Chomskyrion
30-09-2005, 21:41
I've been taking a Political Ideologies class. And I've come to learn how Liberalism and Conservatism have both evolved. This is just a short history of both, with a bit of discussion on their relation to Libertarianism.
Liberalism and Conservatism were first identified after the French revolution. The idea of "left" and "right" came because the more radical progressivists sat on the left and the more Conservative traditionalists sat on the right, when their government met.
Both ideologies came about as a result of class-conflict. In France and most parts of Europe, the nobility were a tiny minority, but they controlled almost all of the wealth. In France's government, the nobility and the clergy received two votes, while the common people received only one vote. So, of course, this lack of a balance of power led to the aristocracy being completely tax-exempt, while everyone else was over-taxed.
In the past, this class-conflict did not exist, because of feudalism. Because in feudalism, the only way to develop power is to be born into it. A bunch of peasants may oppose you, but since none of them can become rich, even through work, there's no way that any of them could ever initiate a coup de'tat.
But once we made the transition from feudalism to capitalism, now, common people could become incredibly rich, just as rich as the nobility or even wealthier. They reasoned, many people who weren't nobles were just as rich as nobles, and weren't any different except by their families, so why should only one of them taxed? And unlike in feudalism, this oppressed class finally had the power to fight for equality. And they did, through the French revolution.
The revolution did not merely change our government or affect only France, but rather, it enriched the essence of our being. Because it also affected how we value life and beauty. In a sense, if the Enlightenment were an earthquake, the French revolution would be its aftershock. Because our perceptions of beauty also changed, moving from the Classical, Greek and Roman aesthetic of order and symmetry, to the romantic aesthetic of beauty for its uniqueness and sentiment.
And it was during this time that two ideas emerged: That the French revolution for democracy, carried out by progressivists was good, or that the French revolution, opposed by the nobility and the clergy, was bad. It was in this that Classical Liberalism and Classical Conservatism emerged.
It must be emphasized, however, that these were certainly Classical Conservatism and Classical Liberalism. Most of the first Conservatives favored monarchy because they considered democracy, in any form, to be mob-rule. They advocated Catholic Theocracy or at the very least, royalty that was "God-ordained." Meanwhile, it was Classical Liberals who emphasized free trade and capitalism, while Classical Conservatives couldn't care less, one way or the other. So long as whatever monetary system did not violate the existing social order, it wasn't an issue.
Classical Conservatives' main emphasis was that Liberals' views of humanity were idealistic, that positive change is brought about slowly through experience rather than through intellectual deliberation and that local governments are favorable to national governments. The father of Conservatism is Edmund Burke. And although he supported republicanism and the American revolution, he also argued that the middle ages was not such a "bad" time. So, although Classical Conservatism is quite different from Modern Conservatism, you can still see it has its roots there. Modern Conservatism is essentially a mix of Classical Conservative social policy and Classical Liberal social policy. Classical Conservatives held no regard for individual liberty, but merely tradition. But today, modern Conservatives would agree that liberty is important.
It must also be pointed out, though, that Libertarians are incorrect to immediately equate Libertarianism with Classical Liberalism. Classical Liberals did support unfettered free trade, but not with the same zeal as Libertarians, and they still recognized the government's right to regulation. Jeremy Bentham and most Classical Liberals advocated utilitarianism, "The greatest good for the greatest number of people." This is quite different from Libertarianism, in that they believe governments should be dominated by economic progress, "might is right", as an ideal, and not the greatest amount of pleasure for the most people.
And they interpret Classical Liberalism in a very anarchist way. For example, they advocate Mill's harm principle, but only in terms of government, when Mill wrote that it applies "individually or collectively." Mill's harm principle states that no one can violate another person's liberty, unless it is to prevent harm. Libertarians apply this principle to the state, but not to individuals and not to businesses. Classical Liberals were not anti-statist. They advocated radical progress, meaning, the potential for the growth of the state, whereas it was Conservatives who advocated a smaller government. And today, although Libertarians also advocate radical progress, they also advocate smaller government.
So, although Libertarians has its roots in Classical Liberalism, it has also clearly been influenced by Classical Conservatism and is its own distinct ideology, rather than the "true" Liberalism. Above all, Libertarianism is a group of reactionaries opposed to how Liberalism has changed.
In the 20th century, Liberalism, all over the world, was undoubtedly heavily influenced by Marxism. After the Great Depression, which came about as a result of both World Wars (in America, there was also the stockmarket crash of 1929), the world had experienced the fact that Classical economics do not work. And currently, the overwhelming majority of economists advocate some form of economic regulation, aside from basic things such as anti-trust laws. In America, the Federal Reserve is and has been an enormous success, each year, demonstrating quite clearly how it balances the economy like a scale. When our rate of growth is too high, raising interest rates to avoid a crash, and when our rate of growth is too slow, lowering interest rates to stimulate growth. Without the Fed, our economy would face the enormous peaks and valleys we faced before, the enormous "peaks" being like the incredible economic surge of the Industrial Revolution and the "valleys" being like the dire despair of the Great Depression.
Libertarians and even Conservatives may argue that we would have gotten out of the Great Depression far more quickly had Marxist programs like social security in America and national insurance in Britain not been established. But to borrow a Conservative phrase, "It looks good on paper, but doesn't work in reality." Certainly, we would have gotten out of the Great Depression far more quickly if we'd never created any social programs, but that would not have been politically feasible. We'd previously adopted Classical Liberal policies and, as a result of it (in addition to two idiotic wars), our societies became miserably poor. It wouldn't have been realistic for any government to refuse to create any social welfare programs because, people had seen how the world was changing... If the government hadn't acted, then many people would've starved to death in a few short years, as opposed to suffering over several years, and the people would have revolted. Even though social welfare arguably didn't more effectively address the problem, it was the only realistic way to address the problem. That''s why almost all western countries implemented these social programs and how they had no choice. Even Conservative theories on addressing poverty do not immediately solve the problem, but need a few years for the economy to grow and for jobs to be created. This was a few years that governments during the Great Depression did not have.
And so, in the 20th century, all over the world, Liberals and even Conservatives, to a lesser extent, became influenced by Marxism. It doesn't go against Liberalism, but complements it quite nicely. Classical Liberals fought the oppressive nobility and clergy, and now, there was a new enemy to fight, just as wealthy and, from their point-of-view, just as oppressive. Modern Liberalism is Classical Liberalism, except with a tinge of Marxism. It would be going a bit far to outright call them Neomarxists, however, as Liberals' emphasize liberty far more than class-conflict, don't use the Communist Manifesto as their Bible, recognize Communism as a failure, and lastly, Marxism came after Liberalism. This new ideology of Modern Liberalism is a continuation of Classical Liberalism, not a new form of Marxism.
Finally, Libertarians are reactionaries to this new, more Marxist Liberalism. This is clearly evident if you take the Communist mantra and you'll find that Libertarianism is its anti-thesis. Communism states, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Libertarianism states, "From each according to their choice, to each according to their ability." Economically-speaking, whereas Marxism advocates sanctioning fairness and equality, Libertarianism and Modern Conservatism support the doctrine of might is right. And so, Modern Liberalism is between Marxism and Modern Conservatism, leaning towards Marxism, and Modern Conservatism is between Classical Conservatism and Classical Liberalism, leaning towards Classical Conservatism.
Liberalism and Conservatism were first identified after the French revolution. The idea of "left" and "right" came because the more radical progressivists sat on the left and the more Conservative traditionalists sat on the right, when their government met.
Both ideologies came about as a result of class-conflict. In France and most parts of Europe, the nobility were a tiny minority, but they controlled almost all of the wealth. In France's government, the nobility and the clergy received two votes, while the common people received only one vote. So, of course, this lack of a balance of power led to the aristocracy being completely tax-exempt, while everyone else was over-taxed.
In the past, this class-conflict did not exist, because of feudalism. Because in feudalism, the only way to develop power is to be born into it. A bunch of peasants may oppose you, but since none of them can become rich, even through work, there's no way that any of them could ever initiate a coup de'tat.
But once we made the transition from feudalism to capitalism, now, common people could become incredibly rich, just as rich as the nobility or even wealthier. They reasoned, many people who weren't nobles were just as rich as nobles, and weren't any different except by their families, so why should only one of them taxed? And unlike in feudalism, this oppressed class finally had the power to fight for equality. And they did, through the French revolution.
The revolution did not merely change our government or affect only France, but rather, it enriched the essence of our being. Because it also affected how we value life and beauty. In a sense, if the Enlightenment were an earthquake, the French revolution would be its aftershock. Because our perceptions of beauty also changed, moving from the Classical, Greek and Roman aesthetic of order and symmetry, to the romantic aesthetic of beauty for its uniqueness and sentiment.
And it was during this time that two ideas emerged: That the French revolution for democracy, carried out by progressivists was good, or that the French revolution, opposed by the nobility and the clergy, was bad. It was in this that Classical Liberalism and Classical Conservatism emerged.
It must be emphasized, however, that these were certainly Classical Conservatism and Classical Liberalism. Most of the first Conservatives favored monarchy because they considered democracy, in any form, to be mob-rule. They advocated Catholic Theocracy or at the very least, royalty that was "God-ordained." Meanwhile, it was Classical Liberals who emphasized free trade and capitalism, while Classical Conservatives couldn't care less, one way or the other. So long as whatever monetary system did not violate the existing social order, it wasn't an issue.
Classical Conservatives' main emphasis was that Liberals' views of humanity were idealistic, that positive change is brought about slowly through experience rather than through intellectual deliberation and that local governments are favorable to national governments. The father of Conservatism is Edmund Burke. And although he supported republicanism and the American revolution, he also argued that the middle ages was not such a "bad" time. So, although Classical Conservatism is quite different from Modern Conservatism, you can still see it has its roots there. Modern Conservatism is essentially a mix of Classical Conservative social policy and Classical Liberal social policy. Classical Conservatives held no regard for individual liberty, but merely tradition. But today, modern Conservatives would agree that liberty is important.
It must also be pointed out, though, that Libertarians are incorrect to immediately equate Libertarianism with Classical Liberalism. Classical Liberals did support unfettered free trade, but not with the same zeal as Libertarians, and they still recognized the government's right to regulation. Jeremy Bentham and most Classical Liberals advocated utilitarianism, "The greatest good for the greatest number of people." This is quite different from Libertarianism, in that they believe governments should be dominated by economic progress, "might is right", as an ideal, and not the greatest amount of pleasure for the most people.
And they interpret Classical Liberalism in a very anarchist way. For example, they advocate Mill's harm principle, but only in terms of government, when Mill wrote that it applies "individually or collectively." Mill's harm principle states that no one can violate another person's liberty, unless it is to prevent harm. Libertarians apply this principle to the state, but not to individuals and not to businesses. Classical Liberals were not anti-statist. They advocated radical progress, meaning, the potential for the growth of the state, whereas it was Conservatives who advocated a smaller government. And today, although Libertarians also advocate radical progress, they also advocate smaller government.
So, although Libertarians has its roots in Classical Liberalism, it has also clearly been influenced by Classical Conservatism and is its own distinct ideology, rather than the "true" Liberalism. Above all, Libertarianism is a group of reactionaries opposed to how Liberalism has changed.
In the 20th century, Liberalism, all over the world, was undoubtedly heavily influenced by Marxism. After the Great Depression, which came about as a result of both World Wars (in America, there was also the stockmarket crash of 1929), the world had experienced the fact that Classical economics do not work. And currently, the overwhelming majority of economists advocate some form of economic regulation, aside from basic things such as anti-trust laws. In America, the Federal Reserve is and has been an enormous success, each year, demonstrating quite clearly how it balances the economy like a scale. When our rate of growth is too high, raising interest rates to avoid a crash, and when our rate of growth is too slow, lowering interest rates to stimulate growth. Without the Fed, our economy would face the enormous peaks and valleys we faced before, the enormous "peaks" being like the incredible economic surge of the Industrial Revolution and the "valleys" being like the dire despair of the Great Depression.
Libertarians and even Conservatives may argue that we would have gotten out of the Great Depression far more quickly had Marxist programs like social security in America and national insurance in Britain not been established. But to borrow a Conservative phrase, "It looks good on paper, but doesn't work in reality." Certainly, we would have gotten out of the Great Depression far more quickly if we'd never created any social programs, but that would not have been politically feasible. We'd previously adopted Classical Liberal policies and, as a result of it (in addition to two idiotic wars), our societies became miserably poor. It wouldn't have been realistic for any government to refuse to create any social welfare programs because, people had seen how the world was changing... If the government hadn't acted, then many people would've starved to death in a few short years, as opposed to suffering over several years, and the people would have revolted. Even though social welfare arguably didn't more effectively address the problem, it was the only realistic way to address the problem. That''s why almost all western countries implemented these social programs and how they had no choice. Even Conservative theories on addressing poverty do not immediately solve the problem, but need a few years for the economy to grow and for jobs to be created. This was a few years that governments during the Great Depression did not have.
And so, in the 20th century, all over the world, Liberals and even Conservatives, to a lesser extent, became influenced by Marxism. It doesn't go against Liberalism, but complements it quite nicely. Classical Liberals fought the oppressive nobility and clergy, and now, there was a new enemy to fight, just as wealthy and, from their point-of-view, just as oppressive. Modern Liberalism is Classical Liberalism, except with a tinge of Marxism. It would be going a bit far to outright call them Neomarxists, however, as Liberals' emphasize liberty far more than class-conflict, don't use the Communist Manifesto as their Bible, recognize Communism as a failure, and lastly, Marxism came after Liberalism. This new ideology of Modern Liberalism is a continuation of Classical Liberalism, not a new form of Marxism.
Finally, Libertarians are reactionaries to this new, more Marxist Liberalism. This is clearly evident if you take the Communist mantra and you'll find that Libertarianism is its anti-thesis. Communism states, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Libertarianism states, "From each according to their choice, to each according to their ability." Economically-speaking, whereas Marxism advocates sanctioning fairness and equality, Libertarianism and Modern Conservatism support the doctrine of might is right. And so, Modern Liberalism is between Marxism and Modern Conservatism, leaning towards Marxism, and Modern Conservatism is between Classical Conservatism and Classical Liberalism, leaning towards Classical Conservatism.