Mediaboss Marketing

Review of The Political Thought of C.B. Macpherson by Frank Cunningham (Palgrave, 2019).

C. B. Macpherson was a legend in Canadian political theory circles, known for his close reading of dense theoretical texts. He managed to bring to light hidden assumptions and tensions with a rare combination of scholarly acumen and bite. But as the author of books with dry titles like Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval and Democracy in Alberta: Social Credit and the Party System, Macphersons reputation mostly stopped at the university gates.

Fortunately, Frank Cunninghams excellent recent book, The Political Thought of C.B. Macpherson, gives us a more complete and interesting view of both the man and the democratic socialist core of his writing. In Cunninghams able hands, Macpherson is revitalized as a figure who can not only teach us about the limitations and strengths of the classical liberal tradition but offer us an inspiring vision for a democratic socialist future.

The work that made Macphersons name was 1962s The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Nominally a history of early modern English political theory, the book had much grander ambitions.

Macphersons aim was to analyze the roots of what he called possessive individualism the idea that in the state of nature each of us is an atomic individual, separate from all others, defined by a relentless pursuit of desire that requires us to develop our skills and labor to acquire what we want. Natural human beings owe nothing to society or others, neither when developing their capacities nor enjoying their property.

Far from natural, possessive individualism came into being through a contingent combination of historical events and changing ideological notions, Macpherson shows. In particular, the epic clashes between aristocratic absolutism and capitalist parliamentarianism in seventeenth-century Britain provided fertile soil for philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, James Harrington, and John Locke to reconceive the nature of society along market lines.

According to these theorists, property emerges through the mixing of ones labor with matter, which creates an entitlement to whatever is produced. A farmer who puts up a fence around a plot of land and then tills the soil is mixing his labor with the soil, which consequently becomes his property, along with the carrots and potatoes that sprout from it.

This workmanship ideal we should get to keep what we labor for has remained ideologically powerful. American conservatives like Ben Shapiro still use it to justify stark inequalities.

But as Macpherson points out, the workmanship ideal is unworkable even as the moral basis for capitalist society. If its true that we are entitled to the fruits of our labor, how is it that laborers make something but capitalists are then entitled to it as their property? After all, it wasnt Ray Kroc who flipped a million burgers or Donald Trump who built the Trump Tower. If we really believe that people are entitled to what they labored to create, then its impossible to defend the capitalist system.

Lockes solution was to extend the notion of a contract to the relationship between capitalist employers and laborers. He argued that workers are not entitled to keep what they make if they have contractually agreed to labor for their employers.

Of course, workers could eventually refuse to hand over what they created and instead decide to enjoy it for themselves. Or they could decide to band together and democratically demand changes to society. Possessive individualists therefore came to recognize the need for a powerful state that could guarantee the rights of employers to live off whatever their employees labor produced.

The irony here was that possessive individualism moved from conceiving of people as atoms owing nothing to anyone else, to requiring a leviathan that would safeguard the interests of the privileged few. As Macpherson put it near the end of Possessive Individualism: It is not a question of the more individualism, the less collectivism; rather the more thoroughgoing the individualism, the more complete the collectivism.

Macphersons critical history of possessive individualism forms the cornerstone of his legacy. But Cunningham reminds us that in addition to being a sharp reader of classical liberal thought, Macpherson was also a democratic socialist who spent much time theorizing about the problems of contemporary capitalism and what might replace it.

Macphersons socialism sprung from his belief that capitalism prevented human beings from fully developing their productive powers and capacities. Capitalist markets generate stratification: a select few have the material luxury of developing their capacities while everyone else is confined to improving the narrow range of abilities necessary to perform their jobs. On top of that, possessive individualist societies cultivate an atomistic, alienating sense of self that encourages individuals to compete for scarce goods and honors. Greed is both good and inevitable. The states job, meanwhile, is to encourage capitalist competition up to the point where individuals begin physically harming one another and even that line can be crossed if capital demands, say, an imperialist intervention or the suppression of radical movements.

Macpherson insisted that liberalism was right to emphasize the value of individualism chastising authoritarian socialist states for trampling on individual liberty but that it was wrong to assume the only kind of individuality was possessive. Better, in Macphersons eyes, was a normative individualism where we cooperate with each other to form meaningful and democratic communities that mutually empower members to express their individuality. This position resembles what Ive called the expressive rather than possessive individualism of John Stuart Mill. But Macpherson gives it a much more democratic tint.

There is a lot to like in this argument. Atomistic, possessive individualism is both theoretically implausible and empirically unsound. People construct their sense of self not simply through laboring and acquiring but by forming meaningful relationships and developing and exercising their diverse capacities. Possessive individualist society is undesirable precisely because its competitive mania erodes human relationships, and, worse, because its inequalities mean that many will never be able to develop more than a fraction of their capacities.

At the same time, Macpherson is right that we shouldnt run in the opposite direction, subordinating individualism to either cultural traditionalism (as social conservative critics of liberalism would insist) or political movements (as with some socialist experiments). Instead, our aim should be to create a more sincerely individualistic society that recognizes how being able to form deep connections with others and mutually empower one another in the pursuit of the good life is what enables us to become truly self-determining and free.

Democratization is a necessary complement, since it enables us to deliberate about what kind of shared world we want to construct. Not coincidentally, this is one of the reasons why hyper-possessive individualists like neoliberals are so wary of democracy.

Cunningham spends much of his book applying Macphersons thinking to contemporary issues, from neoliberalism to feminist and racial justice struggles. He rightly chides Macpherson for endorsing the aims of the civil rights and feminist movements without taking up the issues they raised an unfortunate omission since both would have leavened Macphersons analysis of possessive individualism.

For instance, Domenic Losurdo points out that Lockes arguments for possessive individualism werent just central to justifying capitalist coercion at home (the argument is well summarized by my late friend Connor OCallaghan); they animated his denigration of Indigenous peoples labor as inefficient and his argument that they had no claim to the land theyd inhabited for centuries. Far better for them to be replaced by hardworking, industrious white settlers who would actually make good use of it.

One of the most interesting sections of Cunninghams book is where he extends Macphersons analysis to the topic of neoliberalism. Plenty of classical and egalitarian liberals still held to humanistic ideals of fairness and moral equality that made them skeptical of extending the logic of possessive individualism to all areas of life. Some liberal thinkers like Mill even reached the conclusion that liberalism and capitalism were fundamentally incompatible. Neoliberal thinkers had no such misgivings: they crafted a pure market theory, Cunningham argues, that reduced the liberal ideal to what was required by capital. Macpherson died in 1987, during the glory days of the Reagan and Thatcherite counterrevolutions. He was deeply anxious about their assaults on the welfare state and democratic rule, arguing strenuously against figures like Milton Friedman that neoliberalism wasnt in keeping with either justice or human nature.

Here I think we should part ways with both Macpherson and Cunningham. Neoliberalism is intriguing precisely because it is the historical moment that capitalisms defenders realized possessive individualism didnt reflect human nature. Most of us dont think of ourselves (and dont want to think of ourselves) as disconnected, sybaritic machines jostling with each other, eager to transform our very personalities into social capital.

Recognizing this reality, and wanting to turbocharge the markets colonization of all spheres of life, neoliberals tried to both insulate capitalism from democratic pressures and build institutions that could remold people in the image of possessive individualism. Simultaneously, they sought to graft their ideas onto the institutions of the US-led international order, forever banishing the specter of social democracy, much less socialism.

Their project was magnificently successful for a time, and only recently have we seen widespread revolt against the effort to cram the square peg of humanity into the round hole of hyper-possessive individualism. Whether this will end with a revived left-wing politics or an even worse reactionary explosion remains an open question. But Macphersons democratic socialist visioncan inspire us to think more comprehensively about the ideologicalzigzags of capitalismsdefenders and the positive elements of liberalism that can be extracted from its contradictory legacy.

Continued here:
CB Macpherson Wanted a Socialism That Didn't Lose Sight of the Individual - Jacobin magazine

There is an old saying that tells an eternal truth: History repeats itself and those who dont understand that are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over.

This piece of wisdom really rings true in our present political arena. Some in the Democratic Party have taken a sharp turn to the left, endorsing their new brand of democratic socialism and railing against the capitalism that has made our country the strongest, most successful nation in the history of the world.

Support for this political doctrine has been especially strong amongst our young people. They seem clearly drawn to the promises of free stuff, and have little or no understanding of the fact that nothing is free; someone must pay for it all. Also, they have lived in a time of relative peace and prosperity. Few have had any firsthand experience with the horrors that socialism/communism have brought to our world.

Are they being taught about these things in school?

Also, contrary to what the news media and some people say, our country, our form of government and capitalism is superior to any other system in the world. Thats why everyone wants to come here. And we are not a bad country. We are a good country, a country that has made mistakes, but we always try to do whats right in the end.

When I was young and searching for my political identity, I studied and compared different forms of government and partisan ideologies. I made a point of reading our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, our Bill of Rights and the Communist Manifesto. What I learned from them forever shaped my thinking.

The documents read like point and then counterpoint. The Communist Manifesto would decree something. And the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights would prohibit that same thing.

Our Constitution was written in 1787 and the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, only about 60 years apart. The same ideas and methods for enslaving people have been around for centuries. Technology changes but government and human nature dont. Our Founding Fathers and their parents and grandparents lived under these forms of oppression. They understood how they worked and what their end results were. So they wrote our founding documents to protect the newly founded republic and their descendants from its tyranny.

Socialism has been around since the beginning of government and has been reinvented an untold number of times, but always with the same results: oppression, misery, death and destruction. Venezuela is the most recent and visible example. It went from the third richest country in the world to an economic and social basket case in 20 years.

In 1921 Adolf Hitler was elected chairman of the National Socialist German Workers Party in Germany. Under his guidance, it eventually morphed into the Nazi Party that started World War II and killed 73 million people.

More than 100 million people have died in the last century in China, the old Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the name of socialism/communism. And hundreds of millions more people have suffered from starvation and torture. These countries are now considered Communist.

Communism is just a different form of socialism and socialism almost always turns into communism.

Now we are facing another new brand of socialism fueled by the unproven and exaggerated fear of man-caused climate change and environmental disaster. Operating under the United Nations, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is making rules and laws that affect the whole world. The UNFCCC is made up of almost 200 countries, most of which are dictatorships, communist- and socialist-led countries, and monarchies. Most are labeled as poor developing countries.

The United States and a small number of countries are categorized as developed countries. Under the rules of the organization, developed countries are called upon to provide new and additional financial resources to meet the costs that developing countries incur while trying to meet environmental standards set by the UNFCCC. What a scam. The countries that get the money help determine how much money they get and what they have to do to get it.

Also, its common knowledge that little of the money sent to third world countries ever makes it past the corrupt political leaders. U.S. taxpayers will be financing a huge part of this scheme, but will have very little say over the situation.

Winston Churchill, one of the most admired leaders in the 20th century, once said: Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. We must learn from history and reject any brand of socialism.

Dugger retired as a journeyman carpenter from Clearwater Paper. He lives in Lewiston.

Excerpt from:
History should teach each generation the horrors of socialism - Lewiston Morning Tribune

Those behind the recent coup in the National Clarion Cycling Club (Keir Hardies cycling club jettisons socialism, 14 June) have, like so many others nowadays, misunderstood the concept of inclusion, treating it like a mantra to be trotted out without actually thinking. Inclusion can only be invoked in order to remove irrelevant obstacles to joining an organisation.

For almost all organisations, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and many other attributes are irrelevant, so they should not be an obstacle. Not so when it comes to political leanings in the context of an overtly political cycling club. One might as well try to persuade the Spurs supporters club to admit a card-carrying Arsenal fan. Those who are so unaware of the current political situation as to think socialism irrelevant should do the decent thing, leave the Clarion and form their own club, to which they would then be free to invite whoever they wish.Jim GrozierBrighton & Hove Clarion Cycling Club

Many years ago, I joined the National Clarion Cycling Club because it was a socialist organisation. I didnt expect to talk about the theories of Marx and Engels while out on club runs, or have lengthy discussions on dialectical materialism at the weekly club night. What I did expect, and I was not disappointed, was a comradeship of cyclists who were interested in their fellow human beings and whose behaviour, based on the principles they held, would provide something far more meaningful than a mere love of cycling.

The Clarion Cycling Club and the wider Clarion movement helped to make history. In the days when the working classes were overworked and underpaid, Clarion men and women were in the forefront of those who expounded the theories for a new way of life and who helped to bring about the material benefits we enjoy today. They dared to dream of a new society, a socialist society.

I was secretary of the National Clarion Cycling Club for three years until 2006, when I helped to set up a new organisation, the National Clarion Cycling Club 1895, to protect the founders commitment to combine the pleasures of cycling with the propaganda of socialism. The Clarion ideal that socialism is the hope of the world has survived for more than 125 years and the link between cycling and socialism will, for some at least, remain unbroken.Charles JepsonSecretary, National Clarion CC 1895

Have an opinion on anything youve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.

Read the rest here:
Clarion call from cyclists to carry on the fight for socialism on two wheels - The Guardian

Cyclings radical traditions are part of Britains social history. Recalling her teenage years in the 1890s, the great suffragette Sylvia Pankhurst wrote beautifully about the band of carefree lefties with whom she rode out of Manchester each weekend. Criss-crossing rural Lancashire and Cheshire, her cycling club was one of many associated with the Clarion, a popular socialist weekly newspaper. The more earnest socialists of the time saw this crowd as ideological dilettantes, too keen on having a good time. And their trips do seem to have been rather fun.

While there was some political evangelism and propagandising, good fellowship was the main object of the exercise: At our journeys end, Pankhurst wrote in a 1931 edition of the Clarion, was always an enormous shilling tea, in which phenomenal quantities of bread and butter and tinned fruit disappeared, then a walk round and frequently afterwards a brief sing-song. A favourite anthem was a marching song written by the utopian socialist Edward Carpenter. England, arise! The long, long night is over resounded outside many rural pubs on Sunday afternoons. How many regulars were converted to the cause is not clear.

Though the Clarion paper has long gone, some of the cycling clubs still thrive. But after 126 years on the road, a dispiriting schism looms. As the Guardian reported this week, the National Clarion Cycling Club AGM has passed a motion to remove a divisive reference in its constitution to socialism. The amended version will instead express a commitment to fairness, equality, inclusion and diversity. The Saddleworth Clarion Club in Greater Manchester has threatened to start a breakaway organisation in protest.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with the new formulation. But it seems sad to lose the literal connection to such a rich past. The Clarion clubs represented a very different, non-doctrinaire and eclectic strand of the early British socialist movement. They were, as the young Pankhurst discovered, a happy haven for the new woman of the Victorian era, who got on her bike seeking greater independence, adventure and fun. They were also a Sunday release for the factory worker, relishing clean air away from the smoke and grime of the mill towns and sprawling cities. For many Clarionettes, socialism was simply another word for idealised fellowship.

The primary function of a constitution is to define the basic principles and laws of an organisation. But in unusual cases such as this, language is also a document of origins; a testimony to the perspectives, associations and hopes of previous generations. The National Clarion Cycling Club has said that local branches are free to write their own constitutions, retaining the reference to socialism. Hopefully some of them will do that, in honour of those cycling choirs that belted out England, arise! with such gusto.

View post:
The Guardian view on socialism and cycling: fellow travellers - The Guardian

THANKFUL FOR CHANGES TO INTERSECTIONThank you, Tyler Morning Telegraph, for your reporting such happy news for this old lady!

Rep. Matt Schaefer doesnt make empty promises, he works for us in this district.

This dangerous (Chapel Hill) intersection will soon become safer for so many. My sister-in-law bought four acres on 64E that extended up Wolfe Lane from a Mrs. Craft. She bought two acres from my sister-in-law and built our home. We saw so many wrecks and also Mrs. Craft was killed at this intersection. I was always afraid school buses making this turn would be hit by an 18-wheeler or tanker.

Thank you, Matt Schaefer for your word and concern.

FUTURE UNDER SB7 ONE WITHOUT DEMOCRACYThe old adage/bumper sticker, If you are not OUTRAGED, you are NOT PAYING ATTENTION is right on target today (Monday).

The Texas Legislature was blocked from passing SB7 on the last day of the legislative session when enough legislators walked out leaving less than the quorum necessary to vote. SB7 is authored by Sen. Bryan Hughes of our East Texas Senate district. Gov. Greg Abbott has vowed to revive SB7 in the special session he will call soon.

The most egregious provision of this bill allows elections to be overturned by state officials when there is just a suggestion of voting fraud. Proof is not necessary. This means election results can be nullified and local election officials no longer have power to certify results if they are challenged. When we, the people, lose this power of the vote, we lose our democracy. There are autocrats and their henchmen ready to step in and take control.

Is this the future you want for yourself and your children? Look to Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela if you want a glimpse into our potential future.

If this terrifies you, speak out. Contact Gov. Abbott, State Sen. Bryan Hughes, State Representative Max Schaefer to voice your strong opposition to this Bill.

CREEPING SOCIALISM IN U.S.In 2020-21, the forces of socialism have taken over in parts of our country. More so in the Blue States than in the Red States. Texas is somewhat independent of this assent to Marxist ideology, especially among long-term Texans.

We worry a lot about the thousands of emigrants from Blue States will they bring their Blue tax and spend attitudes with them as they settle into our Texas culture? Over time, will they change our state from Red to Purple to Blue? Will they vote for more give-a-way programs for the poor and oppressed? And will they change our state into an immigrant haven, with increased costs for welfare, education and health care?

A positive amongst this gloom is the Hispanic tendency to hold conservative views on most political topics. They tend more often to be pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion and economically conservative. The majority still vote democrat, but that is changing, with the leftward swing of the Democrat Party. In order to keep Texas Red, we must educate our African American and Hispanic neighbors, including Blue State emigrants, on the advantages of acting and voting conservative. This is my call to action.

Texans: Lets choose freedom over socialism!

Recent Stories You Might Have Missed

Visit link:
Letters to the Editor: Reader write in on intersection, SB7, socialism - Tyler Morning Telegraph