farmelantj at juno.com farmelantj at juno.com ---------------- Concerning the concepts of negative freedom that were embraced by both Hayek and Isaiah Berlin, Dogan is quite correct that for both men, the embracing of negative liberty (and the rejection of positive liberty) was very much motivated by their desire to defend capitalism. Where the two men differed, is that Berlin's embrace of negative liberty was in the context of his "pluralism." By pluralism, Berlin meant a "value pluralism" or a pluralism of values (not unlike Max Weber's conception) in which there are a plurality of ideals, which may all be equally valid, but which are not entirely compatible with one another. For Berlin, while negative liberty was a valid social ideal, it was not the only one. Berlin recognized as valid, the social ideals of equality and solidarity. Therefore, for Berlin, unlike Hayek, the good society while embracing negative liberty also might embrace other ideals like equality or solidarity. Therefore, Berlin was able to rationalize the emergence of the welfare state in the UK and the New Deal in the US. In this way, as Dogan suggests, Berlin's pluralism of values was closely tied to the pluralism of classes under capitalism, and so Berlin like a good social democratic liberal attempted to mediate between the interests of capitalists and workers under capitalism.
Jim F. ^^^^^^^^ CB: Berlin seems to be espousing ye olde liberal creed of e pluribus unum. It is on US money as a sort of official American motto or something .".. E Pluribus Unum included in the Seal of the United States, being one of the nation's mottos at the time of the seal's creation ..." _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
