Current syntheses seem to be, "let's just get rid of political liberalism so we can have cultural and economic liberalism together" (taken as "Left") or "let's just do so much economic liberalism there's no space left for cultural or political liberalism" (taken as "Right"). What's really absent is any attempt to transcend economic liberalism and its premises, to treat factories and toothbrushes are two separate sorts of things, one that might be owned and operated for social need and the other that individuals keep and control for themselves.
I would've liked to have some discussion about how religion played a factor in liberalism. I'm thinking of Charles Taylor A Secular Age. In fact to this day religion plays a large role on society, particularly in America and is something that will continue to be a force. That's one criticism of Ashley and Marxism in general, they view it as something that we will just 'mature' out of, and not take it seriously. The Left in general doesn't know how to handle Christianity. But the majority of the world takes religion seriously, including the working classes.
Last week I asked Ashley to clarify her statement that “liberalism was never able to realize itself,” she never responded. I listened to this whole episode and I still have no idea what she is talking about. The best I can surmise is she believes it to be some sort of Marxist FALC society in which every thing is abolished. That is a fictional utopia and not even possible. Liberalism is a political project based on a "realm of freedom" in which people have a domain where they can pursue their own goals and be self governing. I cant see how you can divorce capitalism from liberalism. What exactly does capitalism prevent liberalism from doing? She needs help I think.
Capitalism prevents most people from having more than a tiny realm of freedom in which we pursue our own goals and self-govern. Instead, we spend the majority of our waking hours trying to outcompete other workers to pay our bills.
That sounds like a silly talking point. Even under socialism people will still have to work. If want to reduce your working hours there are plenty of strategies which you are FREE to pursue. I don’t know of any laws, rules and regulations that prevent you from pursing them. As for competition, how do you have freedom and diversity in a zero-sum game without competition? Use a sporting event to illustrate your case please.
What zero-sum game? Adam Smith's whole point about the invisible hand of the market was that it was supposed to operate as a positive-sum game.
By the way, you're not a grade-school teacher and I'm not your student. I don't owe you essay responses that buy into premises your own political side's intellectuals critiqued to death ages ago.
The income distribution is a zero sum game just as any points in a sporting event is. I think you are confusing exchange with the income distribution. Economics posits our social relationships as a competition. You are free to engage or not. Also, I am a socialist. Not for freedom as a political goal. If you are a liberal, you should be able to defend your position. Have a good day!
I'm a socialist as well, but of course, if you'd read Marx, you would know that socialism is about liberation from such constraints as market competition and private property. What on Earth would socialism without freedom even mean?
Marx was not a socialist. In fact, he was fanatically against socialists. Marx was a liberal individualist. Freedom will get you nowhere except a return to domination. Freedom and diversity lead to competition which leads to monopoly and domination. Thus, the only way to have socialism is to structure the society based on equality, inclusion, solidarity, shared decision-making, cooperative social relations, etc. Freedom is inimical to those goals.
Current syntheses seem to be, "let's just get rid of political liberalism so we can have cultural and economic liberalism together" (taken as "Left") or "let's just do so much economic liberalism there's no space left for cultural or political liberalism" (taken as "Right"). What's really absent is any attempt to transcend economic liberalism and its premises, to treat factories and toothbrushes are two separate sorts of things, one that might be owned and operated for social need and the other that individuals keep and control for themselves.
I would've liked to have some discussion about how religion played a factor in liberalism. I'm thinking of Charles Taylor A Secular Age. In fact to this day religion plays a large role on society, particularly in America and is something that will continue to be a force. That's one criticism of Ashley and Marxism in general, they view it as something that we will just 'mature' out of, and not take it seriously. The Left in general doesn't know how to handle Christianity. But the majority of the world takes religion seriously, including the working classes.
I agree this is important and should be discussed going forward! Thanks.
Last week I asked Ashley to clarify her statement that “liberalism was never able to realize itself,” she never responded. I listened to this whole episode and I still have no idea what she is talking about. The best I can surmise is she believes it to be some sort of Marxist FALC society in which every thing is abolished. That is a fictional utopia and not even possible. Liberalism is a political project based on a "realm of freedom" in which people have a domain where they can pursue their own goals and be self governing. I cant see how you can divorce capitalism from liberalism. What exactly does capitalism prevent liberalism from doing? She needs help I think.
Capitalism prevents most people from having more than a tiny realm of freedom in which we pursue our own goals and self-govern. Instead, we spend the majority of our waking hours trying to outcompete other workers to pay our bills.
That sounds like a silly talking point. Even under socialism people will still have to work. If want to reduce your working hours there are plenty of strategies which you are FREE to pursue. I don’t know of any laws, rules and regulations that prevent you from pursing them. As for competition, how do you have freedom and diversity in a zero-sum game without competition? Use a sporting event to illustrate your case please.
Still want Ashley's response.
What zero-sum game? Adam Smith's whole point about the invisible hand of the market was that it was supposed to operate as a positive-sum game.
By the way, you're not a grade-school teacher and I'm not your student. I don't owe you essay responses that buy into premises your own political side's intellectuals critiqued to death ages ago.
The income distribution is a zero sum game just as any points in a sporting event is. I think you are confusing exchange with the income distribution. Economics posits our social relationships as a competition. You are free to engage or not. Also, I am a socialist. Not for freedom as a political goal. If you are a liberal, you should be able to defend your position. Have a good day!
I'm a socialist as well, but of course, if you'd read Marx, you would know that socialism is about liberation from such constraints as market competition and private property. What on Earth would socialism without freedom even mean?
Marx was not a socialist. In fact, he was fanatically against socialists. Marx was a liberal individualist. Freedom will get you nowhere except a return to domination. Freedom and diversity lead to competition which leads to monopoly and domination. Thus, the only way to have socialism is to structure the society based on equality, inclusion, solidarity, shared decision-making, cooperative social relations, etc. Freedom is inimical to those goals.
Kewl. I'm excited about this series. Can I write an article for Compact on the socialist case against liberalism?
Reread Lyotard's Postmodern Condition recently and would be interested to hear your thoughts on it as it relates to liberalism