Democracy Vs Capitalism

I could just as easily say, why not earlier? Capitalism was around long before the Enlightenment.

You have a point. But at the same time, Capitalism does not mean Freedom necessarily. You said it yourself really, levels of freedom can depend on the society. In a feudalism or mercantilism people still had the freedom to use their ingenuity to their own advantage.

 

Without going through each one ( I would have to look 'em up, I concede) I'll bet that all of those are, or were, rather more planned than you think they are.

 

I disagree with the claim that Liberalism and capitalism were not intertwined. Liberalism, for the most part, is an ideology attempting to justify capitalism.

Edit: "Without going through each one ( I would have to look 'em up, I concede) I'll bet that all of those are, or were, rather more planned than you think they are."

Singapore is known as one of the most economically free states in the world.

 

Liberalism is just the idea of emphasizing civil liberty. If Liberalism and Capitalism were so intertwined then how come we have Liberal Marxism.

 

Yes. And this isn't an area where I have any expertise, so I can only give my impressions (you guys probably know more about this). My thought would be, though, that in feudalism and mercantilism, mobility is much more restricted. People had to use ingenuity to their advantage, but there was not much of a reasonable opportunity to rise above one's station. In a capitalistic society, in theory that mobility is there for anyone who is able to lift herself up by her own hard work and ingenuity, and once the potential for mobility is opened up across classes (or even the perception of that potential) then people start clamoring for things like freedom and rights they need to help make it a reality.

 

Yeah. I can see that. I don't think it's a necessarily due to capitalism though. Liberal or Social revolutions could have easily came under an expanding middle class in the two other systems I mentioned. It would just take a little longer.

 

With all due respect, you are quite incorrect, and if you look at the historical record you will see why. Marx wrote in opposition to the Liberal philosophers of his time. Marxism isn't simply opposed to the idea of the individual in terms of its organization - Marxism is opposed to the Liberal conception of the independent individual. Marxism is also opposed to moralism, which marks it as non-:iberal.

There are strands of Liberal thought that fall squarely on the left (Libertarian Socialism, for instance), but Marxism is inherently anti-Liberal.

 

I disagree, Marx was writing against capitalism and for proletariat revolutions. Revolutions that would empower the people, as a natural result of a materialistic view of history. Marxism is not an entry to totalitarianism as it has been used for, but for a society based on production and labor, and equality. I don't see how this goes against Liberalism. Especially when modern day Marxists like Terry Eagleton have promoted a more liberal form of Marxism.

Marx criticized many Liberals in his time. But I never got the impression he was against Liberalism when I read him.

But anyway, this is getting off topic.

 

It is barely meaningful, frankly, to speak of capitalism as existing prior to the industrial revolution. Few scholars do so. A handful of trading boats sallying about the oceans did nothing to disturb the economic (and political) reality that land ownership was absolutely the key to power.

I agree that liberalism defends the idea that folk should do as they wish, should use their labour and talents as they wish and so on. Would be obtuse to think otherwise.

 

I disagree. Capitalism was around and strong many years before the Enlightenment. Daniel Defoe's novel Moll Flanders is a good representation of late Mercantilism and early Capitalism.

 

Your problem is that you have misunderstood what liberalism means - you take it to mean anti-authoritarian. This is incorrect; an anti-liberal is not necessarily authoritarian and an anti-authoritarian is not necessarily liberal.

I feel rude "pulling rank" like this, but really, this sort of thing is not up for debate. Talk to any Marxist (an actual Marxist, not some college hipster who just read the Communist Manifesto) and they will explain to you that they are not liberal, that their ideology is in stark opposition to liberalism. Trust me, Terry Eagleton would never label himself a liberal.

For the record I am not a Marxist.

 

I consider this rude, to be honest. I don't think Liberalism is anti-authoritarian at all and I resent the implication that I do. I consider myself a Liberal - I'd be a fool to say I'm something and not understand it.

Marxism is against a Liberal Democracy. Not Liberalism itself. Terry Eagleton wrote in The English Novel, chapter 1 on Daniel Defoe:

'moral values are simply the reflexes of material conditions. The rich are just those fortunate enough not to have to steal. Morality is for those who can afford it.'

Vicariously, this can be a representation of Eagleton's views on Liberalism as an idea. Liberalism is not a morality, it is more of an empowering of people through ideas like equality. He obviously sees nothing Liberal in this attack on Capitalist morality since Liberalism is free from economic considerations. Still, I don't see much of a conflict between Marxism and Liberalism.

But regardless. This is getting off topic.

 

How can you believe that the essence of liberalism is "just the idea of emphasizing civil liberty" without believing it is anti-authoritarian?

I don't understand how you can deduce what you've deduced from Eagleton's statement. Liberalism rests in a moral belief in the supremacy of the individual - Eagleton is saying that that belief is ridiculous (again, in his view - I am not promoting any of these views).

Liberalism also isn't egalitarian, at least not by definition.

Seriously, read any work of Slavoj Zizek (whom Eagleton is a big fan of). You will understand then the antipathy between Liberalism and Marxism.

 

Easily, but this thread isn't the place so I will just say this; to me it isn't so Black and White as pro or anti authoritarian.

Not the supremacy of an individual, but a promotion of the individual through free and fair elections, human rights, free trade, and the freedom of religion. Not that different in practice from the promotion of the proletariat struggle.

I don't understand how you can say that just because someone is a fan of someone else they must necessarily agree with them on every issue. For instance I like the scientific work of Richard Dawkins and I consider myself a fan, but on his actions as a spokesman for Atheism I find him assuming and arrogant. In politics it's called a Wedge Issue.

But anyway. This is going really off topic, so let us stop.

 

I don't see how this is going offtopic - this thread is about the relationship between liberal democracy and capitalism; the relationship between liberal democracy and socialism is quite obviously relevant.

Marxists (for the most part - there have historically been some Marxist parties who have gone against this) do not believe in gaining power through liberal elections - they believe in revolutionary mass action. Marxists do not believe in free trade. Marxists do not believe in freedom of religion (though Marx was more sympathetic to religion than is normally believed).

There are other socialist traditions that might believe in some of these things, but they aren't Marxist.

I never meant to imply that; however, I find it very unlikely that Eagleton would disagree with Zizek that Marxism is anti-liberal. Really, the only reason I continue pressing this argument is because the idea that Marxism and liberalism are incompatible is uncontroversial among people with a working knowledge of Marxism. Can Marxism be non-murderous? Maybe. But it most certainly cannot be liberal; that's like a Satanist being a Christian.

 

I'm well aware of this. That's why I wrote 'Not that different in practice from the promotion of the proletariat struggle'. Marxism's end is about an empowerment of the work force, and the formation of an international workers movement. Liberalism can be seen to work toward a similar goal with it's empowerment of people through rights and liberty rather than the idea of a workers paradise.

Since we don't actually have Terry with us to personally ask we may as well debate his opinion on abortion. I can't find much of Terry's opinions on Liberalism in my collection of him to be honest.

I disagree. I've studied Marxist Theory last year as part of my degree. Not to be rude, but I must have a decent understanding of Marxism since I passed that module with a 2:1.

 

Well, sure, in the same sense that every political movement is fundamentally similar in that it is a political movement.

The fact that Terry is a self-identified Marxist, and also scholarly enough to understand what Marxism entails, is sufficient to infer that he is not a Liberal.

Honestly I find this bizarre.

 

You've clearly not understood what I've wrote. This isn't what I was saying at all.

Honestly. I find this rude.

Marxists like to insult each other by calling 'Liberal' because they imagine this means 'bourgeois', and 'counter-revolutionary'. Traditionally, Liberals value the supremacy of the individual vis-à-vis the State. Theory-wise this is not really very different from the 'abolition of the State'

 

This is beginning to generate more heat than light.