The Anti-Democratic Nature of Liberalism

[redsquirrel]

So I’ve been meaning to do a thread on this for a while. It’s no great insight that liberalism is anti-democratic, but it with the recent rash of liberal anti-democracy comments that recent events have provoked I think it’s worth starting a thread looking both at the background of liberalism opposition to democracy and what forms it will take in the future.

From it’s initial restriction of the franchise to the right type of people

no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom

to it's more recent tactic of the imposition of forms of technocracy, such as the creation of central banks.

The recent wailings of liberals about the masses in the light of the referendum and other recent political events are nothing new as such but I think the degree of such views around at present is worth thinking about.

One example is this piece, where the author uses the old liberal argument that democracy is nothing so crude as people actually having control but rather

Western democracy is built around a tripartite trust: trust in the people to hold government to account and to set the general direction of policy, but also trust in politicians to make specific decisions, and in institutions to provide safeguards against rash or tyrannical actions. What we are seeing all over the western world are the last two pillars being torn down, leaving all trust resting on the people.

Now this piece is terrible, but it is interesting (to me anyway) that this type of crap seems to be increasingly common. Also interesting that Plato and Aristotle, rather than say Hobbes, are quoted in attacking democracy. Not only did both support authoritarian political systems but they start from a undemocratic ethic, that some people are greater than others. Also interesting is this crap

Populism is generally defined as a mode of politics in which the will of the people is seen as clear, virtuous and homogeneous. Populist politicians simply promise to do what this will commands, ignoring or denying the fact there are different, competing interests in society, not just those of the majority. Populists do not try to square the simple desires of the electorate with the complex realities of society but pretend that what seems simple is simple and that anyone who says otherwise belongs to an obfuscating elite looking for excuses to defend its own interests.

in light of a great piece butchers posted on another thread

It is this: populism is not a self-definition. No one defines themselves as populist; it is an epithet pinned on you by your political enemies. In its most brutal form, ‘populist’ is simply an insult; in a more cultivated form, a term of disparagement.

So reading recommendations on this, other recent examples of liberalism attacks of democracy have people seen, how people think this opposition will play out in the near future?

ETA: Good example of the above in this piece by the progressive pet economist Blanchflower

 

[DotCommunist]

can't link to them as I cannot remember which fine journals published the phrase but we have had the (meant negativly) 'rule by plebscite' line trotted out at least twice.

 

[Pickman's model]

Which will be reduced to rule by plebs

 

[redsquirrel]

Incidentally, just re-reading the Technocracy thread from 2011 and came across this post of Random's

They've already prepared the ground for themselves with their theories about the cultural maxist multicultural state. They'll be able to paint a EU that's not only not democratic, but also enforcing cultural genocide against [insert ethnic group]. And the left and liberals will fall into thet rap of defending the EU, as a bulwark against xenophobia, etc.

Bang on the money.

 

[hipipol]

"liberalism opposition to democracy"
Interesting use of language innit?

 

[redsquirrel]

Good if brief piece on this by Kenan Malik in the Observer

We have become so accustomed to talking about “liberal democracy” that we often forget that there is an inherent tension between liberalism and democracy. At the heart of liberalism stands the individual. Classically, liberals held that any official restraint placed on an individual’s liberty had to be both justified and minimal.

 

[gorski]

To clean up one's notions: Formen bürgerlicher Herrschaft. Liberalismus, Faschismus.

 

[gorski]

This is not an exhaustive list (I have a Croato-Serbian translation):

Formats and Editions of Formen bürgerlicher Herrschaft : Liberalismus, Faschismus. [WorldCat.org]

But there is an English version, as one can see and I guess, one can find in good libraries.

 

[butchersapron]

It's most def not an exhaustive list. It appears to be one book from 35 years ago that describes a lost world.

 

[gorski]

Yeah, principles of Fascism/Nazism are no more, sure...

Go drive a truck or summat...

 

[butchersapron]

This is not an exhaustive (don't) pipe of course. But i did smoke it 35 years ago. So you are all scum and that.

 

[gorski]

Yeah, anyone who isn't you - or isn't "adoring every path you have ever taken" - is a scum in your "prism", sure - that much I believe you...

EDIT: for anyone who doesn't know you - this is why you have earned my nickname for your nickname, Bitch! All you ever do is bitch!

Show us a single similar contribution of yours!!!

 

[campanula]

mmm, the meaning of 'projection' has become clear to me, reading these witless spoutings of venom. I admire the patience of those who continue to engage with Gorski's interminable drivel. More interesting things to do - seeds to sow, garden rubbish to clear.

 

[gorski]

Boy, people like you have lots of fun in a shit world...

 

[redsquirrel]

In the Commons debates on Brexit during the last fortnight, many MPs have found themselves voting for something they do not believe in. Instead of being their constituents’ “representative”, they now appear to be no more than the people’s “delegate”.

Oh no, not delegates!

I also like the argument how having another referendum on the same issue 45 years after first is somehow illegitimate

Fourth, though often forgotten, the EU vote was the second referendum bite at the European cherry. The issue had supposedly been settled by the referendum Harold Wilson called in 1975. Evidently, holding a referendum does not necessarily end dispute and division about how the country should be governed.

 

[danny la rouge]

Oh no, not delegates!

I also like the argument how having another referendum on the same issue 45 years after first is somehow illegitimate

John, to be fair to him, is not necessarily coming over all Edmund Burke himself, but repeating the general view amongst MPs.

 

[Gramsci]

I have read some of Domenico Losurdo "War and Revolution: rethinking the 20th Century."

He's also done a book on Liberalism. Which I haven't read but seems relevant to this thread
VersoBooks.com

 

[redsquirrel]

I have read some of Domenico Losurdo "War and Revolution: rethinking the 20th Century."

He's also done a book on Liberalism. Which I haven't read but seems relevant to this thread
VersoBooks.com

Cheers Gramsci I'll check it out.

 

[seventh bullet]

Got a pdf. Post it later.

 

[DotCommunist]

Oh no, not delegates!

I also like the argument how having another referendum on the same issue 45 years after first is somehow illegitimate

what was voted in for in '75 was not what was voted out of in 2016 was it? I've seen variations on that crap everywhere

 

[seventh bullet]

Here.

 

[redsquirrel]

Cheers SB

 

[CNT36]

I have read some of Domenico Losurdo "War and Revolution: rethinking the 20th Century."

He's also done a book on Liberalism. Which I haven't read but seems relevant to this thread
VersoBooks.com

Is he a bit of a Stalin apologist?

 

[redsquirrel]

Considering the source I hesitant to link to it, but Spiked/the RCP had a recent issue on this topic.

The Mike Hume piece, the only one I've read at the moment, is actually a reasonable, if light, summary.

Always underpinning this reticence about extending democracy was the fear of the masses as an irrational, easily swayed mob. In this elitist view the growing popular protests for democratic reform were themselves evidence of the dangers of democracy. When a mass demonstration for representation at St Peter’s Field in Manchester – a booming industrial city that still had no MPs – ended in the Peterloo Massacre of 1819 as troops charged the crowd, the first response of the government was not to grant reforms but to enforce new punitive measures against demonstrations and the free press.

 

[Gramsci]

Is he a bit of a Stalin apologist?

Haven't read enough of him to say.

He was a member of the Italian Communist Party.

Criticised not taking critical enough line with USSR etc in reviews whilst been highly critical of liberalism.

 

[butchersapron]

Is he a bit of a Stalin apologist?

You could say that. And a whole lot of other nasty things as well.

1989 supposedly marked a turning point after which the influence of the lie industry (he might as well say Lügenpresse) over daily life became total. Losurdo grounds these paranoid ramblings in Debord’s theory of the “society of the spectacle.” In recent years, he maintains, the lie industry’s focus has turned to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, whose regime the West is hoping to overthrow at any cost. Dismissing claims that either Assad or Putin could be “war criminals” in any sense of the word, Losurdo insists that the real war criminals in Syria are the masterminds in Israel and the US, who want to destabilize the region. He is therefore skeptical of allegations that Syrian government or Russian forces have committed atrocities against civilians caught in the conflict. Specifically, Losurdo denies that barrel bombs or chemical weapons have been deployed by the regime. The August 2013 gas attacks were staged using a “photomontage” technique. “By making the most of its overwhelming multimedia firepower and new manipulation technologies thanks to the Internet, the West portrays the Syrian crisis as an exercise of brutal and gratuitous violence against peaceful and non-violent demonstrators,” Losurdo hyperbolically wrote in a 2011 article for the 9/11 truther Voltaire Network. “There is no doubt that Goebbels, evil minister of the Third Reich, has gained a following… One cannot but recognize that his disciples in Washington and Brussels have even surpassed their unforgettable master.”

Just in passing, it should be noted that Losurdo has contributed more than fifty articles in seven different languages to Voltaire Net. Even his biggest fans would likely be disturbed by this fact, given the kind of material one finds elsewhere on the website. Laurent Guyénot’s article “September 11: Inside Job or Mossad Job?” is typical of the antisemitic filth they regularly publish.

 

[CNT36]

You could say that. And a whole lot of other nasty things as well.

Great another Assad lover.

 

[danny la rouge]

"Brexit is a stark reminder; it only takes a small percentage of the population to be politically uneducated to sway a huge national decision".

"Petition - Make it a requirement for people to pass a politics test before they can vote"

Petition: Make it a requirement for people to pass a politics test before they can vote

Brexit has been a stark reminder; it only takes one result that liberals don't like for them to decide that voting the "wrong" way = a lack of competence to vote.

 

[Crispy]

If you think that people are making uneducated votes, the solution is education, not a restriction on voting.

EDIT: And a more equal distribution of wealth and working hours so that everyone can have the same access to education

 

[DotCommunist]

if you ask these people who gets to define these things they look at you like you are mad. They hadn't even considered that it cannot be themselves