Читать книгу Incompatibility and other essays - Peter Lustig - Страница 10

Cromwell’s interregnum effectively put an end to the period of transition between conspiring warlords -intent on wresting the throne from their rivals to crown one of their own- and the consolidation of parliamentary procedure, legitimized chiefly by greater participation of the Commons. At this stage, Hobbes’ “Leviathan” appeared, as a metaphor to enhance the monarchy; but it is unlikely that it would have influenced the course of events, to the extent that it was later credited for having led toward implementing the three independent powers of parliamentary democracy.

Needless to say, Hobbes had no interest in the common folk and he would not get involved with the peasants and the poor, as they played no part in government. In fact, the idea that “the great unwashed” should have a say in decision-making was never part of the discussion, not even when “Liberalism”came to the fore, more than half way through the next century. Neither Locke, Hume, the English constitutionalists, nor the leading lights of the Scottish Enlightenment ever came close to getting involved with social progress, in the same way that the Reformation never approached the extremes, in England, that it reached on the Continent, where it might well have been hailed as a precursor to bloody revolution. No definitive consideration was given to the possibility of establishing a republic, in Britain, in the course of shaping the institutions of a parliamentary monarchy; only in America was such a thing envisaged.

The uprising against “taxation without representation” had little bearing on the ordinary denizen, in the Colonies, by contrast with the revolt of the “sans culottes”, in France, a few years later. More likely than not, the American Revolution was led by the gentry, with the purpose of ratifying property rights and trade interests: viz. demanding ”freedom” from domination by legislation enacted at Westminster and enforced by the King’s redcoats.

An overview of the Continental Congress that met in Philadelphia, in 1776, would show an assembly of land owning, slave driving cotton planters whose main concern was to have control over the source of their wealth. In no way were the lesser folk represented. This needs to be made plain, before the notion of a “liberal democracy” can be linked to universal suffrage.

The term “liberalism”was coined by Adam Smith with reference to a person’s ability to go about managing his life according to his own free will. Hence, this person would be entirely “at liberty” to act always in his best interest. The logic behind the “Invisible Hand” is most revealing, in this respect. Smith must have imagined that thrift and “faith” would overcome any obstacles for somebody equipped with the essentials to make things work, as long as he could act unhindered by the dispossessed underclass, that was supposed to be there to do his bidding out of sheer despondency. Therefore, “labour” was just a commodity priced according to the law of supply and demand, like any other commodity, although it was tied to the elementary ‘needs and wants’ of a numerical majority. This particular instance of philosophic “liberalism” never bothered to make a distinction between surplus goods and surplus people, when supply exceeded demand.

In a society where the economy was driven by slave labour, it may be presumed that a regression to feudalism was the order of the day. In that sense, America was moving in a direction opposite to the course of events that led to the French Revolution. It is sometimes said that the beheading of the king had taken place in England a century earlier and that society had consequently had more time to mature. So the Terror and mob rule could never take place in England, and certainly not in America, where there had not been any royals or nobles, in the first place. The more enlightened version of the events that marked the history of the XVIII century asserts that Revolution actually brought about the empowerment of the bourgeoisie, since the bourgeoisie had filled the space previously occupied by the nobility, prior to its extermination. (Parallel to this interpretation runs the theory that the elimination of the Jews, in Europe, in the XX century, was the logical outcome of the displacement of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat; because the Jews were only a carry over from olden times and they had no role left to play as creditors of their betters in a classless society).

Explanations such as these just mentioned have two things against them: first, their obviousness and second, the sloppiness of slanted generalizations. What does stand them in good stead is that they draw attention to aspects of history that are at variance with the approved official version and so they can lead to further discussion.

“Liberalism” of the variety described by Smith, who transferred his belief in Providence onto the workings of business practice; or Malthus, who feared the revolt of the poor and recommended keeping them hungry and obeisant; or Ricardo, who worried about the rentiers’ unconcern about reinvestment, suggesting that they be subjected to “euthanasia” (presumably by taxing avarice out of existence) and, later, maintaining labour as the independent variable of economic progress, all represent successive stages that hindsight reveals as being worthy of logical redress. Even if “liberalism” should have lapsed from unconformity (in the U.S.) onto conservatism, elsewhere (particularly in the Third World), this only confirms that it was not able to fulfil its promise for a large enough portion of society, because it had strayed from its original purpose, so that its very definition has become incongruous.

Of course, it is far from the aim of this discourse to find fault with the principles of liberalism. Listing its failings should help to overcome them, since they lie principally with the scope and the manner in which they are applied. Everybody knows there cannot be a middle road; as soon as freedom is in the least curtailed, the evils of arbitrariness take over and certain incompatibilities arise when people grow weary of negotiating to no avail, and they end up wanting to fight rather than compromise.