Notes on illiberal Liberalism
It is worth relating any political theory to the historical context in which they have gained most currency. This exercise often reveals a close correlation between what the dominant theory of the time tells us is right on philosophical grounds and what philosophical conclusions happen to suit those in power. Nowhere is this more applicable than in the case of political Liberalism. As the Athenians said of the Spartans in the Melian dialogue, western liberals "are most conspicuous for believing that what they like doing is honourable and what suits their interests is just".
Liberalism's central tenants are as follows:
1. Equality before the law and equal rights
2. State legitimacy derives from popular consent
3. Right to own property and productive forces
4. Primacy of the market as an organising force of societies material assets
The rise of Liberalism coincided with and was driven by the emergence of the new bourgouisie in the late C18th and early C19th, who adopted it as their defining philosophical creed. Under its flag came the creation of the new United States of America, the French Revolution and various socio-political and economic reforms in Britain. Overwhelmingly, these social changes benefitted this emerging economic class which, though non-aristocratic, was gaining wealth and commensurate socio-political power.
Of the four values highlighted above, it was the last two that were dominant (note in particular that point 3 accentuates a right that, in a different value system, could easily be slotted in with the rights to education, healthcare etc under point 1). Thus the new liberal United States maintained slavery for nearly a century after its inception in accordance with Liberal Article Of Faith number 3, if not Article number 1. For all the fine words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it was John Jay's remark that "the people who own the country ought to govern it" that best characterised the new Liberal order. This new order primarily liberalised the bourgouisie from the constraints that prevented them from extending their new found wealth and power, often at the cost of broader human values. Witness the general social trauma of the creation of the industrialised working class in C19th. Would their fate have improved if mass political organisation had not taken place among them, and Liberalism been left to its own devices?
Neo-Liberalism, in the field of international relations, must bear some of these same criticisms. It cites the Bretton Woods system, the United Nations and US hegemony over this institutional order in the post WWII era as being a generally benign manifestation of liberal values. However:
1. The Bretton Woods system has presided over grotesque levels of inequality, where widespread poverty abides alongside extraordinary wealth whose potential to all but end much of human economic suffering remains untroubled. Moreover, the "liberal" economic system liberalises only when in Western interests (e.g. manufactured goods) and remains restrictive when not (e.g. agriculture). Its imposition of aid conditionality on developing countries undermines democracy and its privitisation programs deny basic public services through charges (contra Article 1) and encourage corruption;
2. The United Nations entrenches great power privilege and ability to coerce smaller states; and
3. The US frequently overthrows democratic regimes, supports or commits human rights abuses, backs tyrants and launches wars of aggression, covert or overtly, directly or by proxy.
Contra Liberal Article Of Faith number 1, there are clear winners and losers in this system. The winners are a general transnational Executive Class and their companion state/institutional interests. The losers - from a small to a great extent - are just about everyone else. By privileging economic interests over the other purported liberal values of human welfare and equality, Liberalism - rathar than Marxism or Realism - has become the prime ideological force for imperialism in the modern age.
Liberalism's central tenants are as follows:
1. Equality before the law and equal rights
2. State legitimacy derives from popular consent
3. Right to own property and productive forces
4. Primacy of the market as an organising force of societies material assets
The rise of Liberalism coincided with and was driven by the emergence of the new bourgouisie in the late C18th and early C19th, who adopted it as their defining philosophical creed. Under its flag came the creation of the new United States of America, the French Revolution and various socio-political and economic reforms in Britain. Overwhelmingly, these social changes benefitted this emerging economic class which, though non-aristocratic, was gaining wealth and commensurate socio-political power.
Of the four values highlighted above, it was the last two that were dominant (note in particular that point 3 accentuates a right that, in a different value system, could easily be slotted in with the rights to education, healthcare etc under point 1). Thus the new liberal United States maintained slavery for nearly a century after its inception in accordance with Liberal Article Of Faith number 3, if not Article number 1. For all the fine words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it was John Jay's remark that "the people who own the country ought to govern it" that best characterised the new Liberal order. This new order primarily liberalised the bourgouisie from the constraints that prevented them from extending their new found wealth and power, often at the cost of broader human values. Witness the general social trauma of the creation of the industrialised working class in C19th. Would their fate have improved if mass political organisation had not taken place among them, and Liberalism been left to its own devices?
Neo-Liberalism, in the field of international relations, must bear some of these same criticisms. It cites the Bretton Woods system, the United Nations and US hegemony over this institutional order in the post WWII era as being a generally benign manifestation of liberal values. However:
1. The Bretton Woods system has presided over grotesque levels of inequality, where widespread poverty abides alongside extraordinary wealth whose potential to all but end much of human economic suffering remains untroubled. Moreover, the "liberal" economic system liberalises only when in Western interests (e.g. manufactured goods) and remains restrictive when not (e.g. agriculture). Its imposition of aid conditionality on developing countries undermines democracy and its privitisation programs deny basic public services through charges (contra Article 1) and encourage corruption;
2. The United Nations entrenches great power privilege and ability to coerce smaller states; and
3. The US frequently overthrows democratic regimes, supports or commits human rights abuses, backs tyrants and launches wars of aggression, covert or overtly, directly or by proxy.
Contra Liberal Article Of Faith number 1, there are clear winners and losers in this system. The winners are a general transnational Executive Class and their companion state/institutional interests. The losers - from a small to a great extent - are just about everyone else. By privileging economic interests over the other purported liberal values of human welfare and equality, Liberalism - rathar than Marxism or Realism - has become the prime ideological force for imperialism in the modern age.
Labels: Democracy, Economics, International Political Economy, US Imperialism



0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home