A History of liberalism

Published on October 16, 2005 By Champas Socialist In Politics

Liberal philosophy is based on the assumption of the free, autonomous individual. Adam Smith helped give rise to the French ideal of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite and developed an economic theory (liberalised capitalism) based around this youthful ideal as it was then. It was thought that by abolishing the enforced, legalised markers of class distinctions (like royalty, servants) that were present under feudalism that this would allow people to become free, to act as they want. It was as though this would suddenly bring about equality. Liberty was assumed to lead to equality. Equality was assumed to lead to a brotherhood of man (fraternity).

A few hundred years of capitalism has shown a quite different reality. Less than 1% of the population achieves any sort of social mobility (meaning “rising up” to a higher class). Removing an enforced hierarchy (one where you were officially born into a class in which you would stay) has done little to remove many other barriers to social mobility.

The capitalist system values certain very specific practices. You are rewarded for very specific abilities, skills and knowledge under the capitalist system. Changing from feudalism to capitalism did not change the society’s ideas of what sorts of jobs or knowledge were worth more. The concept of liberalism was not to value the work and knowledge of the lower classes much more highly. It was to allow the people born into the lower classes to take on the values of the upper classes and to adhere to them. This continues to this day. Although each generation marginally changes the values of the society, as has happened throughout history in every society, the basic concepts of high art and high literature are still dominant. We value more highly the ability to talk about certain topics than others (eg. Politics more than sport). This is an arbitrary decision made by the people who were in power several centuries ago.

This power also extends to language. Mass schooling has perpetuated standardised languages, where the ruling class’ grammar and dialect is promoted as the “correct” way to speak a language. In some countries this has meant the domination of one language over another (ie. In countries where one culture has colonised another), in other places it has meant the domination of one dialect over another. In Australia, we assume that it is “incorrect” to use the second person plural form “yous” (often spelt “youse”). There is no real reason for this arbitrary decision apart from it having been a form used by lower classes rather than upper classes. Many languages use a second person plural form, and indeed, from a pragmatic point of view it makes sense to denote a difference between second person plural and second person singular. However, one form is considered “incorrect” and will mark you as being a certain type of person. In many instances it may be even seen as a mark of intellect.

The practices and values of the lower classes are generally denigrated and dismissed as invalid. There is no objective reason why meat pies are worse than filet mignon. There is no objective reason why Britney Spears is worse than Frank Sinatra. Millions of people enjoy Britney. She reflects certain values. She sings about certain cultural practices that are very important and real to many people. The arbitrariness of such distinctions is never more obvious than in the changing of cultural norms over time. Once upon a time, jazz was the music of the devil. Rock and roll also took this label at one stage. Yet gradually, rock n roll permeated throughout mainstream society and now, civilised, elderly citizens can be seen rocking along to syncopated beats and unmelodic cacophony. Gradually, people got off their high horses and started enjoying the music they wanted to. The same doesn’t generally happen with food. Certain food practices are seen as markers of certain levels of class and distinction.

There is an ad at the moment where “yobbos” are seen in a car, eating a meat pie with ketchup, looking in at chardonnay sippers in a café. In Australia, the meat pie is seen as typical football yob, uncivilised food. The yobbos make a comment about being glad they don’t have to be in the café sipping chardonnay: the poor buggers. It’s a funny ad, but on the serious side, it highlights class values. The idea that the working class would take pride in their practices is seen as comical. The working class is not expected to see their own values as being better. Yet from their own subjective perspective, this may well be the case.

But to return the topic of liberalism, there has been a shift in the past century as to the concept of liberalism. People previously described as liberals are now described as conservatives (and in many cases, vice versa). The reason for this is that, as I said, time has shown that the idealism upon which our liberal capitalism was based has not proven to be the reality of the situation. As people have found that class remains fairly constant under liberalism, there have been widely varied attempts to come up with new theories to address this inequality. The most famous attempt was Marx’s model of communism. However, all attempts at communism to date have been marred by the same youthful idealism that was never realised in practice for liberal capitalism. Inequality was still strongly present in the models of Communism tried in parts of Eurasia and Central America. The flaw lay in the fact that it fell into the same trap as liberalism. Communism tried to be more liberal than the liberals. It recognised the inequality of capitalism and tried to remove this inequality by allowing everyone to do the same work. As The Simpsons put it, they pretended everyone was equal when they weren’t really. It supposedly made everyone equal. It didn’t work for similar reasons to why capitalism didn’t work. Marx’s notions of class were simplistic, and so this over-liberalisation allowed despotic leaders to take advantage of the lower classes.

Postmodernism has taken a more philosophical approach (although of course Smith himself was a philosopher who believed that by encouraging individual betterment, people would somehow accidentally help their society, a premise that has been attacked vehemently ever since it was published). Up to here, I’ve been sort of putting my understanding of some elements of Bourdieu into my own words. However, postmodernists have not generally suggested any remedies to the inequalities they identify. Postmodernists do not necessarily oppose capitalism. Although postmodernism is usually portrayed as an exclusively leftist set of theories, it can be used for as broad a set of perspectives as modernism has. Modernism, as advocated by Descartes (the “I think therefore I am” guy) was considered pretty leftist and controversial when Meditations came out. The church hated Descartes and his focus on reason. Smith’s liberal capitalism was later based on very similar ideasto the ones that Descartes advocated. By Smith’s time, modernism had become the social norm of Western society, having persisted and survived a moral panic. It then saw a wide variety of views being taken on, using the same philosophical framework. You can use logic philosophy to justify anything from Christian Right values to Republican/Liberal Party values to the Right’s Libertarian values to Labor Party/US Democrats values to the Greens. Equally, postmodernism at its extreme can be used to advocate anarchy or it can be used to advocate a Westernised, racially exclusive society.

For instance, although capitalism maintains inequality, it may not be possible, or even ideal for this to be avoided. Every single culture, be it based on liberal capitalism, communism, tribalism, socialism, or fascism etc. only values a limited set of practices. Postmodernists argue that we are forced to adhere to certain social constructions. We (postmodernists) argue that people are forced to perform certain limited norms which are socially constructed. Every culture is based on a wide range of norms, values and rules. There are certain advantages and disadvantages to this in that people know what they are supposed to do, and thus might suffer less confusion as long as they can feel comfortable enacting the norms available to them.

To advocate a complete abandonment of cultural values would have to be either extremely organised, or anarchic. So a postmodernist may acknowledge the inequality of capitalism, yet acknowledge that financial success is not the only marker of a good life.

I think we should acknowledge that capitalism is not nearly as liberal as it was thought it was going to be, but that this is not necessarily absolutely important. As I told in my story about the happy homeless people Link, there is more to life than overcoming financial inequality. What we should be focussed on is not a discourse of deficiency, where we are constantly trying to “help those less fortunate than us” to become more like us. We must stop so arrogantly assuming that our values are the best. We should acknowledge that many other people’s values are equally valid and we should try to value those differences. I don’t mean value them financially, but give validity to them. This is a much harder social change to achieve than the changes achieved by the Left in the 60s and 70s. We aren’t talking about convincing just the Government to change their ideas, but the entire population to change the way they talk about things during their everyday lives. We must stop denigrating each other’s values and practices. (To this end, Leftist “political correctness” has been a fairly populist bastardisation of postmodernism).

We have to learn to accept a certain level of inequality. Schools will continue to perpetuate the class distinctions that have been present for centuries. Our financial system will continue to value certain practices over others. This does not mean that other models of economic management will achieve a change. Nor should it be necessarily what we strive towards. The Australian Aborigines were quite happy before Europeans arrived, yet many on both sides of politics still want to “help” the Aborigines become more like us. It may be well-meaning, but it is often simplistic. I don’t mean we should accept the poverty of South Africa or the genocide of the Sudan. However, having a brick house with a bathroom mirror is not the only way to be happy.

Comments (Page 1)

Champas Socialist

on Oct 16, 2005

This is a short history of course, and I think I may have dealt very quicly with my reasons for why Communism didn't work. To put it succinctly, the over-liberalisation was too open to being manipulated by corrupt leaders. That and Communism is supposed to be about choice, and therefore, you have to have the majority of the population in favour of it for reasons other than "They'll shoot me otherwise).

I also dealt very quicly with my criticisms of Smith's underpinning philosophical views. The cult of the individual has led to a destruction of the social fabric, a point which Smith never took into account in his understanding of human nature. I don't believe people should have to care about others in a detached way. The fact that we care about others is important and this instinct is there to ensure that we do things for others. Capitalism as it stands now destroys that desire.However, I would simply advocate that capitalism should be made fairer to take advantage of this side of human nature.

bakerstreet

on Oct 16, 2005

When I read your articles, I realize about halfway through that I couldn't possibly debate this with you. You have totally different perceptions of the world. All this classism is cliche', not reality. Sure, there maybe be extreme examples of high-brow wine sippers and "yabbos", but in reality they are about as relavant as the furthest extremes of Left and Right.

Another good example to add to your list is Paris Hilton. If you go by your classist definitions, she'd be a Shiraz sipper. In reality, though, the globe goes all the way around and begins again. Most "sippers" are useless dependants just like any welfare leech. They just get their checks from different places. We don't respect them, they are just a different flavor of Jerry Springer freak. You can't class them the same as you class, say, a hard-working industrialist millionaire. Sociologically they will behave, AND BE PERCEIVED, in totally different ways.

If I had any advice, it would be to stop looking at things with these cemented classes. Pull out all the little divisions you have in your philosophy, mix everyone up, and let them settle where they may. I think you'll be surprised to find the pool offers you different striations based on different issues. Factor in, say, waste, or charitable contribution, moral imposition, etc., you might find the lines marking the classes shift.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 16, 2005

The ad certainly presents a clichéd stereotype, but this does not challenge my point about how people come to their economic fortune. However, yes I have noticed before that it is hard for you and I to debate because we have very different philosophical understandings of the world.

bakerstreet

on Oct 17, 2005

No, frankly I was talking about YOUR cliched idea of classes. For instance:

"It was to allow the people born into the lower classes to take on the values of the upper classes and to adhere to them. This continues to this day. Although each generation marginally changes the values of the society, as has happened throughout history in every society, the basic concepts of high art and high literature are still dominant. We value more highly the ability to talk about certain topics than others (eg. Politics more than sport). This is an arbitrary decision made by the people who were in power several centuries ago. "

That simply doesn't work out. Watch much reality TV? I've seen ultra-ignorant, totally bereft of culture people who will never have to work a day their entire life. Read many interviews with wealthy people? Sorry, but the "high art and literature" thing is laughable. Your idea of classes seems to be derived from "The Beverly Hillbillies" or some such nonsense.

Like I say, you're blinded by your assumptions. I know people steeped in "high art and literature" that you would immediately assume to be a "yabbo" if you passed them on the street. I have known millionaires through my Dad's work in mineral leasing that you would SWEAR were food-stamp reliant morons if you spoke with them on the phone. Guess what, they had plenty in common with the guys that also belonged to their local club.

Somehow, I doubt that Australia is any different.

For instance, I know a guy here who is a purchasing manager for a local business. The owner is a multi-millionaire who just bought a sports team. He gives my friend tickets to come to his box frequently, and my friend hates it. The behavior and "taste" there is far beneath him. What he finds among people who can afford to hobnob there is nothing like you describe. Frankly, his boss is dead-on the level of someone in the lower middle class. In speech, in taste, in behavior, you'd never know he was worth more than his next paycheck.

I think your philosophy is based on staid, cemented ideas of kinds of people, images that have hung there so long they are dusty. I know poor and rich who behave completely reverse to what you are describing. My experience can't be so odd.

From an economic "yabbo" that behaves like your shiraz sipping snobs, I urge you to re-evaluate. I know people who make ten times what we do that I would turn my nose up at given the chance for a conversation that required taste or knowledge.

bakerstreet

on Oct 17, 2005

I'd add that the man who owns the business I mention above is a really, really nice person. He's just, well, a very wealthy man with the taste and culture of your average college football player. Somtimes such leisure guarentees you don't HAVE to attain any culture or taste. Economic classes mean *zilch* in terms of these characteristics in my experience.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 17, 2005

BS, the politics VS sport thing is an example. I was alluding to things like reality TV when I mentioned that... "each generation marginally changes the values of the society". I could expand on the example further, I suppose.

Certainly many wealthy people are only able to talk about certain topics in very yobbo ways. And many working class people are very intellectual. I don't deny this at all. You misrepresent/misunderstand me (for which I take a share of the responsibility). However this does not change as I said the way that people come to their economic fortune.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 17, 2005

It is all very well that you know a bunch of uncouth rich people. But their knowledge about sport and the way they talk about sport or whatever they are discussing there is not how they made their money.

Examples like Paris Hilton are a bit different. There we are talking about celebrity and no one would claim they got there through hard work.

bakerstreet

on Oct 17, 2005

"However this does not change as I said the way that people come to their economic fortune."

Perhaps I'm just too much of a meat-pie eating Yabbo, but the point you seem to be making above is that culture and social norms are the "key" to the mobility you are speaking of. That in capitalistic and other societies we lock the gate to upward mobility based upon these values.

If those values are non-existant, then I would assert that the gates you are pretending to describe are also non-existant. Your 1% factor is silly, frankly in any first world country. Such implies that if 100 kids are born poor, only one of them in the course of their lives will travel up the social ladder?

Explain, then, why the number of poor in most nations stays relatively constant. In the US, where they poor tend to have MORE children than the ultra wealthy, we should be seeing exponential "Yabbo" growth every generation if only one out of every 100 kids find their way out eventually.

It simply isn't true. Perhaps in third world nations where they are blocked by geography or physical access to such mobility, but then that isn't "cultural", is it? These social signals exist to a point, but there are far too many of the wealthy, both nouveau-riche and old-money that simply don't have them.

I find it difficult to understand how you can keep asserting the point when I can sit with personal experience knowing that each example you use is totally false. Listen to Donald Trump talk sometime. Listen to interviews with media or tech moguls.

You are basing your theory here on textbook class definitions that simply haven't existed for several generations. The cultured landed gentry and the ignorant poor are cliches that belong to different eras.

bakerstreet

on Oct 17, 2005

" It is all very well that you know a bunch of uncouth rich people. But their knowledge about sport and the way they talk about sport or whatever they are discussing there is not how they made their money. "

On the contrary, according to your model, these people would only have a 1/100 dice roll, and then the gatekeepers would be looking for telltale signs of yabboism. You are referring to people who DIDN'T get their money through hard work when you talk about the lapdogs of society who "make it" by the way they act or speak. That is a marginalized minority of the upper classes in most first world nations.

THis would be a great point if we were drunk nihilists in some Russian early 20th century novel. These definitions might have worked then. I think you are trying to make modern points on archaic definitions of class and how those classes got where they are.

"Examples like Paris Hilton are a bit different. There we are talking about celebrity and no one would claim they got there through hard work."

Paris Hilton was "there" long before she was a celebrity. As one of the gatekeepers of the upper classes, she'd be totally unable to judge what is refined or cultured, since she is completely counter to any such value.

Maybe you are talking about "society" or what kind of party or clubs you can get into. In terms of economics, though, it is of little merit.

bakerstreet

on Oct 17, 2005

Honestly, maybe you should consider the difference between "wealthy" and "social elite" in terms of your theory.

In terms of the closed social circles, it's *possibly* true. WHo marries who, who gets into the formal occasions of mayflower families, who gets into the society pages of the NYT, etc. That isn't economics, and frankly it doesn't effect the economic classes much at all.

If you are talking about the ability to rise to the upper economic levels of first world nations, I don't think these cultural tastes mean all that much. That, to me, is a credit to capitalism. People will deal with the people who make them money, uncouth though they may be.

Furry Canary

on Oct 17, 2005

What on earth is a 'yabbo'?

Chakgogka

on Oct 17, 2005

Reading your very interesting article and Baker's replies I've come to the conclusion that what you're describing isn't really liberalism, or capitalism or even 'post-modernism', but the current state of the British class system whose values, give or take a bit of outback blokeishness, seem to also hold sway 'down under'.

The one thing I have to take most exception to is the assertion that only "1%" of people in advanced capitalist nations achieve any kind of social mobility. The fact is social mobility is something that was largely unheard of in most societies at most times in human history. Capitalism has created huge potential for social mobility (and you should have mentioned movement downwards as well as up). If the majority of people still die in the socio-economic position in which they were born, then the large minority that don't are still a significant social force. Whether or not things like the 'American Dream' (for example) are truly realisable, the fact that the dream exists at all is a huge change in human social organisation.

There is, however, an extra dynamic at work here. In the early days of the capitalist revolution, the aspiration of many bourgeois was to acquire the taste and culture of their aristocratic 'betters'; that was the nature of social mobility at the time. Today there is no imperative to acquire this kind of culture in order to have 'made it' - the culture in general has become more demotic (see my comments on 'high art' below).

the basic concepts of high art and high literature are still dominant.

In what way dominant? Certainly a great deal of prestige accrues to these things, but look, for example, at music (my own special interest). In terms of intellectual prestige, what could be more 'worthy' than a contemporary avant-garde classical composer creating challenging new works of sonic art - and yet those who do so, unless they enjoy university tenure or are one of the tiny handful of others who manage to make a living from it, are nowhere near as culturally 'dominant' as a multi-millionaire rock or pop star whose name is known to millions and whose picture graces a hundred thousand adolescent bedroom walls.

Capitalism has 'democratised' art beyond the wildest expectations of earlier ages, simply because culture, through the growth of technology, is currently commodified as products within the financial reach of almost everybody: CDs, DVDs, movie tickets, mass-produced posters, paperback books. In fact, so powerful is the market sway of popular culture that 'high art' is barely holding on by its fingertips. Even the purveyors of 'high art' are desperately trying to appropriate the glamour, financial success and sheer hip-ness of modern mass culture. Many forms of 'high art' (I immediately think of opera) only survive at all because tax payers who have no interest in it are nevertheless forced to subsidise it. In that respect baker is right - you're really talking about a bygone age.

Thanks for a really interesting article. I obviously don't agree with everything you've said, but it did make me stop and think.

Leauki

on Oct 17, 2005

Explain, then, why the number of poor in most nations stays relatively constant. In the US, where they poor tend to have MORE children than the ultra wealthy, we should be seeing exponential "Yabbo" growth every generation if only one out of every 100 kids find their way out eventually.

Very, very good point indeed.

Dr Guy

on Oct 17, 2005

While the numbers may stay the same, the people do not. Most of what one would consider poor, are people just starting out in their careers. Due to high debt burdens and low income, they are poor. But they quickly move out of the poor (to be replaced by more new workers) and into the middle income group.

The analogy of the numbers is akin to saying since the unemployment rate stays about he same most of the time, the same people must be the ones that are always unemployed. And that is clearly not the case for anyone bothering to look into the numbers instead of at them.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 18, 2005

I agree Furry. Chak, yes my portrait of "postmodernism" may be somehwat biased I admit, and anyone truly interested should read Bourdieu for themselves as he is far more eloquent.

You are still more likely to get a job for having an in-depth knowledge of the history of politics than for having an in-depth knowledge of the history of sport.
You are more likely to get a job for having the ability to translate French into English than for having the ability to translate Kanaky into Yuggera.
You are more likely to get high pay for pushing paper than for cleaning toilets.

Democratised or not, even some of the strongest proponents of democracy have pointed out that it is basically dictatorship by the majority. That's fine, but at least acknowledge what it is. Some cultural practices are valued and others are not. This limits us, even if the limits are placed on us more democratically and hopefully fairly.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!