Ben, your criticism is fair. But I want to ask- what is subjective egalitarian radicalism? What is the boundary between it and liberalism which propounds free markets, due process, etc? I myself am not entirely clear.
Subjectivism, or the belief that there is no truth outside of what you or I personally declare we believe (or that truth originated within the self rather than existing outside of it), comes out of the counter-enlightenment, Romantic tradition which revolted against Enlightenment liberalism.
Egalitarianism does come out of the more radical strains of the French enlightenment. It takes the principe of equality to its extreme. Other corners of Enlightenment liberalism (Scottish Enlightenment, Whig Party in England) rejected the radical egalitarianism of the French philosophes. The American Founders largely rejected it, with the exception of Thomas Paine (who was a radical), and with a caveat for Jefferson (who was somewhat sympathetic to the French Revolution in the early days).
By subjective, egalitarian radicalism, I mean the extreme logical end of these strains of thought. Egalitarianism and subjectivism feed on one another, because if truth exists outside of each person’s belief, then some beliefs are true while others are false and there is a hierarchy of beliefs in accordance with how close they come to objective reality. Relativism - the idea that there is no reality and all is narrative, or that we can project whatever we like upon the world - is radically subjective and radically egalitarian. It is also an assault upon such things as free markets and due process, for markets are a reality which exists outside of and operates independently of human will (each of us doesn’t get to decide a “fair” price of eggs or gasoline and have that fair price be so, because the price fluctuates based on external factors), and due process is premised on the notion that there is a truth about guilt and innocence and that it is unjust to punish an innocent individual.
That’s very helpful, thanks Ben! When I was a Marxist, we used to call this “standpoint epistemology” which I still think is a fairly helpful phrase even if I now reject the politics which coined it.
When you were a Marxist, did you see yourself and your fellow travelers as within liberalism or opponents of it? As I understand it, this is a point of debate among some Marxists. Some argue Marx was the culmination of liberalism and others say he was the repudiation of it.
So I think for the circles I ran in, it was to “supersede” liberalism in the sense of opposing it. Obviously, Marx’s ideas were within that tradition, but his critique of political economy struck at the ideological, obfuscated connection between bourgeois liberalism and it’s necessary functioning in the capitalist economy. Or so that was his understanding.
Dan Kunitz is currently writing a rejoinder to McKay Stangler, which we hope to publish in the coming weeks. Wound also like to get your thoughts when that comes out.
It’s at best questionable as to whether free markets on the one hand and transgenderism and fat studies on the other are part and parcel of the same thing. It’s debatable as to whether postmodern relativism, which evolved out of subjectivism and radical egalitarianism, was a strain of liberalism or a hostile challenge to it. Certainly many of those engaged in such radical projects saw themselves as outside liberalism and opposed to it. Many who talk of colonialism today will tell you they are not liberals and they oppose liberalism (because liberalism, according to them, is colonialism). Admittedly, some radicals will claim the mantle of the evolution of liberalism and some liberals will sympathize with the radicals, as some liberals sympathized with communism and fascism (both opponents of political liberalism).
It’s complicated. There were radical and conservative strains within liberalism, which was not monolithic. The liberalism of the Founders was not the liberalism of Rousseau. Edmund Burke (the founder of conservatism and himself a political liberal in the 18th century definition of that term) said that the “liberalism” of the French Revolution “was not liberal,” meaning that the revolutionaries claimed the mantle of enlightenment liberalism while overturning it in both practice and theory in favor of socialism and totalitarianism.
Otherwise, I agree entirely with you. While it’s good that we are no longer encouraging young girls to anorexia, the body positivity movement has gone way overboard. We can have skepticism about some of the latest diet fads while still holding to general and time-tested principles of nutrition and fitness. Conservatives need not ditch liberalism (free markets, due process, the rule of law, individual liberty, natural rights) to oppose subjective egalitarian radicalism.
Kunitz is right. Kale isn’t always better than donut. When people run ultra marathons, they stuff their face with food like Oreos. They are burning so many calories from running that their bodies need carbs, sugar, and food that’s high in calories and digest quickly. If they ate kale during their races, they wouldn’t finish.
Yes, if a person ate eggs, bacon, and pancakes drenched in syrup for breakfast and are already near their caloric maintenance. Then yes, a kale salad would be better for dinner than a donut. But without knowing the person’s goals (building muscle vs sports performance vs losing weight vs, longevity bs eating for the environment), it’s ignorant to say kale is always a better option for you than a donut.
Ben, your criticism is fair. But I want to ask- what is subjective egalitarian radicalism? What is the boundary between it and liberalism which propounds free markets, due process, etc? I myself am not entirely clear.
Subjectivism, or the belief that there is no truth outside of what you or I personally declare we believe (or that truth originated within the self rather than existing outside of it), comes out of the counter-enlightenment, Romantic tradition which revolted against Enlightenment liberalism.
Egalitarianism does come out of the more radical strains of the French enlightenment. It takes the principe of equality to its extreme. Other corners of Enlightenment liberalism (Scottish Enlightenment, Whig Party in England) rejected the radical egalitarianism of the French philosophes. The American Founders largely rejected it, with the exception of Thomas Paine (who was a radical), and with a caveat for Jefferson (who was somewhat sympathetic to the French Revolution in the early days).
By subjective, egalitarian radicalism, I mean the extreme logical end of these strains of thought. Egalitarianism and subjectivism feed on one another, because if truth exists outside of each person’s belief, then some beliefs are true while others are false and there is a hierarchy of beliefs in accordance with how close they come to objective reality. Relativism - the idea that there is no reality and all is narrative, or that we can project whatever we like upon the world - is radically subjective and radically egalitarian. It is also an assault upon such things as free markets and due process, for markets are a reality which exists outside of and operates independently of human will (each of us doesn’t get to decide a “fair” price of eggs or gasoline and have that fair price be so, because the price fluctuates based on external factors), and due process is premised on the notion that there is a truth about guilt and innocence and that it is unjust to punish an innocent individual.
That’s very helpful, thanks Ben! When I was a Marxist, we used to call this “standpoint epistemology” which I still think is a fairly helpful phrase even if I now reject the politics which coined it.
When you were a Marxist, did you see yourself and your fellow travelers as within liberalism or opponents of it? As I understand it, this is a point of debate among some Marxists. Some argue Marx was the culmination of liberalism and others say he was the repudiation of it.
So I think for the circles I ran in, it was to “supersede” liberalism in the sense of opposing it. Obviously, Marx’s ideas were within that tradition, but his critique of political economy struck at the ideological, obfuscated connection between bourgeois liberalism and it’s necessary functioning in the capitalist economy. Or so that was his understanding.
That makes a lot of sense
Dan Kunitz is currently writing a rejoinder to McKay Stangler, which we hope to publish in the coming weeks. Wound also like to get your thoughts when that comes out.
I look forward to reading that!
It’s at best questionable as to whether free markets on the one hand and transgenderism and fat studies on the other are part and parcel of the same thing. It’s debatable as to whether postmodern relativism, which evolved out of subjectivism and radical egalitarianism, was a strain of liberalism or a hostile challenge to it. Certainly many of those engaged in such radical projects saw themselves as outside liberalism and opposed to it. Many who talk of colonialism today will tell you they are not liberals and they oppose liberalism (because liberalism, according to them, is colonialism). Admittedly, some radicals will claim the mantle of the evolution of liberalism and some liberals will sympathize with the radicals, as some liberals sympathized with communism and fascism (both opponents of political liberalism).
It’s complicated. There were radical and conservative strains within liberalism, which was not monolithic. The liberalism of the Founders was not the liberalism of Rousseau. Edmund Burke (the founder of conservatism and himself a political liberal in the 18th century definition of that term) said that the “liberalism” of the French Revolution “was not liberal,” meaning that the revolutionaries claimed the mantle of enlightenment liberalism while overturning it in both practice and theory in favor of socialism and totalitarianism.
Otherwise, I agree entirely with you. While it’s good that we are no longer encouraging young girls to anorexia, the body positivity movement has gone way overboard. We can have skepticism about some of the latest diet fads while still holding to general and time-tested principles of nutrition and fitness. Conservatives need not ditch liberalism (free markets, due process, the rule of law, individual liberty, natural rights) to oppose subjective egalitarian radicalism.
Kunitz is right. Kale isn’t always better than donut. When people run ultra marathons, they stuff their face with food like Oreos. They are burning so many calories from running that their bodies need carbs, sugar, and food that’s high in calories and digest quickly. If they ate kale during their races, they wouldn’t finish.
Yes, if a person ate eggs, bacon, and pancakes drenched in syrup for breakfast and are already near their caloric maintenance. Then yes, a kale salad would be better for dinner than a donut. But without knowing the person’s goals (building muscle vs sports performance vs losing weight vs, longevity bs eating for the environment), it’s ignorant to say kale is always a better option for you than a donut.