RE: liberalism
the best any thread on pen-l (and lbo-talk?) seems to be able to do is to clarify differences. Jim Devine "'perceptual fault lines' run through apparently stable communities that appear to have agreed on basic institutions and structures and on general governing rules. Consent comes apart in battles of description. Consent comes apart over whose stories to tell." [Kim Scheppele in "Another Look at the Problem of Rent Seeking" by Steven Medema, JEI Vol xxv # 4] "History will justify anything. It teaches precisely nothing, for it contains everything and furnishes examples of everything...Nothing was more completely ruined by the last war than the pretension to foresight. But it was not from any lack of knowledge of history, surely?...The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be. [Paul Valery]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
I would disagree. It seems to me that maillists are primarily conversational, and attempts to make them replace printed journals are mostly wishful thinking. I my only rarely either read or write posts much longer than 4 or 5 screens. Moreover, issues that really do depend on large amounts of empirical data simply do not belong on e-mail lists. The information given is _always_ highly selective, and hence rarely contributes to the argument. In the few cases when it appears that information offered is really crucial to the argument, it is necessary to consider more sources in any case before trusting the data. An endless rain of information (_highly selective and hard to judge_) on most ecological questions is simply pointless -- all of it is almost always obviously true-- and also obviously irrelevant to anything until one can place it in a political context. I think someone should do a dissertation on empirical arguments on maillists. Such a study would show, I believe, that in nearly all cases _everyone_ involved was (mostly unintentionally) cheating. That is, the evidence offered always fits into a strictly linear line of thought. Let's see if I can explain this. Someone argues: A causes B. Then gives endless evidence to support that proposition. But that evidence turns out to be irrelevant, because while it is perfectly true that A causes B and B is a desirable end, it is also possibly or probably true, that A ALSO causes C, D, E, & F. That F in turn causes B, but only under circustances where it also causes G, which is destructive of B. And this means that anyone who continues to heap up evidence for the proposition that "A causes B" becomes obscurantist, however good his/her intentions may be. Moreover, there is usually at least two persons in the discussion who suffer seriously from the fetishism of facts -- i.e., who believe that facts explain themselves (and of course the explanation the facts give of themselves is always the explanation that the fetishist has actually assumed from the beginning). Such fetishists will see any attempt to point out other factors involved, or any attempt to challenge the "obvious" point of the facts, is deliberately changing the subject. And when there are two of them with opposing understandings of the issue, they will go on endlessly adding fact to fact with not the slightest awareness that it is not facts but clarification of the multiple issues involved that needs to be pursued. And maillists _may_ clarify issues (both for the writers and for the large number of lurkers on every list). Clarification is _not_ of course a conclusion -- why should it be? And moreover, sometimes it is in the late stages of a discussion that seems merely to go round and round that questions that have been implicit or blurred become explicit. The best any mail list can do is to clarify issues, open up new questions, and provide a forum for trying out ideas. Serious polemics or information belong in printed journals. I learn quite a bit on the run from pen-l because I have no formal training in econ. How important that is I do not know. Carrol Michael Perelman wrote: > > Lou expressed my thought better than I did. I would only add that in > these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at > least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such > debates will write. > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:25:32AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > > > In much of the discussion here, we get conclusions without the > > supporting facts. This has been true of the Vandana Shiva thread as well as > > the liberalism/expertise thread. Unfortunately, in the latter case the > > rules of participation would almost exclude facts, etc. because the context > > is preeminently philosophical. When the discussion revolves around the > > individual versus society, etc., you are entering the vaporous realm of > > political philosophy. > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
>From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >the best any thread on pen-l (and lbo-talk?) seems to be able to do is to >clarify differences. Yes, clearly there's little difference between pen-l and lbo on that score :) Carl _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28996] Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism Louis writes: > I know this is an onerous burden to place on pen-l'ers, but > you should search for ways to impart some kind of concrete information > whenever you post. That's good, but I like a weaker standard, since not all discussions are about issues where there is new empirical information that can be presented. I don't think we want to limit the scope of the discussion the way that's implied by Louis' criterion. My weaker standard is that whenever an abstraction is applied some effort should be made to present a concrete example or exemplar to illustrate or explain the meaning of that abstraction. Rather than simply talking about "democracy," for example, it's good to keep in mind what that means in practice in a specific place and time, if only to understand the contrast between the theoretical concept and the reality. Maybe we can talk about _hypothetical_ examples, but still that's better than simply throwing abstract words around such as "democracy" without an effort to concretize them. That is, we should try to avoid rhetorical and totally abstract assertions, such as "freedom is good." This is useless, especially since one can define both terms so that the statement is always true. There's a stronger standard, which I doubt that we can live up to but is still good to keep in mind: on some theoretical difference, what are the implications for political practice or economic policy. (The latter is not something I see as very useful, but the "best policy" is often a useful thing to understand precisely because the government doesn't pursue it.) There are all sorts of issues -- such as that chestnut "the class nature of the old USSR" -- where certain ranges of opinion imply no differences in terms of practice. Within one of those ranges, we can avoid needless argument by realizing that potential practical unity. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28995] Re: Re: Re: : liberalism the best any thread on pen-l (and lbo-talk?) seems to be able to do is to clarify differences. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:17 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:28995] Re: Re: Re: : liberalism > > > Michael Perelman wrote: > > >Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere? > > Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere? > > Doug >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Michael writes: > I would only add that in >these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at >least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such >debates will write. To be sure, most postings in most PEN-L debates appear as predictable rehearsals of existing positions. But for what it's worth, that doesn't mean that no learning is going on, despite the occasionally frustrating lack of anything that looks like progress or meetings of minds. Among the things I've gotten from past PEN-L debates in which I've participated are: finding out the range of possible arguments against a given position (and possible responses); references to relevant literature (particularly useful); and offline correspondences that often *do* end up going somewhere. On the first point, for those who enter given debates seriously and in good faith, positions and counterpositions can be developed much more rapidly than via the traditional route of published exchanges in journals. I think that's been a real contribution of this medium, despite its drawbacks. Gil
re: liberalism
Rob Schaap wrote: > Doug Henwood wrote: > > > > Michael Perelman wrote: > > > > >Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere? > > >Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere? > It's the journey, dudes, not the destination. How about, "Is this discussion becoming or going?" Tom Walker 604 254 0470
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Lou expressed my thought better than I did. I would only add that in these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such debates will write. On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:25:32AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > In much of the discussion here, we get conclusions without the > supporting facts. This has been true of the Vandana Shiva thread as well as > the liberalism/expertise thread. Unfortunately, in the latter case the > rules of participation would almost exclude facts, etc. because the context > is preeminently philosophical. When the discussion revolves around the > individual versus society, etc., you are entering the vaporous realm of > political philosophy. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
>Michael Perelman wrote: > >>Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere? > >Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere? > >Doug I know this is an onerous burden to place on pen-l'ers, but you should search for ways to impart some kind of concrete information whenever you post. In much of the discussion here, we get conclusions without the supporting facts. This has been true of the Vandana Shiva thread as well as the liberalism/expertise thread. Unfortunately, in the latter case the rules of participation would almost exclude facts, etc. because the context is preeminently philosophical. When the discussion revolves around the individual versus society, etc., you are entering the vaporous realm of political philosophy. I would as soon argue against liberalism as I would against freedom or reason. On the other hand, when it comes to agriculture, I can demonstrate how the Green Revolution undermines the long-term goal of food production through the use of relevant facts on soil fertility, etc.
Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Michael Perelman wrote: >Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere? Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere? Doug
Re: Re: : liberalism
Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere? On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:25:03PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: > Justin Schwartz wrote: > > >Let us criticize by all means, and experiment, and learn. In an > >off-list discussion Jim D accused me of being "vague" and > >"ambiguous" about liberal democracy, which I am not, but my > >conception is very minimal, and compatible with many > >implementations. Including a workers' council or soviet > >realization--in my view a form of representative govt. It involves > >representatives, doesn't it? > > Again I'm mystified. For a guy who frequently reminds us that you > were trained in analytical philiosophy, you throw around concepts > like "intelligence," "markets," "liberal," and "democracy" rather > recklessly, devoid of any definition or context. Of what use is a > concept that includes the soviets of the revolutionary period and the > U.S. Senate today under the same classification? > > Doug > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: liberalism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28970] Re: RE: liberalism I wrote: >>It's important to remember that the New Deal also had lots of support for businesses, too.<< Justin: >Like I said, it saved c pitalism.< there's a difference: individual businesses often care about nothing but their own profit. It's only crises that encourage a more class-conscious approach. >>Further, the "progressive" -- or better, the democratic -- aspects of New Deal liberalism did NOT arise from "liberalism" as much as from mass struggles (the Veterans' march on Washington, the CIO & sit-downs, etc., etc.) and elite fears of revolution or uncomfortable reforms (fascism, communism). When pressure "from below" weakened (in the 1940s, especially in the 1950s), the New Deal liberals shifted to the right, abandoning "progressive" New Dealism.<< Justin:>How tediously undialectical of you. Everything liberal or involved with liberalism is Bad.< This seems to be a willful misunderstanding of what I said. Liberalism is clearly an improvement over feudal conservatism or clerical fascism or nazism (to name a few), so it's clearly not all "Bad." (Not being religious, I don't capitalize the word "bad.") Justin had written:>>>Political liberalism [on the other hand] is neutral on the best economic form. Its key idea is that freedom is a good, as is self-government.<<< me:>>Freedom is good? what kind of freedom? this word has many meanings and uses (and abuses).<< Justin: >Other thgings being equal, freedom is good.< what if the increased freedom of the working class reduces the freedom of the capitalists? >I follow theusual tripartite account, negative freedom (from from interference), positive freedom (freedom to X based on access to resources and skills), and Marxian/Hegelian real freedom (obedience to the law one gives to oneself, disalienation). The matter is complex,and I refer you tomy papers on exploitation...< but if freedom includes the Marxian "real" freedom, that goes against liberalism. >>How did Mill use this word?<< >Mostly in terms of negative freedom, but he was thinking of the freedom to engage in different forms of life andsay what you think, not tomake mucho pounds and pence.< I don't see how a predominantly negative definition of freedom matches with an advocacy of "market socialism." If Mill wanted to have workers controlling production, as you indicate below, how is he going to keep the capitalists from controlling production? it sounds as if their freedom will have to be violated. >>did he include freedom from hunger as part of "freedom"? freedom from capitalist exploitation?<< >Sort of, not somuch in On Liberty. He didn't use the category exploitation, but he recognized its content. [edited for readability]<< If he acknowledged the role of capitalist exploitation of labor, then he wasn't a liberal. >>Self-government? this means profound democracy to me, where we go beyond parliamentary democracy and the like to make sure that the majority really rules. That would also go beyond standard liberalism. or do you mean _individual_ self-government?<< >Both. I don't know how you go beyound parlaimentary democarcy to ensure that the majoritry really rules. PD [parliamentary democracy?] may not be sufficient for popular rule (n.b. unlike you I do NOT identify populat rule or democracy with majority rule), but it surely necessary for it.< I don't identify democracy with "majority rule." You forgot "minority rights." Unlike classical liberalism (Locke, _et al_) I don't see rights as being "natural." Rather, I know that people value them and will choose to allow them, if given a democratic chance. Marx's discussion of the Commune suggests some ways to make sure that the legislature is under popular control: limits on the incomes of the delegates, easy recall, subjection of more officials -- including administrators -- to democratic control. >>>Accordingly it favors a limited representative government with elected officials chosen by univeresal suffrage and hedged in by extensive civil and political liberties.<<< >>again, it's unclear what the content of these are. The official line in the US is that we have these already, but that depends on the definition of the key terms.<< >We do have them in substantial part. These are precious victories.< if you say so. They were victories _against_ liberalism in many cases. >>What about the socio-economic forces that prevent experiments in living? One reason why people can't set up worker-owned factories is that they lack the financial resources. They often end up dependent on one or
Re: Re: : liberalism
Of what use is a >concept that includes the soviets of the revolutionary period and the U.S. >Senate today under the same classification? > >Doug Well, they have this in common: they are both government institutions staffed by representatives who are elected by the people they are supposed to represent. You may think this is trivial, but the ptrinciple that govt officials ought to be accountable in this way was won in the course of 800 years of bloody struggle. It doesn't strike me as negligible. jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: RE: liberalism
> >It's important to remember that the New Deal also had lots of support for >businesses, too. Like I said, it saved c pitalism. > >Further, the "progressive" -- or better, the democratic -- aspects of New >Deal liberalism did NOT arise from "liberalism" as much as from mass >struggles (the Veterans' march on Washington, the CIO & sit-downs, etc., >etc.) and elite fears of revolution or uncomfortable reforms (fascism, >communism). When pressure "from below" weakened (in the 1940s, especially >in >the 1950s), the New Deal liberals shifted to the right, abandoning >"progressive" New Dealism. How tediously undialectical of you. Everything liberal or involved with liberalism is Bad. > > >Political liberalism [on the other hand] is neutral on the best economic >form. Its key idea is that freedom is a good, as is self-government.< > >Freedom is good? what kind of freedom? this word has many meanings and uses >(and abuses). Other thgings being equal, freedom is good. I follow theusual tripartite account, negativefreedom (from from interference), positive freedom (freedom to X based on access to resources and skills), and Marxian/Hegelian real freedom (obedience to the law one gives to oneself, disalienation)> The matter is complex,and I refer you tomy papers on exploitationw here the issuesa re discussed in detail. You, Jim, have these. >How did Mill use this word? Mostly in terms of negative freedom, but he was thinking of the freedom to engage in different forms of life andsay what you think, not tomake mucho pounds and pence. >did he include freedom from hunger as part of "freedom"? freedom from >capitalist exploitation? Sort of, not somuch in On Liberty. Hedidn't use the category exploitation, but herecognizedits content. >Self-government? this means profound democracy to me, where we go beyond >parliamentary democracy and the like to make sure that the majority really >rules. That would also go beyond standard liberalism. or do you mean >_individual_ self-government? Both. I don't know how you go beyound parlaimentary democarcy to ensure that the majoritry really rules. PD may not be sufficient for popular rule (n.b. unlike you I do NOT identify populat rule or democracyw ith majority rule), but it surely necessary for it. > > >Accordingly it favors a limited representative government with elected >officials chosen by univeresal suffrage and hedged in by extensive civil >and >political liberties.< > >again, it's unclear what the content of these are. The official line in the >US is that we have these already, but that depends on the definition of the >key terms. We do have them in substantial part. These are precious victories. > >so he would oppose the IMF, which uses its financial power to push the >secular religion of _laissez-faire_? Dunno. > >What about the socio-economic forces that prevent experiments in living? >One >reason why people can't set up worker-owned factories is that they lack the >financial resources. They often end up dependent on one or two people for >money -- and thus end up emulating capitalism -- or fall apart. I have a draft paper on Where Did Mill Go Wrong? About why cooperative ventures are not more prevelant.Mill expected taht theywould tend to crwod out capitalist firms. > >Was his "market socialism" similar to yours? Somewhat. He's a bit fuzzy on on the public ownership side. I've noticed that many people >equate "socialism" with "a bigger role for government," so that it's quite >possible that Mill would currently be termed a "New Deal Liberal" or some >such even though at the time it was called "socialism." No. Mill wanted worker ownership and control of production. > >(I'm no expert on Mill, as should be obvious. I also don't think quoting >authorities is a useful intellectual activity if one can present the >argument oneself.) > I never think for myself, personally.My mind is merely a collection of quottations. I forget who said this. > >The neutrality of governmental forms? having Congresscritters on the take >to >big corporations (raking in the campaign contributions) is something that >will persist when socialism comes? We'll still be ruled by creeps like Gray >Davis (the California governor)? There won't be big private corps. Probably socialist politicians will still be creeps. Sorry. > > >As I said before, almost everyone here--you too--favors representative >govt, univ. suffrage, extensive civil rights and liberties. In that sense >we >are all liberals.< > >if you define your terms vaguely, any statement is true. You still have not said what is vague about my definition. > >BTW, I think that one thing we should do is to choose a definition of >liberalism and stick to it (at least for this thread, since there are no >"true" definitions). I have. I've used to for years. I follow the historian of political thought, George >Sabine, who defines liberalism in utilitarianism, individualism, and the >independence of
Re: : liberalism
Justin Schwartz wrote: >Let us criticize by all means, and experiment, and learn. In an >off-list discussion Jim D accused me of being "vague" and >"ambiguous" about liberal democracy, which I am not, but my >conception is very minimal, and compatible with many >implementations. Including a workers' council or soviet >realization--in my view a form of representative govt. It involves >representatives, doesn't it? Again I'm mystified. For a guy who frequently reminds us that you were trained in analytical philiosophy, you throw around concepts like "intelligence," "markets," "liberal," and "democracy" rather recklessly, devoid of any definition or context. Of what use is a concept that includes the soviets of the revolutionary period and the U.S. Senate today under the same classification? Doug
Re: RE: liberalism
> "Devine, James" wrote: > > > Self-government? this means profound democracy to me I like the term "profound democracy" better than "direct democracy," which (both in its positive and its negative aspects) is tied to specific social structures of the past. For that reason also it contributes to an artificial binary, "direct democracy" vs "representative democracy," and implies that the future will merely be a reshuffling of elements already existing in past or present. The Soviets caught everyone by surprise -- and of course since then that surprise has been reduced to blandness by forcing them (at their various stages of growth and decline) into the straitjacket of "direct" versus "representative." The living thing was clearly neither; they were only embryonic of a form that failed to mature. And we will not know until their equivalent again catches us by surprise in some future period what if anything they were embryonic of. We need to continue to criticize _what is_, and be aware that only as that criticism turns into practice under given (and now unknown) conditions will we have more than an inkling of what might be the positive results of that criticism. Carrol
RE: Re: liberalism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28960] Re: liberalism I don't know of anyone in favor of _direct_ democracy. I thought people were arguing for delegatory democracy, in which delegates can be recalled easily, fewer government officials are immune to democratic control, and there are clear limits on the income of the officials. Also, the problem of the BOALs seems to have been with excessive decentralization (going too far in the liberal direction) rather than with excessive democracy (which would emphasize individual and group responsibility to the democratically-organized whole). I like the reference to real-world events. That's good for getting away from excessive abstraction. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: Paul Phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 11:15 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:28960] Re: liberalism > > > It is interesting to look at the Jugoslav experience with > representative vs direct democracy to show some light on this > question. Direct democracy was just not feasible at the commune, > republic or national level so the delegate system was used with > elections conducted using constitutencies from work communities, > local communities and political communities (at the local and > republic level, there were three houses, at the national level two). > Furthermore, more than one delegate was elected for each office > so that individuals could specialize. i.e. when issues of education > were to be discussed, the delegate who had a special interest in > education would attend; when health was discussed, a different > delegate might represent the community. Obviously, this was an > attempt to get as close to direct democracy as possible at these > levels. > In the last stage of socialist self-management, at the > enterprise > level, the firms were broken up into BOALs (Basic Organizations of > Associated Labour) approximating the departmental organization > where the works council represented direct democracy. Support > staff (e.g. clerical workers) formed work communities which were > organized like the BOALS but negotiated with the BOALS to sell > their collective administrative services to them. They also were > organized with works councils. Social service agencies (schools, > health organizations, etc.) had works councils composed both of > workers and consumers to practice direct democracy. > Unfortunately, the system had a surfeit of democracy and the > workers, in many cases, petitioned to do away with the Boals and > work communities in favour of enterprise works councils based on > the delegate system. The direct democracy system just proved > too onerous and ineffective a system of management. In fact, it > was so cumbersome that it allowed the communist party, which > had no official capacity, to gain control of the of both the > political > and the management system. > In short, the scope for direct democracy in a complex > industrial > society is, I suggest, more limited than some on this list would > suggest. > > Paul Phillips, > Economics > University of Manitoba > > > > On 31 Jul 02, at 16:32, Justin Schwartz wrote: > > > I have already responded noless dogmatically. I see no reason why > > representative govt is incompatible with public ownership > of productive > > assets, workers' control of production, or even central > planning. I can't > > even see the argument that it is not. Why the associated > producers cannot > > elect representatives to administer the public property is > hard grasp. > > Please explain, those who think this is a serious point. > Btw, theargument > > for represenattive ratherthan direct democarcy is that with > a large state > > that has a lot to administer, and a big population, and a > lot of rather > > technical rules and regulations to made and enforced, it is utterly > > impracticable to carry this out in a ny other way than a > representative one. > > If the worry is that the representatives will become a > special class > > arrogating privileges to themselves in an unjustified > manner, that is a > > problem. The solution is of course elections--democracy's > natural term > > limits. > > > > jks > > > > > > > > _ > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com >
RE: liberalism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28928] liberalism Justin:>>>These (Manchester and New Deal liberalisms) are economic liberalisms. I'm a political liberal, like Mill and Rawls.<<< me:>>please explain.<< Justin:>OK. Manchester liberalism is what we now call libertarianism, favoring a nightwatchman state and unfettered free markets with private property. New Deal liberalism saved capitalism by creating an admistrative state, lots of regulation, and social supports for the less well off under capitalism.< It's important to remember that the New Deal also had lots of support for businesses, too. (The NIRA was basically a pro-business plan which luckily had a pro-labor element.) Also, World War II helped "save capitalism" in the US, since the New Deal didn't pursue the Keynesian part of the New Deal liberal program except in a half-hearted way until the war. Of course, the anti-democratic Smith Act and the like also helped "save capitalism." Further, the "progressive" -- or better, the democratic -- aspects of New Deal liberalism did NOT arise from "liberalism" as much as from mass struggles (the Veterans' march on Washington, the CIO & sit-downs, etc., etc.) and elite fears of revolution or uncomfortable reforms (fascism, communism). When pressure "from below" weakened (in the 1940s, especially in the 1950s), the New Deal liberals shifted to the right, abandoning "progressive" New Dealism. >Political liberalism [on the other hand] is neutral on the best economic form. Its key idea is that freedom is a good, as is self-government.< Freedom is good? what kind of freedom? this word has many meanings and uses (and abuses). Usually, our fearless leaders use the word to refer to _laissez-faire_ (freedom for the wealth-owners). How did Mill use this word? did he include freedom from hunger as part of "freedom"? freedom from capitalist exploitation? If so, he went beyond the "negative" definition of freedom that characterizes actually-existing liberalism, except at the edges. from a different message I sent recently: I notice that often the _ambiguous_ nature of mental concepts ... can be quite important to society's _unity_. At a fourth of July celebration I went to recently, people on the stand (and tapes of Dubya) could speak of "freedom" and people of all walks of life could nod and say "yup" even though a worker's definition of "freedom" may be quite different from that of the capitalist. Self-government? this means profound democracy to me, where we go beyond parliamentary democracy and the like to make sure that the majority really rules. That would also go beyond standard liberalism. or do you mean _individual_ self-government? >Accordingly it favors a limited representative government with elected officials chosen by univeresal suffrage and hedged in by extensive civil and political liberties.< again, it's unclear what the content of these are. The official line in the US is that we have these already, but that depends on the definition of the key terms. >Its classic statement is Mill's On Liberty, a defense of people's rights to live without oppressive social legislation or social pressure that disfavors experiments in living (in Mill's case, living openly with his girlfiend, lover, and collaborator Harriet Taylor), imposes orthodox beliefs such as a state religion or adherence to some required secular doctrine, and the like.< so he would oppose the IMF, which uses its financial power to push the secular religion of _laissez-faire_? What about the socio-economic forces that prevent experiments in living? One reason why people can't set up worker-owned factories is that they lack the financial resources. They often end up dependent on one or two people for money -- and thus end up emulating capitalism -- or fall apart. >Political liberalism takes no position on the so-called economic liberties defended so aggressively by the Manchesterians; Mill was a market socialist, personally.< Was his "market socialism" similar to yours? I've noticed that many people equate "socialism" with "a bigger role for government," so that it's quite possible that Mill would currently be termed a "New Deal Liberal" or some such even though at the time it was called "socialism." (I'm no expert on Mill, as should be obvious. I also don't think quoting authorities is a useful intellectual activity if one can present the argument oneself.) ... I wrote: >In any event, the distinction between "political" and "economic" is bogus and seems inappropriate to a political economy discussion list.< JKS:>It's not that there's no distinction, just that it's rough and ready and context specific. Here it signifies the neutrality of liberal governmental forms among different (socialist and nonsocialist) economic arrangements.< The neutrality of governmental forms? having Congresscritters on the take to big corporations (raking in the campaign contributions) is something that will persist when socialism comes? We'll still be rule
Re: liberalism
It is interesting to look at the Jugoslav experience with representative vs direct democracy to show some light on this question. Direct democracy was just not feasible at the commune, republic or national level so the delegate system was used with elections conducted using constitutencies from work communities, local communities and political communities (at the local and republic level, there were three houses, at the national level two). Furthermore, more than one delegate was elected for each office so that individuals could specialize. i.e. when issues of education were to be discussed, the delegate who had a special interest in education would attend; when health was discussed, a different delegate might represent the community. Obviously, this was an attempt to get as close to direct democracy as possible at these levels. In the last stage of socialist self-management, at the enterprise level, the firms were broken up into BOALs (Basic Organizations of Associated Labour) approximating the departmental organization where the works council represented direct democracy. Support staff (e.g. clerical workers) formed work communities which were organized like the BOALS but negotiated with the BOALS to sell their collective administrative services to them. They also were organized with works councils. Social service agencies (schools, health organizations, etc.) had works councils composed both of workers and consumers to practice direct democracy. Unfortunately, the system had a surfeit of democracy and the workers, in many cases, petitioned to do away with the Boals and work communities in favour of enterprise works councils based on the delegate system. The direct democracy system just proved too onerous and ineffective a system of management. In fact, it was so cumbersome that it allowed the communist party, which had no official capacity, to gain control of the of both the political and the management system. In short, the scope for direct democracy in a complex industrial society is, I suggest, more limited than some on this list would suggest. Paul Phillips, Economics University of Manitoba On 31 Jul 02, at 16:32, Justin Schwartz wrote: > I have already responded noless dogmatically. I see no reason why > representative govt is incompatible with public ownership of productive > assets, workers' control of production, or even central planning. I can't > even see the argument that it is not. Why the associated producers cannot > elect representatives to administer the public property is hard grasp. > Please explain, those who think this is a serious point. Btw, theargument > for represenattive ratherthan direct democarcy is that with a large state > that has a lot to administer, and a big population, and a lot of rather > technical rules and regulations to made and enforced, it is utterly > impracticable to carry this out in a ny other way than a representative one. > If the worry is that the representatives will become a special class > arrogating privileges to themselves in an unjustified manner, that is a > problem. The solution is of course elections--democracy's natural term > limits. > > jks > > > > _ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com >
Re: liberalism
Justin Schwartz wrote: > > > > > > > I have already responded noless dogmatically. "No Sir, I am not dogmatic, I am deliberate." Samuel Johnson :-) Carrol
Re: RE: Re: Re: liberalism
> > >As I said, almost everyone. jks > >Almost everyone is right; as far as I can tell, yer man Posner is not in >favour of representative government or of "extensive civil rights and >liberties" in as much as these can't be derived from property rights. That's unfair to Posner. His notion of what a desirable set of rights would be is less expansive than ours, but P is well within the range of responsible non-authoritarian conservatism that counts as supporters of a variant of liberalism. He has a new book on democracy in manuscript that he gave me. Some of hsi views are set forth in his book on Bush v. Gore, if you want to see what they are. >What's your argument against his utopia of a small system of autarchic >medieval Icelandic households living without any laws and arbitrating their >disputes privately? Just because he discusses this, reviewing Miller's book, doesn't mean it's his utopia. In fact he notes that the system fell apartw ith increasing inequality of the sort that he favors. I only ask because this particular version of >libertarian society seems quite close to the aspirations of some of the >Left. Yes. jks > _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: Re: Re: liberalism
>As I said, almost everyone. jks Almost everyone is right; as far as I can tell, yer man Posner is not in favour of representative government or of "extensive civil rights and liberties" in as much as these can't be derived from property rights. What's your argument against his utopia of a small system of autarchic medieval Icelandic households living without any laws and arbitrating their disputes privately? I only ask because this particular version of libertarian society seems quite close to the aspirations of some of the Left. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and is for the attention of the named recipient only. It should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. Cazenove & Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the London Stock Exchange. Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. ___
RE: Re: Re: liberalism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28943] Re: Re: liberalism >>Justin Schwartz wrote: >>> As I said before, almost everyone here--you too--favors > > > univ. suffrage --- Yes [Carrol's response] > > > extensive civil rights and liberties Yes [ditto] > > > representative govt - NO [ditto] Carrol continues: > >This form of democracy has never produced democracy -- and it never > >will. > >It's replacement will have to be worked out in practice -- not from a > >blueprint I or anyone else can provide at this time. > >Representative Government can only be a dictatorship of the Capitalist > >Class. > As I said, almost everyone. jks so you're not going to respond to Carrol's critique? it has been one thread of the Marxian tradition for a long time (though not part of the Stalinist or social-democratic traditions and the like) to want to get rid of representative government, to replace it with more profound democracy. What is your response, Justin? JD
Re: Re: liberalism
> > >Justin Schwartz wrote: > > > > >> > > As I said before, almost everyone here--you too--favors > > > univ. suffrage --- Yes > > > extensive civil rights and liberties Yes > > > representative govt - NO > >This form of democracy has never produced democracy -- and it never >will. > >It's replacement will have to be worked out in practice -- not from a >blueprint I or anyone else can provide at this time. > >Representative Government can only be a dictatorship of the Capitalist >Class. > As I said, almost everyone. jks _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: liberalism
Justin Schwartz wrote: > > >> > As I said before, almost everyone here--you too--favors > univ. suffrage --- Yes > extensive civil rights and liberties Yes > representative govt - NO This form of democracy has never produced democracy -- and it never will. It's replacement will have to be worked out in practice -- not from a blueprint I or anyone else can provide at this time. Representative Government can only be a dictatorship of the Capitalist Class. Carrol In that sense we are > all liberals. > > jks > > jks > > _ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
