Thanks for this essay which relates to a question I've been thinking a lot about. US liberalism (in the general sense) has been brought down from within, by a political party which was once liberal, committed to the standard list of liberal freedoms. This has happened, or been threatened, many times, and almost always the threat has come from the right. In some cases, liberals have resisted, but mostly ineffectually or not at all
* The German liberal and centrists parties voted for Hitler's Enabling Act.
* MAGA parties in Europe like AfD and Fidesz started out as liberal-conservative
I conclude from this that without a critical analysis of power and property, liberalism is always at risk of defeat from within. Liberalism can't survive without socialism or, at least, social democracy.
As the article states, socialism inevitably leads to a concentration of power that undermines liberalism. Social democracy is a very different system from socialism, although in the long run, they may end up in the same place.
I think an issue here is that history shows, at least to me, that many of the reforms that led to the establishment of liberal democracies, or major reforms within liberal democracies, were accomplished through illiberal means.
Take my own country. The rebellions of 1837-1838 were violent uprisings against British colonial rule, sparked in part by the perception that it was oligarchic and not democratic. Reforms eventually occurred over the following decade or so, with responsible government (the fancy term for the Westminster parliamentary system, where the executive is answerable, or responsible, to, and can be summarily dismissed by, the legislature) being implemented in most of the colonies by 1850. But without the revolution it is unlikely to have happened.
Thirty years later, the Red River Rebellion in 1869 would result in the creation of the Province of Manitoba. Almost eighty years after that, in 1948, the colony of Newfoundland voted on whether to remain a colony, become an independent dominion, or become part of Canada (not offered on the ballot was the option to become part of the United States, which had significant support in the colony at the time); after no option gained majority support, a second round was controversially held in which the British administrators announced that provincial status had won over dominion status, and then burned the ballots so nobody could double-check whether they were telling the truth.
Other violent upheavals, or threats of violence, or other illiberal periods, have preceded the establishment of liberal democracies, or some of their biggest reforms; among those that come to mind are the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, the American Civil War, the Irish War of Independence, de Gaulle's dictatorship in France preceding the Fifth Republic, and the Yugoslav Wars. Indian independence was accomplished in part because of threats of violent uprising from anti-British (in some cases, pro-Nazi) militias; the civil rights reforms of the 1960s in the US happened because it was preferable to enact them than face a full-blown race war from Malcolm X and the Black Panthers and against the backdrop of ongoing race riots; the modern gay rights movement began with the riot at the Stonewall Inn. Germany and Japan's current constitutions were in effect imposed upon them by military occupiers in the wake of the Second World War; Greece faced civil wars and at least one military coup in the years following that conflict; going further back in history, the women's suffrage movement in the United Kingdom had a faction that engaged in what they themselves described as terrorism for a few years; more recently apartheid in South Africa was ended through a combination of domestic violent resistance from groups like uMkhonto weSizwe and extensive foreign boycotts (if tariffs are, as Warren Buffett recently noted, "an act of war, to some degree", then what is a full economic boycott? And just witness the reaction to groups that seek to boycott companies that do business in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, or in some cases Israel generally).
"And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity." (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., warning that a failure to implement peaceful, meaningful reform would result in violent uprising out of frustration at intolerable economic and social conditions)
The promise of liberalism may be a means to order society in which decisions and reforms (of whatever sort) can be made and differences worked out peacefully, but very often history shows us that its establishment, and many notable enactments within it, came about only because of the threat of a more wholesale, often violent, overturning of existing power structures, be that illiberal ones becoming more liberal institutions, or existing liberal institutions changing just enough to prevent their own violent overthrow.
Perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean by "liberalism", but my own knowledge of history tells me that violence, or the threat thereof, is all too often the most effective means of bringing about reform, whether to establish a liberal order or to effect change within it.
I largely agree with you. The term “Liberalism” often concatenates two very different views:
1) The rules of the game, which you advocate for. This places Liberals in the role of being referee in the political game.
2) A large group of related policy stands for what the government should do, which are typically “progressive” in the American use of the term “Liberal” and something closer to libertarianism in the European use of the term.
Does this not , however, lead to a conundrum? How does one really advocate for Liberalism in day-to-day politics if it does not consist of policy stands? It is the policy stands that most people care about, not the rules of the game or the referee who enforced the rules.
I don’t disagree with the difficulty — only the implied impossibility. The glossed over part is that if liberalism requires private property then capitalism reigns without debate. I disagree that these arrangements should be given a free ride, and in particular private ownership of natural resources. The agreed complexity is in the likely regular stopping and restarting of private vs public ownership, which is why I think social democracy makes the most sense. But there is no inherent liberalism within capitalism.
I don't think I'd make the strong argument that liberalism requires private property. However, I think if one were to make the argument that private property should not exist, this represents a significant reduction in social liberties—almost certainly a decrease in everything from career choice to consumptive choices.
The argument from committed socialists is well understood: that the luxuries of these choices are not fairly and justly distributed. But even if one accepts that, the next question becomes: is organizing production outside a market mechanism, while expecting general rising living standards on the scale we've seen, even practicable? Information theory and experience suggest no.
I don't support capitalist economy from the perspective that private property emerges from some natural right, as many liberals and libertarians do. Rather, I support it through the belief that regulated markets appear to be the best arrangement we've stumbled upon for complex resource allocation and coordination.
We can almost certainly agree that when capital accumulates political power, that becomes a problem. The real issue isn't defending capitalism as such, but maintaining democratic control over economic arrangements so they serve human flourishing rather than oligarchic accumulation.
I have come to appreciate liberalism much more in the last decade with the rise of so many anti-liberal voices on the net (and now in power). Liberalism used to just be something default, in the background, but reading Yarvin and Thiel made me realize it has enemies and needs to be defended.
He had me until he started conflating socialism with authoritarianism. “Socialists believe in collective ownership and democratic control of economic resources. But when socialist movements try to implement their vision through revolutionary violence or authoritarian control, they abandon liberal principles. Democratic socialism can be liberal; revolutionary socialism cannot.” So far so good. But he also claims you cannot have liberalism with collective ownership even if these are democratic decisions. Why cannot a society own natural resources and contract out their exploitation. Or own the railways and hospitals? There’s an unnecessary anti socialist bias in this outline of liberalism.
I completely agree that collective ownership, as implemented through democratic mechanisms (e.g., the USPS, public healthcare, public transportation), can be fully compatible with liberal democracy. My concern isn’t with these specific cases. Rather, it’s with the classical socialist theory that advocates the wholesale abolition of private property and seeks to replace market mechanisms entirely with democratic deliberation.
Such a vision runs into profound epistemic and practical challenges. Economically, it encounters the well-documented calculation problem—the difficulty in allocating resources efficiently without price signals. Politically, it risks the tyranny of the majority, where democratic deliberation can easily devolve into the imposition of majority preferences without adequate protections for individual rights or minority interests. Epistemically, it assumes that collective deliberation can effectively manage the vast complexity of economic life, which history and experience suggest is extraordinarily challenging.
So, while collective ownership in certain domains—implemented within democratic accountability and constitutional protections—can be perfectly liberal and reasonable, the traditional socialist ideal of abolishing private property entirely is epistemically untenable and practically dangerous. It’s not a bias against socialism per se, but a recognition of liberalism’s commitment to institutional humility and pragmatic constraint.
Bravo on this outstanding description of what the anti- authoritarians are fighting for. The confusion regarding liberalism is ubiquitous. I commented earlier and should have read the article first.
This is valuable information and transcends any discussion of partisan politics. Transcending partisan politics is critical now.
Excellent essay! Thank you!
Thanks for this essay which relates to a question I've been thinking a lot about. US liberalism (in the general sense) has been brought down from within, by a political party which was once liberal, committed to the standard list of liberal freedoms. This has happened, or been threatened, many times, and almost always the threat has come from the right. In some cases, liberals have resisted, but mostly ineffectually or not at all
* The German liberal and centrists parties voted for Hitler's Enabling Act.
* MAGA parties in Europe like AfD and Fidesz started out as liberal-conservative
I conclude from this that without a critical analysis of power and property, liberalism is always at risk of defeat from within. Liberalism can't survive without socialism or, at least, social democracy.
As the article states, socialism inevitably leads to a concentration of power that undermines liberalism. Social democracy is a very different system from socialism, although in the long run, they may end up in the same place.
Yes I think this is correct.
I’ve stopped reading most commentators. However your essays are providing much needed grounding and deep insights. Thank you
Equal rights and Equal laws. Did men ever die for a holier cause?!
God and Liberty! 26 NY Inf. USCT
I think an issue here is that history shows, at least to me, that many of the reforms that led to the establishment of liberal democracies, or major reforms within liberal democracies, were accomplished through illiberal means.
Take my own country. The rebellions of 1837-1838 were violent uprisings against British colonial rule, sparked in part by the perception that it was oligarchic and not democratic. Reforms eventually occurred over the following decade or so, with responsible government (the fancy term for the Westminster parliamentary system, where the executive is answerable, or responsible, to, and can be summarily dismissed by, the legislature) being implemented in most of the colonies by 1850. But without the revolution it is unlikely to have happened.
Thirty years later, the Red River Rebellion in 1869 would result in the creation of the Province of Manitoba. Almost eighty years after that, in 1948, the colony of Newfoundland voted on whether to remain a colony, become an independent dominion, or become part of Canada (not offered on the ballot was the option to become part of the United States, which had significant support in the colony at the time); after no option gained majority support, a second round was controversially held in which the British administrators announced that provincial status had won over dominion status, and then burned the ballots so nobody could double-check whether they were telling the truth.
Other violent upheavals, or threats of violence, or other illiberal periods, have preceded the establishment of liberal democracies, or some of their biggest reforms; among those that come to mind are the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, the American Civil War, the Irish War of Independence, de Gaulle's dictatorship in France preceding the Fifth Republic, and the Yugoslav Wars. Indian independence was accomplished in part because of threats of violent uprising from anti-British (in some cases, pro-Nazi) militias; the civil rights reforms of the 1960s in the US happened because it was preferable to enact them than face a full-blown race war from Malcolm X and the Black Panthers and against the backdrop of ongoing race riots; the modern gay rights movement began with the riot at the Stonewall Inn. Germany and Japan's current constitutions were in effect imposed upon them by military occupiers in the wake of the Second World War; Greece faced civil wars and at least one military coup in the years following that conflict; going further back in history, the women's suffrage movement in the United Kingdom had a faction that engaged in what they themselves described as terrorism for a few years; more recently apartheid in South Africa was ended through a combination of domestic violent resistance from groups like uMkhonto weSizwe and extensive foreign boycotts (if tariffs are, as Warren Buffett recently noted, "an act of war, to some degree", then what is a full economic boycott? And just witness the reaction to groups that seek to boycott companies that do business in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, or in some cases Israel generally).
"And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity." (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., warning that a failure to implement peaceful, meaningful reform would result in violent uprising out of frustration at intolerable economic and social conditions)
The promise of liberalism may be a means to order society in which decisions and reforms (of whatever sort) can be made and differences worked out peacefully, but very often history shows us that its establishment, and many notable enactments within it, came about only because of the threat of a more wholesale, often violent, overturning of existing power structures, be that illiberal ones becoming more liberal institutions, or existing liberal institutions changing just enough to prevent their own violent overthrow.
Perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean by "liberalism", but my own knowledge of history tells me that violence, or the threat thereof, is all too often the most effective means of bringing about reform, whether to establish a liberal order or to effect change within it.
You are a treasure! Thank you!
Wonderful piece!
I largely agree with you. The term “Liberalism” often concatenates two very different views:
1) The rules of the game, which you advocate for. This places Liberals in the role of being referee in the political game.
2) A large group of related policy stands for what the government should do, which are typically “progressive” in the American use of the term “Liberal” and something closer to libertarianism in the European use of the term.
Does this not , however, lead to a conundrum? How does one really advocate for Liberalism in day-to-day politics if it does not consist of policy stands? It is the policy stands that most people care about, not the rules of the game or the referee who enforced the rules.
The world imagined in this essay to support your thesis, a world liberalism supposedly created, has never and will never exist.
This essay is pure fantasy, not unlike the "religious fundamentalists" and others you disparage.
I don’t disagree with the difficulty — only the implied impossibility. The glossed over part is that if liberalism requires private property then capitalism reigns without debate. I disagree that these arrangements should be given a free ride, and in particular private ownership of natural resources. The agreed complexity is in the likely regular stopping and restarting of private vs public ownership, which is why I think social democracy makes the most sense. But there is no inherent liberalism within capitalism.
I don't think I'd make the strong argument that liberalism requires private property. However, I think if one were to make the argument that private property should not exist, this represents a significant reduction in social liberties—almost certainly a decrease in everything from career choice to consumptive choices.
The argument from committed socialists is well understood: that the luxuries of these choices are not fairly and justly distributed. But even if one accepts that, the next question becomes: is organizing production outside a market mechanism, while expecting general rising living standards on the scale we've seen, even practicable? Information theory and experience suggest no.
I don't support capitalist economy from the perspective that private property emerges from some natural right, as many liberals and libertarians do. Rather, I support it through the belief that regulated markets appear to be the best arrangement we've stumbled upon for complex resource allocation and coordination.
We can almost certainly agree that when capital accumulates political power, that becomes a problem. The real issue isn't defending capitalism as such, but maintaining democratic control over economic arrangements so they serve human flourishing rather than oligarchic accumulation.
Excellent, thanks for writing this.
I have come to appreciate liberalism much more in the last decade with the rise of so many anti-liberal voices on the net (and now in power). Liberalism used to just be something default, in the background, but reading Yarvin and Thiel made me realize it has enemies and needs to be defended.
He had me until he started conflating socialism with authoritarianism. “Socialists believe in collective ownership and democratic control of economic resources. But when socialist movements try to implement their vision through revolutionary violence or authoritarian control, they abandon liberal principles. Democratic socialism can be liberal; revolutionary socialism cannot.” So far so good. But he also claims you cannot have liberalism with collective ownership even if these are democratic decisions. Why cannot a society own natural resources and contract out their exploitation. Or own the railways and hospitals? There’s an unnecessary anti socialist bias in this outline of liberalism.
I completely agree that collective ownership, as implemented through democratic mechanisms (e.g., the USPS, public healthcare, public transportation), can be fully compatible with liberal democracy. My concern isn’t with these specific cases. Rather, it’s with the classical socialist theory that advocates the wholesale abolition of private property and seeks to replace market mechanisms entirely with democratic deliberation.
Such a vision runs into profound epistemic and practical challenges. Economically, it encounters the well-documented calculation problem—the difficulty in allocating resources efficiently without price signals. Politically, it risks the tyranny of the majority, where democratic deliberation can easily devolve into the imposition of majority preferences without adequate protections for individual rights or minority interests. Epistemically, it assumes that collective deliberation can effectively manage the vast complexity of economic life, which history and experience suggest is extraordinarily challenging.
So, while collective ownership in certain domains—implemented within democratic accountability and constitutional protections—can be perfectly liberal and reasonable, the traditional socialist ideal of abolishing private property entirely is epistemically untenable and practically dangerous. It’s not a bias against socialism per se, but a recognition of liberalism’s commitment to institutional humility and pragmatic constraint.
Bravo on this outstanding description of what the anti- authoritarians are fighting for. The confusion regarding liberalism is ubiquitous. I commented earlier and should have read the article first.
This is valuable information and transcends any discussion of partisan politics. Transcending partisan politics is critical now.
What do we do when most of the independent institutions have been taken over by ideologues pushing a set of policies & suppressing liberalism?
Is this behind a paywall? I would like to post this to linkedln.
This is not a paywalled piece.