunes. Nazism thus portrayed the world in pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientific terms as a struggle for dominance between the Germans and the Jews, representing respectively the forces of ‘good' and ‘evil'. The logic of Hitler's worldview was that this racial struggle could only end either in the final victory of the Jews and the destruction of Germany, or in Aryan world conquest and the elimination of the Jewish race. Forms of Nazism that have sprung up outside of Germany since 1945, sometimes termed neo-Nazism, have retained the cult of Hitler but have often reassigned Hitler's racial categories. The Aryans are defined more broadly as the Nordic peoples – pale-skinned, people of north European stock – or simply as the ‘whites'. Their enemies are not only the Jews but any convenient racial minority, but most commonly the ‘blacks'.

Significance

Nazism had profound and tragic consequences for world history in the twentieth century. The Hitler regime, which was established in 1933, embarked upon a programme of re-militarisation and expansionism which resulted in the Second World War, and in 1941 the Nazis instigated what they called the ‘final solution', the attempt to exterminate European Jewry in an unparalleled process of mass murder. This resulted in the death of some six million people. Historians have nevertheless debated how far such events can be explained in terms of the ideological goals of Nazism. One school of thought insists that the entire regime was geared to the fulfilment of Hitler's world-view as outlined in Mein Kampf, while another suggests that genocidal slaughter and world war, while consistent with Hitler's goals, were in fact the outcome of tactical blunders and the institutional chaos of a Nazi regime that was structured by bureaucratic rivalries and Hitler's laziness. Germany's susceptibility to Nazism in the 1930s is usually linked to a combination of frustrated nationalism, defeat in the First World War and the terms of the

-66-

Treaty of Versailles, and to the deep instabilities of the Weimar republic, exacerbated by the world economic crisis. If Nazism is a specifically German phenomenon, it is associated with chauvinist and anti-Semitic currents that ran through traditional German nationalism and flourished in the peculiar historical circumstances of the inter-war period. However, as a general ideology of race hatred, Nazism, or neo-Nazism, may remain a constant threat as a means of articulating the anger and resentment of socially insecure groups which have become disengaged from conventional politics.

NEW LEFT

The New Left is a broad term that refers to a collection of thinkers and intellectual movements that sought to revitalise socialist thought by developing a radical critique of advanced industrial society. The New Left rejected both ‘old' left alternatives: Soviet-style state *socialism and de-radicalised Western *social democracy. Influenced by the humanist writings of the ‘young' Marx, *anarchism and radical forms of phenomenology and existentialism, New Left theories were often diffuse. Common themes nevertheless included a rejection of conventional society (‘the system') as oppressive; a commitment to personal *autonomy and self-fulfilment in the form of liberation; disillusionment with the role of the working class as the revolutionary agent; and a preference for *decentralisation and participatory *democracy. The term New Left was also used in the 1990s in reference to the quite different and less radical ideas of ‘new' social democracy.

Significance

New Left ideas and theories emerged in the late 1950s and reached their high point of prominence in the 1960s and early 1970s. Politically, they amounted to an attack upon conventionalised forms of socialism that appeared no longer able to offer a systematic critique of existing society, or to provide worthwhile alternatives to *capitalism. Socially, they drew inspiration from the phenomenon of postmaterialism, the tendency of rising affluence to shift economic priorities away from material concerns to ‘quality of life' issues. Although the New Left never had, or claimed to offer, a coherent

-67-

or unified philosophical position, it provided a broad ideological framework which in the 1960s supported student radicalism, anti-Vietnam war protest and the rise of new *social movements such as *feminism and *ecologism. The strength of New Left was that it developed an unashamed *utopianism that inspired disadvantaged groups and the young in particular, and that it was radically critical of all aspects of conventional life, including family structures and sexuality, consumerism, economic organisation and environmental destruction. However, the New Left can be criticised because of its diffuse and sometimes contradictory nature, and because it addressed the concerns of a radicalised youth more effectively than it did the larger concerns of society.

NEW RIGHT

The New Right is an ideological tradition within *conservatism that advances a blend of market *individualism and social or state *authoritarianism. These different tendencies are usually termed neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Neo-liberalism is an updated version of classical *liberalism and particularly classical political economy. Its central pillars are the *market and the individual. The principal neo-liberal goal is to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state', in the belief that unregulated market capitalism will deliver efficiency, growth and widespread prosperity. In this view the ‘dead hand' of the *state saps initiative and discourages enterprise; *government, however well intentioned, invariably has a damaging effect upon human affairs. This is reflected in a preference for privatisation, economic deregulation, low taxes and anti-welfarism. Such ideas are underpinned by a form of rugged individualism, expressed in Thatcher's famous assertion that ‘there is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families'. The ‘nanny state' is seen to breed a culture of dependency and to undermine *freedom, which is understood as freedom of choice in the marketplace. Instead, faith is placed in self-help, individual responsibility and entrepreneurialism.

Neo-conservatism reasserts nineteenth-century conservative social principles. The conservative New Right wishes, above all, to restore *authority and return to traditional values, notably those linked to the family, religion and the *nation. Authority is seen as guaranteeing social stability, on the basis that it generates discipline

-68-

and respect, while shared values and a common culture are believed to foster social cohesion and make civilised existence possible. Neo-conservatism therefore attacks permissiveness, the cult of the self and ‘doing one's own thing', thought of as the values of the 1960s. Another aspect of neo-conservatism is the tendency to view the emergence of multi-cultural and multi-religious societies with concern, on the basis that they are conflict-ridden and inherently unstable. This position tends to be linked to an insular form of *nationalism that is sceptical about both immigration and the growing influence of supranational bodies.

Significance

The New Right amounts to a kind of counter-revolution against both the post-war drift towards state intervention and the spread of liberal and progressive social values. New Right ideas can be traced back to the 1970s and the conjunction between the apparent failure of Keynesian *social democracy, signalled by the end of the post-1945 economic boom, and growing concern about social breakdown and the decline of authority. Such ideas had their greatest impact in the UK and the USA, where they were articulated in the 1980s in the form of Thatcherism and Reganism, respectively. However, New Right theories and values have spread well beyond conservatism and have, in particular, been instrumental in converting modern-liberal and social-democratic parties to the cause of the market. The New Right may therefore have succeeded in overthrowing a ‘pro-state' tendency that had characterised government throughout much of the twentieth century, especially after 1945, and in establishing an alternative ‘pro-market' tendency.

However, there is evidence that, since its high point in the 1980s, the New Right has been in retreat. This stems from two major problems. The first is that New Right ideas are incoherent and, to some extent, contradictory. Neo-liberalism upholds values such as freedom, choice, *rights and competition, while neo-conservatism champions authority, discipline, respect and duty. The danger therefore is that, to the extent that neo-liberals are successful in unleashing the dynamism of unregulated *capitalism, they threaten the established values and traditional institutions which neo-conservatives hold dear. Secondly, the long-term viability of free-market economics has been called into question. ‘Rolling back the state' in

-69-

economic life may sharpen incentives, intensify competition and promote entrepreneurialism, but sooner or later its disadvantages become apparent, notably in the form of short-termism, low investment, widening inequality and the growth of social exclusion.

RACIALISM/RACISM

Racialism is, broadly, the belief that political or social conclusions can be drawn from the idea that humankind is divided into biologically distinct *races. Racialist theories are thus based upon two assumptions. The first is that there are fundamental genetic, or species-type, differences amongst the peoples of the world – racial differences are meaningful. The second is that these genetic divisions are reflected in cultural, intellectual and/or moral differences, making them politically or socially significant. Political racialism is manifest in calls for racial segregation (for instance, apartheid) and in doctrines of ‘blood' superiority or inferiority (for instance, Aryanism or anti-Semitism).

‘Racialism' and ‘racism' are commonly used interchangeably, but the latter is better used to refer to prejudice or hostility towards a people because of their racial origin, whether or not this is linked to a developed racial theory. ‘Institutionalised' racism is racial prejudice that is entrenched in the norms and values of an organisation or social system, and so is not dependent upon conscious acts of discrimination or hostility. Nevertheless, the term is highly contentious and has been used, amongst other things, to refer to unwitting prejudice, insensitivity to the values and culture of minority groups, racist stereotyping, racism as a deliberate act of policy, and racial oppression as an ideological system (as in *Nazism).

Significance

Racial theories of politics first emerged in the nineteenth century in the work of theorists such as Count Gobineau (1816–82) and H. S. Chamberlain (1855–1929). They developed through the combined impact of European *imperialism and growing interest in biological theories associated with Darwinism. By the late nineteenth century, the idea that there were racial differences between the ‘white', ‘black' and ‘yellow' peoples of the world was widely accepted in

-70-

European society, extending beyond the political *right and including many liberals and even socialists. Overt political racialism has been most clearly associated with *fascism in general and Nazism in particular. However, covert or implicit forms of racialism have operated more widely in campaigns against immigration by far-right groups and parties such as the French National Front and the British National Party. Anti-immigration racialism is based ideologically upon conservative *nationalism, in that it highlights the danger to social cohesion and national unity that is posed by multi-culturalism. The attraction of racialism is that it offers a simple, firm and apparently scientific explanation for social divisions and national differences. However, racialism has little or no empirical basis, and it invariably serves as a thinly veiled justification for bigotry and oppression. Its political success is largely associated with its capacity to generate simple explanations and solutions, and its capacity to harness personal and social insecurities to political ends.

RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM

Fundamentalism (from the Latin fundamentum, meaning ‘base') is a style of ideological thought in which certain principles are recognised as essential ‘truths' that have unchallengeable and overriding *authority, regardless of their content. Substantive fundamentalisms therefore have little or nothing in common except that their supporters tend to evince an earnestness or fervour born out of doctrinal certainty. Fundamentalism in this sense can be found in a variety of political creeds. For example, *Marxism and *communism are sometimes viewed as forms of fundamentalist *socialism (as opposed to the revisionist socialism endorsed by *social democracy), on the grounds of their absolute and unequivocal rejection of *capitalism. Even liberal scepticism can be said to incorporate the fundamental belief that all theories should be doubted (apart from this one). Although the term is often used pejoratively to imply inflexibility, dogmatism and authoritarianism (and may therefore be avoided by fundamentalists themselves), fundamentalism may suggest selflessness and a devotion to principle.

Religious fundamentalism is characterised by a rejection of the distinction between religion and *politics – ‘politics is religion'. This implies that religious principles are not restricted to personal

-71-

or ‘private' life, but are also seen as the organising principles of ‘public' existence, including *law, social conduct and the economy as well as politics. The fundamentalist impulse therefore contrasts sharply with secularism, the belief that religion should not intrude into secular (worldly) affairs, reflected in the separation of church from *state. Although some forms of religious fundamentalism coexist with *pluralism (for example, Christian fundamentalism in the USA and Jewish fundamentalism in Israel) because their goals are limited and specific, other forms of religious fundamentalism are revolutionary (for example, Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, Pakistan and Sudan) in that they aim to construct a theocracy in which the state is reconstructed on the basis of religious principles, and political position is linked to one's place within a religious hierarchy. In some cases, but not necessarily, religious fundamentalism is defined by a belief in the literal truth of sacred texts.

Significance

Religious fundamentalism has been a growing political force since the 1970s. Its most important form has been Islamic fundamentalism, most closely associated with the ‘Islamic revolution' in Iran since 1979 but also evident throughout the Middle East and in parts of north Africa and Asia. However, forms of Christian fundamentalism (USA), Jewish fundamentalism (Israel), Hindu fundamentalism and Sikh fundamentalism (India), and even Buddhist fundamentalism (Sri Lanka) have also emerged. It is difficult to generalise about the causes of this fundamentalist upsurge because in different parts of the world it has taken different doctrinal forms and displayed different ideological features. What is clear, however, is that fundamentalism arises in deeply troubled societies, particularly societies afflicted by an actual or perceived crisis of identity. Amongst the factors that contributed to such crises in the late twentieth century were secularisation and the apparent weakening of society's ‘moral fabric'; the search in post-colonial states for a non-Western and perhaps anti-Western political identity; the declining status of revolutionary socialism; and the tendency of *globalisation to weaken ‘civic' *nationalism and stimulate the emergence of forms of ‘ethnic' nationalism. There is, nevertheless, considerable debate about the long-term significance of religious fundamentalism. One view is that fundamentalist religion is merely a symptom

-72-

of the difficult adjustments that modernisation brings about, but it is ultimately doomed because it is out of step with the secularism and liberal values that are implicit in the modernisation process. The rival view holds that secularism and liberal culture are in crisis and that fundamentalism exposes their failure to address deeper human needs and their inability to establish authoritative values that give social order a moral foundation.