In the twenty-first century liberalism will have a much harder time selling itself. As the masses lose their economic importance, will the moral argument alone be enough to protect human rights and liberties? Will elites and governments go on valuing every human being even when it pays no economic dividents?
Sayfa 361Kitabı okudu
At the close of the twentieth century it appeared that the great ideological battles between fascism, communism and liberalism resulted in the overwhelming victory of liberalism.
A belief in the primacy of the individual is the characteristic theme of liberal ideology, but it has influenced liberal thought in different ways. It has led some liberals to view society as simply a collection of individuals, each seeking to satisfy his or her own needs and interests. Such a view has been called atomistic, in that it conceives of individuals as ‘isolated atoms’ within society; indeed it can lead to the belief that ‘society’ itself does not exist, but is merely a collection of self-sufficient individuals. Such extreme individualism is based upon the assumption that the individual is egotistical, essentially self-seeking and largely self-reliant. C. B. Macpherson (1973) characterized early liberalism as ‘possessive individualism’ because, he argued, it regarded the individual as ‘the proprietor of his own person or capacities, owing nothing to society for them’. In contrast, later liberals have held a more optimistic view of human nature, and have been more prepared to believe that individuals possess a social responsibility for one.
From the twentieth century onwards industrial capitalism has exerted a powerful appeal for developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, especially when social and political development was defined in essentially western terms. However, developing-world states have sometimes been resistant to the attractions of liberal capitalism because their political cultures have emphasized community rather than the individual. In such cases they have provided more fertile ground for the growth of socialism or nationalism rather than western liberalism. Where capitalism has been successfully established, as in Japan, it has tended to assume a corporate rather than an individualistic character. Japanese industry, for example, is motivated more by traditional ideas of group loyalty and duty than by the pursuit of individual self-interest.
The maxim of laissez faire may, then, demand simply that the authoritative or coercive activities of government be restricted to the minimum required for the upholding of justice. (...) On this interpretation of laissez faire, governmental activity may encompass any manner of service functions -even including a welfare state- provided these functions be conducted in a non-coercive fashion.
Sayfa 73
