In this oppressive era of hushed voices, furtive glances and underground resistance, it is little wonder that John Stuart Millâs On Liberty has become an inspiration and a recourse for a new generation. Since its publication in 1859, Millâs brief on behalf of liberty of speech, opinion, expression and action has become a rallying philosophy for those experiencing conditions of constraint, limitation, and oppression â whether political, social, religious, academic or interpersonal. A century and a half after his death, Millâs argument on behalf of an âatmosphere of freedomâ, limited only when words or actions result in harm, is the governing philosophy of the liberal order.
Yet while Millâs text was written as a defence of the requisite conditions for a liberal society, today it is self-described conservatives who are most likely to invoke its arguments. If it was the free-thinkers in the Victorian era who were likely to be âcanceledâ by religious traditionalists â the source of most immediate concern for Mill â today the situation is the opposite. Conservatives and âclassical liberalsâ of various stripes today regularly invoke Mill as a refutation against the oppressiveness of the progressives. One of Americaâs more prominent religious conservatives, the Catholic legal theorist Robert George of Princeton University, has become among the most prominent of Millian free speech defenders. â[We should] go back to John Stuart Mill,â he characteristically suggested last year. âHaving legal protection for free, robust discourse in place is one thing, and it's a very important thing, and it's, as I say, a necessary thing, but it's not sufficient. In addition to those legal norms protecting free speech, we need to build a culture of free speech.â
However, it is far from clear that Mill would be pleased by these new admirers of his work. Indeed, thereâs good reason to believe Mill would be deeply gratified by the new progressive hegemony his arguments have produced. Millâs case on behalf of liberty was not, as todayâs conservatives and libertarians mistakenly believe, an argument for freedom of expression as an end in itself, but rather, a means toward a further end: regime change. The regime he hoped to overturn was the custom-bound society of Victorian England, as well as the traditional civilisation of the West more broadly, particularly its classical and Christian inheritance. The regime he hoped to usher in was none other than the progressivism that now dominates the major institutions of the West.
Throughout his text, Mill is clear that liberty is a means of displacing what he called âthe despotism of customâ. Robert George is correct that Millâs concern was less the narrowly legal defence of free speech, expression and action, and more a worry about the spectre of social conformity. Mill begins his text by arguing that an earlier generation of philosophers and political actors had secured formal liberalism â limited government and political representation of the demos. He observed that formal liberty was ultimately useless in a society that remained bound by traditional opinion â the social âtyranny of the majorityâ. His aim, then, was to secure the social conditions of liberty, aligning an increasingly liberal political order with what were less liberal civic, social and private domains.
Social conformity for Mill took a particular form: the untoward social dominance of the many over a small minority of people who were marked by distinctive features of âindividualityâ. The oppression he decried percolated from the bottom-up, an informal but nevertheless pervasive way of life that was reflected in societyâs customary practices. In Millâs Victorian era, such customs included what might still be categorised as âmanners and moralsâ, regulating informally but powerfully everything from dress to forms of address, table manners to social comportment, expectations of church attendance to avoidance of visible vices. Of course, it also involved social conformity to traditional sexual roles and behaviour, distinguishing between men and women, exerting strong pressure toward marriage, and dispersing the norm that marriage was the necessary institution in which children were born and sheltered, provided for by the man and typically raised primarily by the mother. This web of social expectations constituted a form of âdespotismâ, and for Mill, its source and most powerful enforcer was everyday people. His philosophy was an argument of how to liberate the unique, inventive, free-thinking few from the oppression of the herd-like, tradition-bound, narrow and unadventurous many. Liberty was the means of moving the social order from one that was conservative to one that was liberationist.
[su_events_insert]
Indeed, Mill is clear that what he seeks is a society that is progressive. Customary societies â the âgreater part of the world,â in fact â have âno historyâ. Here, Mill meant not that nothing happens in such societies, but that in tradition-bound settings, the future extensively resembles the past. By âhistoryâ, Mill means progress: a society of constant change, disruption, and transformation. For Mill, humans do not have a fixed nature, but rather are defined for the capacity to change and transform in unexpected and unpredictable ways. Humans are, he states, âprogressive beingsâ, but their capacity to realise their potential for transformation can only be developed in progressive â and not customary â societies.
For Mill, progress only occurs when the distinctive genius, originality and adventurousness â the âindividualityâ â of rare individuals is liberated from the oppressiveness of the masses. In traditional societies, such unique individuals are thwarted from engaging in âexperiments in livingâ. It is not sufficient to have formal rights to liberty, including free speech and freedom of expression: because of the âdespotism of customâ, and the growing political influence of ordinary people, such individuals will need both active political protection from the masses, and, better yet, eventually enjoy political control.
So he wrote: âThere needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from themâ [emphasis mine]. Mill recognised that ever-more democratic societies would likely be not just socially dominated, but politically dominated, by the backward views of ordinary people. The main project of On Liberty, as well as his work Considerations of Representative Government, is how to secure, in the first instance, the political dominance of the progressive element of society, and thus ensure that the traditionalism of the social order first be restrained, subsequently sequestered, and ultimately transformed in a more progressive direction.
The great obstacle to the emergence of a progressive elite was the pervasiveness of ordinary opinion â the âconservativesâ for which Mill had such withering disdain. Mill had nothing but contempt for the backwardness of ordinary people, a view that to this day remains a hallmark of self-described âprogressivesâ. Society, he bemoaned, was governed by the âmediocrityâ and âlow state of the human mindâ of the âmassesâ. He hoped that a small group of âeccentricsâ would arise and, perhaps by persuasion of the âmore highly gifted and instructed One or Fewâ, would exercise authority over the masses.
Yet, as a potential backstop to the difficulty of persuading such a mediocre mass, he also commended a system of plural voting in which those with higher attainments of education would be given more votes. Of less importance than the mechanism of progressive dominance was that there be some means of avoiding their being politically swamped by the masses â what can be done today, for instance, by media control and dominance of the education, suffices for what Mill hoped plural voting might achieve. Above all, the demos must be prevented from thwarting progress.
In place of the despotism of custom, Mill proposed the despotism of progress. Only when we understand that, for Mill, liberty is a means to progress, and not a good in itself, can we grasp some of the more seemingly jarring arguments contained in On Liberty. At the very opening of his text, Mill acknowledges that his argument for extensive liberty is meant only for societies that are already shifting in a progressive direction, such as England or the United States. Most nations, as he later acknowledges, âhave no historyâ â in other words, they are not yet on a path of progress, and thus are not yet suited for liberty.
[su_unherd_related fttitle="Suggested reading" author="Mark Lilla"]https://staging.unherd.com/2022/11/should-america-be-more-like-ukraine/[/su_unherd_related]
In such cases, he writes on the sixth page of a text titled On Liberty, âdespotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided their end be improvement, and the means justified by effecting that endâ. These words are often excused by Millâs partisans as the time-bound prejudices of a man shaped by his years working for the East India Company â and doubtless, they reflect a widespread sentiment. But they were, and remain today, a view endemic to a progressive mindset, particularly among those who believe themselves to be more progressed, and therefore entitled, to govern despotically over those who are deemed deplorable.
On Liberty, then, is shrewdly mistitled. Had Mill wanted to highlight its more fundamental theme, it would rather have been titled On Progress. Liberty was never its main object; rather, liberty was the mechanism that would transform a traditional, bottom-up social order into a top-down progressive liberal regime. His text sought to align the extant liberal political order, based in theories of radical individual autonomy, with a yet-unrealised progressive social order dominated by those at liberty to engage in ever-more radical âexperiments in livingâ.
Mill stated that the liberty of a progressive society constitutes a temporary, intermediary condition. âAs mankind improve[s]â â that is, as we progress, and become more âprogressiveâ â âthe number of doctrines which are no longer disputed or doubted will be constantly on the increase: and the well-being of mankind may almost be measured by the number and gravity of truths which have reached the point of being uncontested.â Those who believe that the homogeneity of viewpoint in modern institutions such as universities constitutes a betrayal of Millian principles have not been reading their Mill.
For he is no ally of todayâs so-called âconservativesâ, who look to him for assistance in securing minuscule platforms in an otherwise dominant progressive academy or wider progressive social and political order. What they fail to understand is that the academy, as well as society as a whole, has been transformed in perfect conformity to Millian ambitions: institutions dominated by progressive elites who impose their social radicalism upon the rest of society. The charges that such "liberals" are hypocrites for failing to live up to the ideals of the university, or that they are âilliberalâ, are therefore non-starters â progressive dominance is, in fact, the realisation of exactly the vision for society first articulated by Mill. Today's âconservativesâ pick up On Liberty and believe they are holding a shield against progressive despotism, but what they have found is a sword that progressives no longer need and now have readily discarded.
Rather than look to Mill, those seeking to resist todayâs progressive totalitarianism should, as Orwell recommended, "look to the proles". Just as Mill effected a âregime changeâ, we should look to do the same by aligning ourselves with the instinctive traditionalism of the demos that Mill deplored. In either regime, some theoretical condition of âtrue libertyâ is purely fictional and not an aim requisite for a flourishing society. We will either have todayâs âdespotism of progressâ or the ârestoration of good customâ. In the hopes of encouraging the latter, it is time for a revolution against the revolution.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGreat piece and well argued! Rarely have I read an article such as this that so quickly alters my perception of an historical figure.
I had a similar experience. Iâve not long finished reading On Liberty and I canât say I came to those conclusions
I had a similar experience. Iâve not long finished reading On Liberty and I canât say I came to those conclusions
Great piece and well argued! Rarely have I read an article such as this that so quickly alters my perception of an historical figure.
Beware of meddling with traditions – especially if you donât understand them (Chestertonâs Fence) – because from a psycho-physiological perspective it may not even be possible to see the world around us without traditions – literally.
Thereâs a widespread misconception in our society that we can just âseeâ the objective world. However, that isnât how it works and the problem of perception is far more complicated than we realise.
Part of the way that we solve this is by mapping value directly onto action – in a neurophysiological manner – and part of that mapping IS value – which is worth doing because thatâs how we make a value judgement.
As human being we view the world through a prism of value that has been established by the consensus of humankind since the dawn of time.
Weâre historical creatures – thereâs no escaping that.
Our traditions are simply narratives that describe value and desirable patterns of behaviour within any given environment (society). Can some traditions become outdated as the environment progresses? Of course – and we shouldnât be afraid to challenge our traditions. But such undertakings should be carried out in a rational and objective manner – and certainly not driven by emotions and ill-thought-through ideological lenses.
So beware of messing with traditions – because certain processes are so valuable that we interfere with them at our psychological and social peril.
Agreed – and basically Burkeâs argument in Reflections on the French Revolution. Speaking of which, the Terror that evolved during that revolution is what happens when the âeducated eliteâ get extra votes đ
I am always astonished at this deification of Burke as the founder of modern Conservative values, when in reality he was the progenitor of WOKE, and all the horrors that it actually stands for.
His spiteful yet relentless pursuit of Warren Hastings being a prime example of his feeble, if vindictive mind set.
Go on with Burke as a progenitor of Woke? I’ve identified at least 50 Philosophers that contributed to Progressivism and Critical Consciousness but I’m not seeing the Burke angle.
May I suggest starting with the condemnation of Warren Hastings and the East India Company in general?
More perplexed yet. Criticizing a Monopoly is hardly Woke. Woke is a level of consciousness that initially brings about a Gnostic/Nihilist disposition to destroy with a Hermetic application to Transform.
Any analysis that doesn’t put at least 75% blame for the Mind Virus on Marx is just pseudo-history. Rousseau was an existentialist, Kant was a loony philosopher, Hegel was a Hermetic Mystic but only Marx tried to violently actualize a Collective Mind Virus.
Everything today is an inevitable consequence of the Dialectical method spinning out of control and being used to socially engineer change and bring about the end point of History.
I cannot but agree that Marx & Co should take responsibility for 75% of this âpoisonâ, as you correctly state, but I think the origins go back much further.
In fact I would identify one the first acts of WOKE as occurring as far back as Nero.
You really must be a conservative! It can’t actually have been Nero – we don’t despite superficial appearances share much of western culture with ancient Rome, which is very alien to us in all its assumptions. (Unless you perhaps among other things think the degradation and infliction of condign and differential punishment on uppity slaves / lower orders should be embraced by western societies…..).
The ‘poison’, if you mean ‘progressivism’, has been a endemic key feature of western European society for around 1,000 years, which marks it off from all other known civilisations – certainly including the Church / Empire split – as Tom Holland has persuasively argued.
No doubt this was a major contributor to western dominance; and very likely it will now do the same for its fall.
You really must be a conservative! It can’t actually have been Nero – we don’t despite superficial appearances share much of western culture with ancient Rome, which is very alien to us in all its assumptions. (Unless you perhaps among other things think the degradation and infliction of condign and differential punishment on uppity slaves / lower orders should be embraced by western societies…..).
The ‘poison’, if you mean ‘progressivism’, has been a endemic key feature of western European society for around 1,000 years, which marks it off from all other known civilisations – certainly including the Church / Empire split – as Tom Holland has persuasively argued.
No doubt this was a major contributor to western dominance; and very likely it will now do the same for its fall.
With the greatest respect, you can’t just dictate in such a narrow way what are the sources of woke. I’d say you put much too much emphasis on the role of philosophers, and then just name call the ones you don’t respect anyway. Marx – the link is complex at the least – he’d have had very little time for the ‘bourgeois deviations’ of modern western ‘woke’ societies. That is one reason why almost all ‘actually existing’ Marxist Leninist states were significantly socially conservative in many respects (they actually wanted people to have children, for one thing).
I wonder, do you actually speak to any young people about their views? I’m a gay man coming of age in the 1980s and can tell you precisely from experience what drove my own wokish younger tendencies. Liberation from oppression is a powerful motivator, though it may be ultimately an illusion.
I think James Lindsay has conclusively shown that Marxism is a syncretism of two Ancient Religions (Gnosticism and Hermeticism) that Marx inverted into the Principle of Correspondence into a system of secular activism. Both Gnostics and Hermetics believe they possess absolute knowledge (gnosis) that the world is an integrated whole and bringing about this recognition is their primary objective. Communism is essentially “Man in Harmony With Nature.” Gnostics don’t believe they can bring this about so they only seek to destroy the existing world to lay the future path. Hermetics fully believe they can transform the present world. Syncretizing the two created the Desire and the Method (Dialectical Materialism) for social transformation (Social Alchemy) by dissolving Binary Opposites into a singular whole.
The verbiage “Liberation from Oppression” comes from the Gnostic idea that the World is a Prison. When Rousseau proclaimed “Man is Free but Everywhere he is in Chains”, this is a Gnostic interpretation. Generally this “prison” manifests as social expectations limiting human potentiality.
Breaking out of the Prison requires an Awakened and Enlightened Consciousness. Actualizing this Consciousness in the masses requires a Maoist “Desire for Unity.”
Take DEI and Sustainability.
Unity requires Inclusivity. Inclusivity then requires Diversity. For Diversity to be “Sustainable” it requires redistribution of cultural capital (Equity). Equity is justified on grounds of Standpoint Theory that the “Marginalized Class” has an underrepresented viewpoint (gnosis) that needs to be centered in order to produce a holistically integrated society.
The irony here is DEI could be a valid practice if it came about naturally instead of being orchestrated by tyrannical social engineers.
Sorry this was longer than I intended.
At the end of the day, Marx’s overarching goal can be seen in Wokeness. Abolition of Hierarchies into an Integrated Whole.
I would suggest Marxism appeals to resentful and spiteful under achieving middle class who worship power. As Orwell pointed out, the British working class did not worship power or like bullies. There is a Budddhist saying ” Where expectation exceeds reality, there is unhappyness “.
Marxism appeals to feeble members of the clerical class educated to at least secondary level who consider life has not delivered what they consider they are entitled to, based on their intellect. Marxism failed to improve the quality of life of the working class so it has moved onto cultural and now personal aspects of life. The vast majority of blue collar manual workers just want to be well paid for a hard days competent work. These people despise the Woke Left as swots, sneaks and utter drips from their school days. The Woke Left consider there is great social injustice but this is because they the swots, sneaks and utter drips who cannot cope with, let alone enjoy, the rough and tumble of life. If one looks at history the Woke Left is the complete opposite of the sturdy Yeoman Archer and his wife who stood on their feet and defended family and country. Most of the seafarers and creators of the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions came from the yeomen and independent craftsmen.
Marxism( and Nazism ) appeals to those unable to think and act for themslves as individuals and are happy to sacrifice freedom by joining the collective and gaining power.
I would suggest Marxism appeals to resentful and spiteful under achieving middle class who worship power. As Orwell pointed out, the British working class did not worship power or like bullies. There is a Budddhist saying ” Where expectation exceeds reality, there is unhappyness “.
Marxism appeals to feeble members of the clerical class educated to at least secondary level who consider life has not delivered what they consider they are entitled to, based on their intellect. Marxism failed to improve the quality of life of the working class so it has moved onto cultural and now personal aspects of life. The vast majority of blue collar manual workers just want to be well paid for a hard days competent work. These people despise the Woke Left as swots, sneaks and utter drips from their school days. The Woke Left consider there is great social injustice but this is because they the swots, sneaks and utter drips who cannot cope with, let alone enjoy, the rough and tumble of life. If one looks at history the Woke Left is the complete opposite of the sturdy Yeoman Archer and his wife who stood on their feet and defended family and country. Most of the seafarers and creators of the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions came from the yeomen and independent craftsmen.
Marxism( and Nazism ) appeals to those unable to think and act for themslves as individuals and are happy to sacrifice freedom by joining the collective and gaining power.
I think James Lindsay has conclusively shown that Marxism is a syncretism of two Ancient Religions (Gnosticism and Hermeticism) that Marx inverted into the Principle of Correspondence into a system of secular activism. Both Gnostics and Hermetics believe they possess absolute knowledge (gnosis) that the world is an integrated whole and bringing about this recognition is their primary objective. Communism is essentially “Man in Harmony With Nature.” Gnostics don’t believe they can bring this about so they only seek to destroy the existing world to lay the future path. Hermetics fully believe they can transform the present world. Syncretizing the two created the Desire and the Method (Dialectical Materialism) for social transformation (Social Alchemy) by dissolving Binary Opposites into a singular whole.
The verbiage “Liberation from Oppression” comes from the Gnostic idea that the World is a Prison. When Rousseau proclaimed “Man is Free but Everywhere he is in Chains”, this is a Gnostic interpretation. Generally this “prison” manifests as social expectations limiting human potentiality.
Breaking out of the Prison requires an Awakened and Enlightened Consciousness. Actualizing this Consciousness in the masses requires a Maoist “Desire for Unity.”
Take DEI and Sustainability.
Unity requires Inclusivity. Inclusivity then requires Diversity. For Diversity to be “Sustainable” it requires redistribution of cultural capital (Equity). Equity is justified on grounds of Standpoint Theory that the “Marginalized Class” has an underrepresented viewpoint (gnosis) that needs to be centered in order to produce a holistically integrated society.
The irony here is DEI could be a valid practice if it came about naturally instead of being orchestrated by tyrannical social engineers.
Sorry this was longer than I intended.
At the end of the day, Marx’s overarching goal can be seen in Wokeness. Abolition of Hierarchies into an Integrated Whole.
I cannot but agree that Marx & Co should take responsibility for 75% of this âpoisonâ, as you correctly state, but I think the origins go back much further.
In fact I would identify one the first acts of WOKE as occurring as far back as Nero.
With the greatest respect, you can’t just dictate in such a narrow way what are the sources of woke. I’d say you put much too much emphasis on the role of philosophers, and then just name call the ones you don’t respect anyway. Marx – the link is complex at the least – he’d have had very little time for the ‘bourgeois deviations’ of modern western ‘woke’ societies. That is one reason why almost all ‘actually existing’ Marxist Leninist states were significantly socially conservative in many respects (they actually wanted people to have children, for one thing).
I wonder, do you actually speak to any young people about their views? I’m a gay man coming of age in the 1980s and can tell you precisely from experience what drove my own wokish younger tendencies. Liberation from oppression is a powerful motivator, though it may be ultimately an illusion.
I think the depredations of the early EIC are pretty well founded historically. Conservatives are under no obligation to to defend every action of a profit making and rather ruthless trading company!
Sir Thomas Smythe the first CEO of the Honourable East India Company advised that â profit & plunder should be the primary motive in India and NOT any form of âImperialâ rule.
As such, that worked quite well until 1754 it must be said.
It was the collapse of the Mughal Empire which started the change of the EIC. In about 1754 , The Mughals asked the EIC to become tax collectors for Bengal, their wealthiest province, Orissa and Bihar.
Khaldun, Toynbee, Northcote Parkinson and Glubb all state that civilisations, dynasties and empires rise and fall. Northcote Parkinson states that it is the collapse of an empire which creates a power vacuum which draws in more energetic, innovative and sturdy peoples. Mughal Empire went through a collapse from 1700 to the 1760s which drew in the British and French.
The Mughals taxed the Hindu farmers at 50% which led to the massive collapse of food production, basically to subsistance level , so reduced taxable income.
Britain then won the Seven Years War with France and became the major buyer of goods from India, the major supplier of military skills to the various rulers and tax collectors for the three provinces.
The change was accidental, not planned. The EIC was far less ruthless than the various Turkic Muslim invaders whose 26 invasion between 1000 and 1754 produced a death toll of 88 M according to K S Lal. There are few Hindu and Buddhist temples in the Indus -Gangetic Plain.
The development of entry to the EIC and various government post plus universities via exams were readily accepted by Hindus, Sikhs and Parsees.
One of the engineering schemes undertaken by EIC was the design and construction of the Ganges Canal between 1842 and 1854 which irrigated 750,00 acres of farmland. By 1860 Sir Syed Ahmed Khan realised Muslims were falling behind Hindus in obtaining a western technical education.
If one wanted to demonstrate one massive improvement created Mill and fellow Liberals would be to further develop the idea of selection and promotion via exam, free from corruption and family patronage which produced technically competent, hardworking and honest middle class . The develop of creating a modern technically competent middle class goes to the development of exams for RN officers to pass from Midshipman to Lieutenant and East India Company College. The creation of the modern British Civil serice in 1857 is due to the development of the exam system in India by the EIC.
The education and training of a technically competent , hard working and honest middle class of Hindus, Parsees and Sikhs plus some Muslims from 1828 meant that at independence, this group gained control of India from Muslim overlords without full scale war. Hyderabad Ruled by a Muslim Nizam was conquered by India in 1948.
It was the collapse of the Mughal Empire which started the change of the EIC. In about 1754 , The Mughals asked the EIC to become tax collectors for Bengal, their wealthiest province, Orissa and Bihar.
Khaldun, Toynbee, Northcote Parkinson and Glubb all state that civilisations, dynasties and empires rise and fall. Northcote Parkinson states that it is the collapse of an empire which creates a power vacuum which draws in more energetic, innovative and sturdy peoples. Mughal Empire went through a collapse from 1700 to the 1760s which drew in the British and French.
The Mughals taxed the Hindu farmers at 50% which led to the massive collapse of food production, basically to subsistance level , so reduced taxable income.
Britain then won the Seven Years War with France and became the major buyer of goods from India, the major supplier of military skills to the various rulers and tax collectors for the three provinces.
The change was accidental, not planned. The EIC was far less ruthless than the various Turkic Muslim invaders whose 26 invasion between 1000 and 1754 produced a death toll of 88 M according to K S Lal. There are few Hindu and Buddhist temples in the Indus -Gangetic Plain.
The development of entry to the EIC and various government post plus universities via exams were readily accepted by Hindus, Sikhs and Parsees.
One of the engineering schemes undertaken by EIC was the design and construction of the Ganges Canal between 1842 and 1854 which irrigated 750,00 acres of farmland. By 1860 Sir Syed Ahmed Khan realised Muslims were falling behind Hindus in obtaining a western technical education.
If one wanted to demonstrate one massive improvement created Mill and fellow Liberals would be to further develop the idea of selection and promotion via exam, free from corruption and family patronage which produced technically competent, hardworking and honest middle class . The develop of creating a modern technically competent middle class goes to the development of exams for RN officers to pass from Midshipman to Lieutenant and East India Company College. The creation of the modern British Civil serice in 1857 is due to the development of the exam system in India by the EIC.
The education and training of a technically competent , hard working and honest middle class of Hindus, Parsees and Sikhs plus some Muslims from 1828 meant that at independence, this group gained control of India from Muslim overlords without full scale war. Hyderabad Ruled by a Muslim Nizam was conquered by India in 1948.
Sir Thomas Smythe the first CEO of the Honourable East India Company advised that â profit & plunder should be the primary motive in India and NOT any form of âImperialâ rule.
As such, that worked quite well until 1754 it must be said.
More perplexed yet. Criticizing a Monopoly is hardly Woke. Woke is a level of consciousness that initially brings about a Gnostic/Nihilist disposition to destroy with a Hermetic application to Transform.
Any analysis that doesn’t put at least 75% blame for the Mind Virus on Marx is just pseudo-history. Rousseau was an existentialist, Kant was a loony philosopher, Hegel was a Hermetic Mystic but only Marx tried to violently actualize a Collective Mind Virus.
Everything today is an inevitable consequence of the Dialectical method spinning out of control and being used to socially engineer change and bring about the end point of History.
I think the depredations of the early EIC are pretty well founded historically. Conservatives are under no obligation to to defend every action of a profit making and rather ruthless trading company!
May I suggest starting with the condemnation of Warren Hastings and the East India Company in general?
Although I tend to agree about Warren Hastings, of course Burke wasn’t the progenitor of ‘woke’! That’s a really daft charge. Your comment amounts to the position that there should be total ideological conformity among conservatives. Of course we wouldn’t expect all conservatives to agree on every single point; they are not Leninists slavishly following a set dogma. Conservativism is first and foremost a sceptical and empirical disposition about how societies best function.
Yes you are correct, my apologies, but in the interest of debate I thought it a useful, although provocative, âstarter for oneâ.
âConservatism is first and foremost a sceptical and empirical disposition about how societies best function.â
Precisely, and that debate best moves forward through controversy I would have thought?
Yes you are correct, my apologies, but in the interest of debate I thought it a useful, although provocative, âstarter for oneâ.
âConservatism is first and foremost a sceptical and empirical disposition about how societies best function.â
Precisely, and that debate best moves forward through controversy I would have thought?
Go on with Burke as a progenitor of Woke? I’ve identified at least 50 Philosophers that contributed to Progressivism and Critical Consciousness but I’m not seeing the Burke angle.
Although I tend to agree about Warren Hastings, of course Burke wasn’t the progenitor of ‘woke’! That’s a really daft charge. Your comment amounts to the position that there should be total ideological conformity among conservatives. Of course we wouldn’t expect all conservatives to agree on every single point; they are not Leninists slavishly following a set dogma. Conservativism is first and foremost a sceptical and empirical disposition about how societies best function.
J.S. Mill made a cogent argument for nonconformity. So? Every great achiever in mankind’s history has been a nonconformist. I am much more with Mill than Deneen.
I am always astonished at this deification of Burke as the founder of modern Conservative values, when in reality he was the progenitor of WOKE, and all the horrors that it actually stands for.
His spiteful yet relentless pursuit of Warren Hastings being a prime example of his feeble, if vindictive mind set.
J.S. Mill made a cogent argument for nonconformity. So? Every great achiever in mankind’s history has been a nonconformist. I am much more with Mill than Deneen.
ââŠ.we shouldnât be afraid to challenge our traditions. But such undertakings should be carried out in a rational and objective manner âŠ..â
Iâm sorry but you go wrong here. By using a rational and objective manner you donât actually get change. Change comes from challenging the existing (rational) way of thinking.
You want rationality because you donât want change.
Why would you want to have change if the existing tradition is objectively rational? What is the virtue of irrational change?
Why would you want to have change if the existing tradition is objectively rational? What is the virtue of irrational change?
Change is not necessarily progress, which is change for the better. And there’s the rub. What do we mean by “better”? Is “better” merely the opinion of the powerful? If so, then why should we privilege the contrary opinions of a rival group over our own? Instead, we should engage in a contest of power against them. After all, if there is no transcendental standard of the good, why not choose a standard most congenial to our own natures and devise an ideology that glorifies it?
But what if there is an objective, transcendent good that may conflict with our own inclinations? If we choose to put the “I should” ahead of the “I want” (pace C.S.Lewis), then the wisdom of lived experience may be a surer guide than a library’s worth of books that try their best to evade the hard fact that, if we are to live as human beings rather than clever animals, we have to be willing to suffer ourselves into existence.
Just because the person-on-the-street can’t articulate why a particular custom is valuable, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. However, the first stage of decline is when a society does the right things, but does so blindly, no longer having a deep understanding of the universal principles that underlie a specific custom. As time passes and circumstances change, society can no longer apply those principles intelligently. Customs become inapt or they’re modified in a way that violates their spirit. At that point, the revolutionaries can plausibly claim that custom is mere unthinking conformity that unreasonably constrains behavior. Babies get thrown out with the bathwater; e.g. the norms that build strong families are tossed into the same bin as the abuses that sustain empires.
Progress is not the arrow of time, though it may seem that way because knowledge tends to increase and be retained over time, even allowing for “dark” ages (that turn out no to be so dark.) But knowledge isn’t wisdom. Think of the scene in “2001: A Space Odyssey” where the tossed club becomes an orbiting nuclear bomb.
Very pithy comment, thank you. Also I like the principle that we should challenge our traditions. If we do, it should be done cautiously and respectfully.
Agreed – and basically Burkeâs argument in Reflections on the French Revolution. Speaking of which, the Terror that evolved during that revolution is what happens when the âeducated eliteâ get extra votes đ
ââŠ.we shouldnât be afraid to challenge our traditions. But such undertakings should be carried out in a rational and objective manner âŠ..â
Iâm sorry but you go wrong here. By using a rational and objective manner you donât actually get change. Change comes from challenging the existing (rational) way of thinking.
You want rationality because you donât want change.
Change is not necessarily progress, which is change for the better. And there’s the rub. What do we mean by “better”? Is “better” merely the opinion of the powerful? If so, then why should we privilege the contrary opinions of a rival group over our own? Instead, we should engage in a contest of power against them. After all, if there is no transcendental standard of the good, why not choose a standard most congenial to our own natures and devise an ideology that glorifies it?
But what if there is an objective, transcendent good that may conflict with our own inclinations? If we choose to put the “I should” ahead of the “I want” (pace C.S.Lewis), then the wisdom of lived experience may be a surer guide than a library’s worth of books that try their best to evade the hard fact that, if we are to live as human beings rather than clever animals, we have to be willing to suffer ourselves into existence.
Just because the person-on-the-street can’t articulate why a particular custom is valuable, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. However, the first stage of decline is when a society does the right things, but does so blindly, no longer having a deep understanding of the universal principles that underlie a specific custom. As time passes and circumstances change, society can no longer apply those principles intelligently. Customs become inapt or they’re modified in a way that violates their spirit. At that point, the revolutionaries can plausibly claim that custom is mere unthinking conformity that unreasonably constrains behavior. Babies get thrown out with the bathwater; e.g. the norms that build strong families are tossed into the same bin as the abuses that sustain empires.
Progress is not the arrow of time, though it may seem that way because knowledge tends to increase and be retained over time, even allowing for “dark” ages (that turn out no to be so dark.) But knowledge isn’t wisdom. Think of the scene in “2001: A Space Odyssey” where the tossed club becomes an orbiting nuclear bomb.
Very pithy comment, thank you. Also I like the principle that we should challenge our traditions. If we do, it should be done cautiously and respectfully.
Beware of meddling with traditions – especially if you donât understand them (Chestertonâs Fence) – because from a psycho-physiological perspective it may not even be possible to see the world around us without traditions – literally.
Thereâs a widespread misconception in our society that we can just âseeâ the objective world. However, that isnât how it works and the problem of perception is far more complicated than we realise.
Part of the way that we solve this is by mapping value directly onto action – in a neurophysiological manner – and part of that mapping IS value – which is worth doing because thatâs how we make a value judgement.
As human being we view the world through a prism of value that has been established by the consensus of humankind since the dawn of time.
Weâre historical creatures – thereâs no escaping that.
Our traditions are simply narratives that describe value and desirable patterns of behaviour within any given environment (society). Can some traditions become outdated as the environment progresses? Of course – and we shouldnât be afraid to challenge our traditions. But such undertakings should be carried out in a rational and objective manner – and certainly not driven by emotions and ill-thought-through ideological lenses.
So beware of messing with traditions – because certain processes are so valuable that we interfere with them at our psychological and social peril.
The opposite to modern progressives is not traditionalism. Politics is not a dichotomy of either-or or ‘which side are you on’. Multiple forms of progress are possible, and we do need to reject a claimed progressive movement that has absolutist and anti-freedom roots as anti-progress.
The illiberalism of modern progressives doesn’t mean that other forms of progress are tainted by the same intolerences. It is possible to believe in progress – reduction in poverty, improved living standards, mutuality and tolerance, avoidance of war – without getting trapped by the segregationalist isms of the SJWs. It is possible to see that long-standing heuristics and principles can still have value and should be tested and retained, while still rejecting ritualism – a ritualism that is being increased by demanding deference to compelled speech and conformity of thought.
That is not to say that there is no traditionalist-versus-progressive argument going on. That is happening too. But Spain’s history of progressists versus traditionalists shows us what happens when the middle ground is denied, and it is precisely a middle of tolerance, fraternity, equality, fairness and freedom that we should seek to defend.
Amen to this much needed infusion of nuance! And while some of Deneen’s points were persuasive to me as a casual reader of Mill (not that he’s a breezy read), I found his round assertions of what Mill really meant–usually unaccompanied by examples–to be suspect from an argumentative point of view.
The middle ground, somewhere between hedonistic self-absorption and ritualistic deference to tradition, needs vigorous defending these days. Mutual understanding and fairmindedness are not easy to reach or maintain, nor are they intrinsically weak and evasive goals. Absolute self-certitude or ideological one-sidedness is an easier, weaker, and more evasive path. To claim that we’re reduced to an either/or choice between roaring contempt for anything traditional and blind conformity to received wisdom, according to some idealized concept of the Ordinary Man, is just mistaken.
Unfortunately JS Mill is an absolute exemplar of the arrogant certitudes of most if not all liberal progressives, as his language demonstrates.
At times. I think he’s quite fair-minded and evenhanded on the whole–for an IQ outlier.
At times. I think he’s quite fair-minded and evenhanded on the whole–for an IQ outlier.
Kind of a straw man here….
Tradition encompasses the tried and true as well as the tried and found wanting. We can truly learn from a conservative view of human flourishing. Progressivism is the belief that the untried, usually utopian, new idea should and will be forced on us because, you know, we are not the experts and we don’t know what’s good for us. This typically ends in gulags, concentration camps, and mass death of the innocent and “noncompliant”. I do believe that all of history bears this out.
You cherrypick both conservatism and progressivism to support your side of a question that is decidedly less one-sided than you claim.
Conservatism also countenanced (outright, not “modern-day”) slavery and the worst abuses of the Catholic church, for example, and Radical or Progressive forces were needed to overcome these rigid barriers to human flourishing. (Or maybe the enslaved should have just been patient for a few more decades, centuries, or millennia).
I certainly value tradition and the selective, sifted wisdom of the centuries. But that is not a flawless inheritance, and while I advocate consensus and incremental progress over shouting matches and bloodshed, on occasion the wheels need to be sped up or tinkered with. Neither wholesale re-engineering nor an unqualified faith in cultural legacy or status quo ante is warranted.
You cherrypick both conservatism and progressivism to support your side of a question that is decidedly less one-sided than you claim.
Conservatism also countenanced (outright, not “modern-day”) slavery and the worst abuses of the Catholic church, for example, and Radical or Progressive forces were needed to overcome these rigid barriers to human flourishing. (Or maybe the enslaved should have just been patient for a few more decades, centuries, or millennia).
I certainly value tradition and the selective, sifted wisdom of the centuries. But that is not a flawless inheritance, and while I advocate consensus and incremental progress over shouting matches and bloodshed, on occasion the wheels need to be sped up or tinkered with. Neither wholesale re-engineering nor an unqualified faith in cultural legacy or status quo ante is warranted.
Unfortunately JS Mill is an absolute exemplar of the arrogant certitudes of most if not all liberal progressives, as his language demonstrates.
Kind of a straw man here….
Tradition encompasses the tried and true as well as the tried and found wanting. We can truly learn from a conservative view of human flourishing. Progressivism is the belief that the untried, usually utopian, new idea should and will be forced on us because, you know, we are not the experts and we don’t know what’s good for us. This typically ends in gulags, concentration camps, and mass death of the innocent and “noncompliant”. I do believe that all of history bears this out.
Well the current Tories are not really a conservative party, they are a party offering a slightly alternative form of liberal progressivism to those on the left.
Also it’s possible that neither will achieve much quantifiable material progress!
Amen to this much needed infusion of nuance! And while some of Deneen’s points were persuasive to me as a casual reader of Mill (not that he’s a breezy read), I found his round assertions of what Mill really meant–usually unaccompanied by examples–to be suspect from an argumentative point of view.
The middle ground, somewhere between hedonistic self-absorption and ritualistic deference to tradition, needs vigorous defending these days. Mutual understanding and fairmindedness are not easy to reach or maintain, nor are they intrinsically weak and evasive goals. Absolute self-certitude or ideological one-sidedness is an easier, weaker, and more evasive path. To claim that we’re reduced to an either/or choice between roaring contempt for anything traditional and blind conformity to received wisdom, according to some idealized concept of the Ordinary Man, is just mistaken.
Well the current Tories are not really a conservative party, they are a party offering a slightly alternative form of liberal progressivism to those on the left.
Also it’s possible that neither will achieve much quantifiable material progress!
The opposite to modern progressives is not traditionalism. Politics is not a dichotomy of either-or or ‘which side are you on’. Multiple forms of progress are possible, and we do need to reject a claimed progressive movement that has absolutist and anti-freedom roots as anti-progress.
The illiberalism of modern progressives doesn’t mean that other forms of progress are tainted by the same intolerences. It is possible to believe in progress – reduction in poverty, improved living standards, mutuality and tolerance, avoidance of war – without getting trapped by the segregationalist isms of the SJWs. It is possible to see that long-standing heuristics and principles can still have value and should be tested and retained, while still rejecting ritualism – a ritualism that is being increased by demanding deference to compelled speech and conformity of thought.
That is not to say that there is no traditionalist-versus-progressive argument going on. That is happening too. But Spain’s history of progressists versus traditionalists shows us what happens when the middle ground is denied, and it is precisely a middle of tolerance, fraternity, equality, fairness and freedom that we should seek to defend.
For misguided Mill nostalgics, I would also note as John Gray did that Mill believed in weighted voting in favour of the educated.
https://staging.unherd.com/2018/10/deluded-liberals-cant-keep-clinging-dead-idea/
He was ahead of his time on that as well.
Thanks for that linked article, which appeared well before i subscribed to Unherd. A treasure chest of golden nuggets is being created, and should be recallable as you’ve done.
The prescience of the Trudeau picture given all that transpired a couple of years after that essay!
Only ONE comment on that essay back in 2018.
a similar number of subscribers
Path-breaking views will take root more easily in prepared ground. And such preparation may take time.
Path-breaking views will take root more easily in prepared ground. And such preparation may take time.
I believe the editors delete comments after a time.
Disgraceful! But I thank you for that information.
Disgraceful! But I thank you for that information.
a similar number of subscribers
I believe the editors delete comments after a time.
The prescience of the Trudeau picture given all that transpired a couple of years after that essay!
Only ONE comment on that essay back in 2018.
One point: challenging the despotism of custom is not the same as subjecting custom itself to oppression.
To take an example, marriage continues but divorce is socially accepted – not something you could say of mid-Victorian England.
And that is not the same as stigmatising marriage, is it?
And therefore – no, Mill is not in charge today and no, he would not approve of the current climate. He may have been content to let the left spout its oppressive nonsense, but he would not have been happy to let it stop up the voices or the customs of the right, as it does now.
When Mill ruled – so to speak – custom continued to exist alongside non-customary conduct without stigma on either side, whereas now custom itself is being stigmatised.
Fail to grasp that and you fail to understand the real challenge of our times and risk falling back into a counter-form of political correctness which will be little improvement on the current blight.
Post script: re Orwell there is a real howler and I’m surprised Unherd hasn’t spotted it. 1984 explicitly tells us that we have NO hope from the “proles”, one of the many ways in which that book challenges and upends “radical” and Marxist trash.
How extraordinary!
Yet you yourself are the first to scream âRacistâ as I recall, if someone deigns to differ from the current orthodoxy of multiculturalist claptrap.
First, I didn’t scream “racist” I drew a conclusion from your own statement that “race is everything” – hence, racist. You’ve made the point a second time in another episode of trolling, so don’t try to deny it.
Second, you haunt these threads like some unemployable sack of potatoes, smarting from accurate rejoinders to your third rate, bar-room banter.
Third, you and others like you merely serve to discredit the right and confirm the prejudices of the left. And now, go away and bother someone else. You are either too old or too young to engage in complex discussion.
In reverse order, self praise is NO recommendation Jones (or is it Denis) as you should remember, even with a surname such as your own, whatever it is.
Your similes are juvenile, surely you can be better? eg: âunemployable sack of potatoesâ? Honestly where did you learn that? âSink Comprehensiveâ perhaps?
Perhaps I didnât âscreamâ racist, difficult to do so in writing, but at least you got my drift.
I repeat Race if everything, as even these pages on UnHerd constantly prove! You must pay more attention must you not?
Finally am I to infer that you and your kind think that you represent the New Right? If so dream on sunshine you havenât got a clue!
Yawn.
What has happened to your astonishingly
foul- mouthed and ill-bred rant of 40 minutes ago?
Surely you havenât had the good sense to withdraw it?
Perhaps you should return to Twitterâ where you belong?
You will only get hurt here.
ps: Please do have the âcourageâ to post it again so that we may all enjoy your literary prowess.
Incidentally who is Simon Denis?
In answer to your last question, a better man than you will ever be.
Would you care to expand on that a little?
On present showing he is just another foul-mouthed pretentious cretin, or have I missed something.
ps. Do letâs see you angry diatribe again, that you so cravenly withdrew roughly nine hours ago, or do you not have the âbottleâ?
Foul mouthed? I don’t think I used any conspicuously scatological terms. As to my motives for withdrawing those earlier remarks, I wished to rise clear of a discussion which had fallen to the level of a slanging match. However, I am – as you observe – more than willing to fight my corner. I’ll go on doing so, if you wish, but there are better ways of spending one’s time. Therefore, perhaps some clarification is in order. Our dispute began, if memory serves, as a result of a misinterpreted remark. Mine was the misinterpretation, yours, I believe, was the over-reaction. I was in dispute with a number of leftists at the time and thought your intervention just another example of their aggression. You were merely being jocular. Things have spiralled since. Now – if you wish to draw a line – I am willing to do so. If not, then so be it. I note that with regard to some remarks of mine concerning the right and religion you were good enough to express support. Perhaps that was an olive branch. If so, I regret having missed the opportunity of accepting it. Here is an olive branch in return. You will not, I hope, have the injustice to brood over earlier words which were themselves provoked? They are, after all, withdrawn. Finally, we differ – over many things – but are nevertheless in the blue corner against a world of reds. Does it make sense to waste energy in internecine strife?
Post it again!
Incidentally yet again self praise is NO recommendation, so remarks such as: âa better man than you will ever beâ are just juvenile . You must grow up, before it is too late.
ps. Motives were NOT was.
I have no desire to engage in tirades and denunciations. That said, It was most certainly not “foul mouthed”. Point taken about motives.
I have no desire to engage in tirades and denunciations. That said, It was most certainly not “foul mouthed”. Point taken about motives.
I agree, an unfortunate misunderstanding that has descended into a completely unnecessary, if invigorating brawl.
As almost certainly the elder contestant, I must accept the greater portion of blame!
Harsh words were said on both sides but as I am sure you will agree that is all âsticks and stonesâŠâŠâ, and no harm done!
As to your final rhetorical remark, of course not, we must stand united or fall divided.
I look forward to seeing you again on the field of battle!
Quite so. I am glad that the peace between us is now signed and sealed. Let us now turn our guns on the red enemy!
Quite so. I am glad that the peace between us is now signed and sealed. Let us now turn our guns on the red enemy!
Post it again!
Incidentally yet again self praise is NO recommendation, so remarks such as: âa better man than you will ever beâ are just juvenile . You must grow up, before it is too late.
ps. Motives were NOT was.
I agree, an unfortunate misunderstanding that has descended into a completely unnecessary, if invigorating brawl.
As almost certainly the elder contestant, I must accept the greater portion of blame!
Harsh words were said on both sides but as I am sure you will agree that is all âsticks and stonesâŠâŠâ, and no harm done!
As to your final rhetorical remark, of course not, we must stand united or fall divided.
I look forward to seeing you again on the field of battle!
Foul mouthed? I don’t think I used any conspicuously scatological terms. As to my motives for withdrawing those earlier remarks, I wished to rise clear of a discussion which had fallen to the level of a slanging match. However, I am – as you observe – more than willing to fight my corner. I’ll go on doing so, if you wish, but there are better ways of spending one’s time. Therefore, perhaps some clarification is in order. Our dispute began, if memory serves, as a result of a misinterpreted remark. Mine was the misinterpretation, yours, I believe, was the over-reaction. I was in dispute with a number of leftists at the time and thought your intervention just another example of their aggression. You were merely being jocular. Things have spiralled since. Now – if you wish to draw a line – I am willing to do so. If not, then so be it. I note that with regard to some remarks of mine concerning the right and religion you were good enough to express support. Perhaps that was an olive branch. If so, I regret having missed the opportunity of accepting it. Here is an olive branch in return. You will not, I hope, have the injustice to brood over earlier words which were themselves provoked? They are, after all, withdrawn. Finally, we differ – over many things – but are nevertheless in the blue corner against a world of reds. Does it make sense to waste energy in internecine strife?
Would you care to expand on that a little?
On present showing he is just another foul-mouthed pretentious cretin, or have I missed something.
ps. Do letâs see you angry diatribe again, that you so cravenly withdrew roughly nine hours ago, or do you not have the âbottleâ?
In answer to your last question, a better man than you will ever be.
What has happened to your astonishingly
foul- mouthed and ill-bred rant of 40 minutes ago?
Surely you havenât had the good sense to withdraw it?
Perhaps you should return to Twitterâ where you belong?
You will only get hurt here.
ps: Please do have the âcourageâ to post it again so that we may all enjoy your literary prowess.
Incidentally who is Simon Denis?
Yawn.
In reverse order, self praise is NO recommendation Jones (or is it Denis) as you should remember, even with a surname such as your own, whatever it is.
Your similes are juvenile, surely you can be better? eg: âunemployable sack of potatoesâ? Honestly where did you learn that? âSink Comprehensiveâ perhaps?
Perhaps I didnât âscreamâ racist, difficult to do so in writing, but at least you got my drift.
I repeat Race if everything, as even these pages on UnHerd constantly prove! You must pay more attention must you not?
Finally am I to infer that you and your kind think that you represent the New Right? If so dream on sunshine you havenât got a clue!
First, I didn’t scream “racist” I drew a conclusion from your own statement that “race is everything” – hence, racist. You’ve made the point a second time in another episode of trolling, so don’t try to deny it.
Second, you haunt these threads like some unemployable sack of potatoes, smarting from accurate rejoinders to your third rate, bar-room banter.
Third, you and others like you merely serve to discredit the right and confirm the prejudices of the left. And now, go away and bother someone else. You are either too old or too young to engage in complex discussion.
How extraordinary!
Yet you yourself are the first to scream âRacistâ as I recall, if someone deigns to differ from the current orthodoxy of multiculturalist claptrap.
When âOn Libertyâ was published in 1859 we already had a perfectly satisfactory system of âweighted votingâ based on property ownership, NOT supposed intellect.
The 1832 Reform Act gave the vote to one MALE in five in England, in essence to those who owned or rented property and paid TAX.
This equitable system was to be fatally widened (diluted)in 1867, 1884,1918,1928 & 1969, resulting the current ludicrous system of one body one vote!
(* Predictably North Britain (sometimes known as Scotland) intends to reduce the voting age to 16.)
I’d go the other way. Major issue nowadays is an incomplete voting register, and people not even bothering to vote. As they do in Australia, anyone who fails to vote should be fined – ideally at source, in PAYE or benefits. For instance, in the brexit referendum, very roughly, slightly more than one quarter voted for, one quarter voted against, one quarter stayed on the sofa scratching their posteriors, and the remaining quarter werenât even on the register. Rounded to the nearest million, the figures were:
LEAVE: 17 million
REMAIN: 16 million
TOO BUSY WATCHING TELLY: 13 million
NOT EVEN ON REGISTER: 18 million
This is partly why itâs been so unsatisfactory â it simply does not have enough popular support, and never had. Circa 3/4 of the UK didnât even vote for it. Ideally, youâd never have a referendum â on any subject. They are a crude import from an entirely different system (a plebiscite democracy) and have no place in a representative democracy. And as Margaret Thatcher (quoting Clement Attlee) noted: âPerhaps the late Lord Attlee was right,â she observed, âwhen he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.â Even in mere private companies, no major decision would be pushed though with c. ÂŒ of the shareholders or directors. In corporate terms, the Brexit result was electorally inquorate. Typically, for major corporate decisions, a genuine 50+% is required even for routine decisions, and 75%+ by shareholder value is required to sanction a major decision. Referendums are a continental nonsense to begin with, but if one is stuck with them, they should at least require a 75% majority of all adults. Anything less is a recipe for national fracture.
The Swiss have such a system, and it seems to work well for them, but NOT us because it is simply TOO late.
It is too late because we donât have an alternative. Weâve put everything behind our traditional way of government and when it fails us we have nothing.
I remember something about Roman times as discussed by Gibbon and many others since. As Rome was expanding and healthy the Senate, controlled by the top families (with plenty of energy) was strong and respected and totally in control. Then as Rome became sleazy and only interested in âfun and gamesâ more and more of the Senators came from bad families – the nouveau riche- people with no taste. Then the time was right for an autocracy to take over in the name of Augustus.
This is true in Britain. When we were expanding and taking over the world, Parliament was strong and in control. As we have become sleazy, interested in fun and games, not bothered about voting, the Parliament fails and an autocracy or elite has taken over. We have no choices left.
Gibbon was a fierce critic of the cult of Christianity which undoubtedly sapped the moral fibre of the Late Roman Empire.
It also cost a fortune to support the vast numbers of idle mouths generated by the new priesthood and its associate parasites, as the late Arnold Jones*pointed out in his seminal work: The Later Roman Empire. 284-602 AD.
(* Cantab.)
Gibbon was a fierce critic of the cult of Christianity which undoubtedly sapped the moral fibre of the Late Roman Empire.
It also cost a fortune to support the vast numbers of idle mouths generated by the new priesthood and its associate parasites, as the late Arnold Jones*pointed out in his seminal work: The Later Roman Empire. 284-602 AD.
(* Cantab.)
It is too late because we donât have an alternative. Weâve put everything behind our traditional way of government and when it fails us we have nothing.
I remember something about Roman times as discussed by Gibbon and many others since. As Rome was expanding and healthy the Senate, controlled by the top families (with plenty of energy) was strong and respected and totally in control. Then as Rome became sleazy and only interested in âfun and gamesâ more and more of the Senators came from bad families – the nouveau riche- people with no taste. Then the time was right for an autocracy to take over in the name of Augustus.
This is true in Britain. When we were expanding and taking over the world, Parliament was strong and in control. As we have become sleazy, interested in fun and games, not bothered about voting, the Parliament fails and an autocracy or elite has taken over. We have no choices left.
17 million more people voted to leave than voted for membership in the first place.
Yes exactly. A good point and conveniently forgotten.
Yes exactly. A good point and conveniently forgotten.
‘Circa 3/4 of the UK didnât even vote for it’ (‘it’ being leave). Equally, circa 3/4 didn’t vote to remain. What matters is that the majority of those who voted wanted to leave. Equally, in 1975 only one third of the electorate voted to remain (in the EEC), but this was enough. Those who choose to disenfranchise themselves cannot complain about the outcome.
Referendums are fine for what are essentially binary issues, eg in or out. Curiously remainers never seem to question the outcome when the result goes their way.
Problem was it wasn’t a simple binary issue – there were graduations of both In and Out. The referendum didn’t determine the form of Out.
Now once held and with the promise of enactment (unlike the Swiss model where it’s clearly appreciated referendums are advisory) a form of ‘Out’ had to be delivered. The form we got does not have the rubber stamp of a referendum though and probably wouldn’t get supported were it put back to the people now they understand it better, but we’ll never know for sure.
And equally the 1975 referendum didn’t determine the form of In, as subsequent experience demonstrated. I agree that the 2016 referendum, while necessary and (in this case) binding, only took us so far. The problem was that the leave/remain battle continued after the result was declared. It would have been much better if all parties (and the civil service) had respected the result and tried to work together to reach some sort of consensus about how best to take matters forward – wishful thinking of course.
And equally the 1975 referendum didn’t determine the form of In, as subsequent experience demonstrated. I agree that the 2016 referendum, while necessary and (in this case) binding, only took us so far. The problem was that the leave/remain battle continued after the result was declared. It would have been much better if all parties (and the civil service) had respected the result and tried to work together to reach some sort of consensus about how best to take matters forward – wishful thinking of course.
Problem was it wasn’t a simple binary issue – there were graduations of both In and Out. The referendum didn’t determine the form of Out.
Now once held and with the promise of enactment (unlike the Swiss model where it’s clearly appreciated referendums are advisory) a form of ‘Out’ had to be delivered. The form we got does not have the rubber stamp of a referendum though and probably wouldn’t get supported were it put back to the people now they understand it better, but we’ll never know for sure.
How would that translate into political voting? Would your ‘shareholder value’ equate to the amount of tax you pay, with your vote weighted proportionately?
Agreed. Voting is a civic responsibility that should be compelled on pain of well, some sort of fine I suppose. But there then ought to be an âI abstainâ box. It should also be possible to cast your vote online in this day and age. Imagine how different things would be.
I’m not sure about online voting. It would be possible for a father, or a ‘community leader’, to lean over your shoulder and instruct you on how to vote.
In the polling booth you act alone.
I’m not sure about online voting. It would be possible for a father, or a ‘community leader’, to lean over your shoulder and instruct you on how to vote.
In the polling booth you act alone.
“This is partly why itâs been so unsatisfactory â it simply does not have enough popular support, and never had. Circa 3/4 of the UK didnât even vote for it.”
And yet Frank, you still lost. You lost Frank, because even fewer people voted to stay. Didn’t they?
You are putting forward a classic bourgeois liberal argument: Other peoples votes should be worth less than yours, when those other people disagree with you.
“Referendums are a continental nonsense to begin with, but if one is stuck with them, they should at least require a 75% majority of all adults.”
I wonder if you will remember that line of reasoning when there is a referendum to rejoin the EU. I am confident that you will not. You will simply come up with another ad hoc voting condition to ensure that you “win”, irrespective of the actual votes cast
I think you will find the normal requirement for a Special Resolution is 75% of â votes castâ. If only 10% of shareholders bother to vote then 7.5 % of the total can carry the day.
The Swiss have such a system, and it seems to work well for them, but NOT us because it is simply TOO late.
17 million more people voted to leave than voted for membership in the first place.
‘Circa 3/4 of the UK didnât even vote for it’ (‘it’ being leave). Equally, circa 3/4 didn’t vote to remain. What matters is that the majority of those who voted wanted to leave. Equally, in 1975 only one third of the electorate voted to remain (in the EEC), but this was enough. Those who choose to disenfranchise themselves cannot complain about the outcome.
Referendums are fine for what are essentially binary issues, eg in or out. Curiously remainers never seem to question the outcome when the result goes their way.
How would that translate into political voting? Would your ‘shareholder value’ equate to the amount of tax you pay, with your vote weighted proportionately?
Agreed. Voting is a civic responsibility that should be compelled on pain of well, some sort of fine I suppose. But there then ought to be an âI abstainâ box. It should also be possible to cast your vote online in this day and age. Imagine how different things would be.
“This is partly why itâs been so unsatisfactory â it simply does not have enough popular support, and never had. Circa 3/4 of the UK didnât even vote for it.”
And yet Frank, you still lost. You lost Frank, because even fewer people voted to stay. Didn’t they?
You are putting forward a classic bourgeois liberal argument: Other peoples votes should be worth less than yours, when those other people disagree with you.
“Referendums are a continental nonsense to begin with, but if one is stuck with them, they should at least require a 75% majority of all adults.”
I wonder if you will remember that line of reasoning when there is a referendum to rejoin the EU. I am confident that you will not. You will simply come up with another ad hoc voting condition to ensure that you “win”, irrespective of the actual votes cast
I think you will find the normal requirement for a Special Resolution is 75% of â votes castâ. If only 10% of shareholders bother to vote then 7.5 % of the total can carry the day.
Britain’s descent began with the second Great Reform Act of 1867, and it was downhill from then on, aided and abetted by the removal of jury service qualification- We are now Living in a dystopian hybrid of Communism and National Socialism, and reached the level of a flyblown African or Latin American totalitarian state.
They used to say, perhaps still do, that âJackâs as good as his masterâ.
Well that patently isnât the case, and it is about time that it is acknowledged.
Orwell points out that in the period of 1939 to 1943, the intelligentsia, which was middle class and most left wing, was very defeatist whereas the working class wanted to fight. This is an example of a group of people being wealthier and more educated having less sagacity and fighting spirit.
John Glubb in His ” Fate of Empires
” points out
The impression that the situation can be saved by mental cleverness, without unsel[1]fishness or human self-dedication, can only lead to collapse.
glubbThe Fate of Empires (by Sir John Glubb).pdf
Charity Bick was awarded undertook the actions which led to be being awarded the GM at the age of fifteen.
I would suggest anyone who is prepared to sacrifice themselves for the country has the right to vote.
Orwell points out the intelligentsia indulged in bully worship. However , the British working class typified by Ernest Bevin recognised both Nazis and Communists as bullies and treated them with contempt. Whereas, the Dean of Canterbury likened Stalin to Christ and GB Shaw praised the USSR.
Mosley and Mitford praised Hitler.
Perhaps what is most important quality in a voter is discernment of character.
And Churchill was rather keen on Benito Mussolini in his early days.
âCharity Bick was awarded undertook the actions which led to be being awarded the GM at the age of fifteen.â? Translate please.
Mussolini was supported by Lenin and appear to solve the chaos in Italy, even attracting jewish members. During the 1920s and then 1930s he became more dictatorial. Mussolini in 1905 was friendly with Lenin and then during and post WW1 evolved in someone who believed in the collective power of the state.Consequently, one needs to look at what period of Mussolini’s time in power.
The post 1917 period was a time of great change in Europe. One way of assessing the situation was to determine who was doing most of the killing.
Character, that of duty, sel- sacrifice and initiative are more important than time spent in education or wealth. Orwell pointed out that most of the intelligentsia, which was largely middle class and left wing was defeatist up to 1943, whereas the working class possessed fighting spirit.
Mussolini was supported by Lenin and appear to solve the chaos in Italy, even attracting jewish members. During the 1920s and then 1930s he became more dictatorial. Mussolini in 1905 was friendly with Lenin and then during and post WW1 evolved in someone who believed in the collective power of the state.Consequently, one needs to look at what period of Mussolini’s time in power.
The post 1917 period was a time of great change in Europe. One way of assessing the situation was to determine who was doing most of the killing.
Character, that of duty, sel- sacrifice and initiative are more important than time spent in education or wealth. Orwell pointed out that most of the intelligentsia, which was largely middle class and left wing was defeatist up to 1943, whereas the working class possessed fighting spirit.
And Churchill was rather keen on Benito Mussolini in his early days.
âCharity Bick was awarded undertook the actions which led to be being awarded the GM at the age of fifteen.â? Translate please.
So CH, you and NST would never have given Women the Vote?
And in another comments stream you’ll rail against Cancel culture?
Donât you mean CS?
If women pay TAX they should get the vote.
yes I did, apols.
As regards tax, I suspect you are just referring to income tax rather than all the other taxes people pay and did pay back before universal suffrage. The idea that some adults never paid any tax of any kind at all won’t stand up to much scrutiny.
Prior to the reintroduction of Income Tax in 1842, the primary source of Government revenue was the Land Tax. Ergo you had to own land to pay the tax..
Otherwise revenue was derived from a tax on luxury goods such a wine. So in most cases the poor didnât, indeed couldnât pay tax.
The commonest indirect taxes paid by most people in the 18th and 19ths centuries were excise duties. These were levied on basic commodities – household essentials such as salt, candles, leather, beer, soap, and starch. Now maybe some couldn’t even afford those, but some fairly essential items there and hence many more paying tax. And as we know these type of taxes much more regressive on the poor.
Then of course there is the impact of things like the Corn Laws. Slightly different of course but the impact fairly similar.
The Corn Laws, although not a tax, were much more iniquitous I would have thought.
The Corn Laws, although not a tax, were much more iniquitous I would have thought.
The commonest indirect taxes paid by most people in the 18th and 19ths centuries were excise duties. These were levied on basic commodities – household essentials such as salt, candles, leather, beer, soap, and starch. Now maybe some couldn’t even afford those, but some fairly essential items there and hence many more paying tax. And as we know these type of taxes much more regressive on the poor.
Then of course there is the impact of things like the Corn Laws. Slightly different of course but the impact fairly similar.
Prior to the reintroduction of Income Tax in 1842, the primary source of Government revenue was the Land Tax. Ergo you had to own land to pay the tax..
Otherwise revenue was derived from a tax on luxury goods such a wine. So in most cases the poor didnât, indeed couldnât pay tax.
yes I did, apols.
As regards tax, I suspect you are just referring to income tax rather than all the other taxes people pay and did pay back before universal suffrage. The idea that some adults never paid any tax of any kind at all won’t stand up to much scrutiny.
The Strange Death of Liberal England states that one of the Pankhurst daughters considers improving the lives of the poor women in the East End of London ( Match Girls Strike ) more important than giving votes to middle class women. This comment changed my views on the priorities of the time. If one looks at priorities in 1913, I would suggest improving the conditions of those living in squalid slums and preparing for war against Germany. The death rate for under fives and women in labour in the squalid slums pre 1914 were still very high. The lack of preparation of WW1 resulted in far more deaths needed and slowing down of the introduction of various welfare measures, such as health care, education, which had far more detrimental impact on the lives of the poor than middle class women.
I would suggest that true statesmanship is deciding on the priorities of the nation, not being swayed by influential groups.
Dead women have no vote.
Wasnât it Clement Attlee’s visitâ to the East End in 1911 that converted him?
Yes
Yes
Why wouldn’t you just do both CH? You suggest it’s an either or which has no coherence as a logical argument. No Pankhurst daughter indicated they were mutually exclusive.
In the book Strange Deat of Liberal England, one of the Pankhurst daughters did. At any time a government can only concentrate on a few vital issues. I think it was Adele Pankhurst who said improving the living conditions for poor women in the East End of London was more important than middle class women receiving the vote. The percentage of men who failed the medicals for the Armed Forces in the Boer and WW1 was very high due to poverty. In 1900 , public school boys were on average four inches taller than those from the slums.
In the book Strange Deat of Liberal England, one of the Pankhurst daughters did. At any time a government can only concentrate on a few vital issues. I think it was Adele Pankhurst who said improving the living conditions for poor women in the East End of London was more important than middle class women receiving the vote. The percentage of men who failed the medicals for the Armed Forces in the Boer and WW1 was very high due to poverty. In 1900 , public school boys were on average four inches taller than those from the slums.
Wasnât it Clement Attlee’s visitâ to the East End in 1911 that converted him?
Why wouldn’t you just do both CH? You suggest it’s an either or which has no coherence as a logical argument. No Pankhurst daughter indicated they were mutually exclusive.
Donât you mean CS?
If women pay TAX they should get the vote.
The Strange Death of Liberal England states that one of the Pankhurst daughters considers improving the lives of the poor women in the East End of London ( Match Girls Strike ) more important than giving votes to middle class women. This comment changed my views on the priorities of the time. If one looks at priorities in 1913, I would suggest improving the conditions of those living in squalid slums and preparing for war against Germany. The death rate for under fives and women in labour in the squalid slums pre 1914 were still very high. The lack of preparation of WW1 resulted in far more deaths needed and slowing down of the introduction of various welfare measures, such as health care, education, which had far more detrimental impact on the lives of the poor than middle class women.
I would suggest that true statesmanship is deciding on the priorities of the nation, not being swayed by influential groups.
Dead women have no vote.
Orwell points out that in the period of 1939 to 1943, the intelligentsia, which was middle class and most left wing, was very defeatist whereas the working class wanted to fight. This is an example of a group of people being wealthier and more educated having less sagacity and fighting spirit.
John Glubb in His ” Fate of Empires
” points out
The impression that the situation can be saved by mental cleverness, without unsel[1]fishness or human self-dedication, can only lead to collapse.
glubbThe Fate of Empires (by Sir John Glubb).pdf
Charity Bick was awarded undertook the actions which led to be being awarded the GM at the age of fifteen.
I would suggest anyone who is prepared to sacrifice themselves for the country has the right to vote.
Orwell points out the intelligentsia indulged in bully worship. However , the British working class typified by Ernest Bevin recognised both Nazis and Communists as bullies and treated them with contempt. Whereas, the Dean of Canterbury likened Stalin to Christ and GB Shaw praised the USSR.
Mosley and Mitford praised Hitler.
Perhaps what is most important quality in a voter is discernment of character.
So CH, you and NST would never have given Women the Vote?
And in another comments stream you’ll rail against Cancel culture?
They used to say, perhaps still do, that âJackâs as good as his masterâ.
Well that patently isnât the case, and it is about time that it is acknowledged.
Scotland and Wales have already reduced the voting age to 16 but they donât have the power to do this for parliamentary elections. Starmer will do it though.
I’d go the other way. Major issue nowadays is an incomplete voting register, and people not even bothering to vote. As they do in Australia, anyone who fails to vote should be fined – ideally at source, in PAYE or benefits. For instance, in the brexit referendum, very roughly, slightly more than one quarter voted for, one quarter voted against, one quarter stayed on the sofa scratching their posteriors, and the remaining quarter werenât even on the register. Rounded to the nearest million, the figures were:
LEAVE: 17 million
REMAIN: 16 million
TOO BUSY WATCHING TELLY: 13 million
NOT EVEN ON REGISTER: 18 million
This is partly why itâs been so unsatisfactory â it simply does not have enough popular support, and never had. Circa 3/4 of the UK didnât even vote for it. Ideally, youâd never have a referendum â on any subject. They are a crude import from an entirely different system (a plebiscite democracy) and have no place in a representative democracy. And as Margaret Thatcher (quoting Clement Attlee) noted: âPerhaps the late Lord Attlee was right,â she observed, âwhen he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.â Even in mere private companies, no major decision would be pushed though with c. ÂŒ of the shareholders or directors. In corporate terms, the Brexit result was electorally inquorate. Typically, for major corporate decisions, a genuine 50+% is required even for routine decisions, and 75%+ by shareholder value is required to sanction a major decision. Referendums are a continental nonsense to begin with, but if one is stuck with them, they should at least require a 75% majority of all adults. Anything less is a recipe for national fracture.
Britain’s descent began with the second Great Reform Act of 1867, and it was downhill from then on, aided and abetted by the removal of jury service qualification- We are now Living in a dystopian hybrid of Communism and National Socialism, and reached the level of a flyblown African or Latin American totalitarian state.
Scotland and Wales have already reduced the voting age to 16 but they donât have the power to do this for parliamentary elections. Starmer will do it though.
As a teacher in a supposedly top 10 global university (qs rankings) i would say be careful what you wish for. Since students became customers standards have tumbled, and are now exacerbated by post Covid “free play”. The coach to pass philosophy that this industry’s customers now seek as an escalator to guaranteed jobs is producing less critical thinking and very little orignality.
I haven’t read “On Liberty” in many, many years so I can’t comment either way as to whether he was a “Progressive” in the sense that we understand the word here in the 21st century. I do know that, like de Tocqueville, he is quoted by liberals/Progressives and by conservatives whenever it suits their arguments.
You are right to point out that the work of J S Mill does not need to be treated as a sacred text correct in all its pronouncements.
The stupid have interests to defend with their vote as well as the intelligent.
Indeed the educated today include a very high proportion of the population and are unlikely to be confined to profound thinkers. Instead they include a lot of intellectual conformists who accept dogmas current among their educated peers whether or not they are in fact rational and true. Even the brightest among us only have a limited amount of time and energy to truly examine every subject in depth and so are inclined to take the current ideas of their peers as correct, whether they in fact stack up on proper examination or not.
Thanks for that linked article, which appeared well before i subscribed to Unherd. A treasure chest of golden nuggets is being created, and should be recallable as you’ve done.
One point: challenging the despotism of custom is not the same as subjecting custom itself to oppression.
To take an example, marriage continues but divorce is socially accepted – not something you could say of mid-Victorian England.
And that is not the same as stigmatising marriage, is it?
And therefore – no, Mill is not in charge today and no, he would not approve of the current climate. He may have been content to let the left spout its oppressive nonsense, but he would not have been happy to let it stop up the voices or the customs of the right, as it does now.
When Mill ruled – so to speak – custom continued to exist alongside non-customary conduct without stigma on either side, whereas now custom itself is being stigmatised.
Fail to grasp that and you fail to understand the real challenge of our times and risk falling back into a counter-form of political correctness which will be little improvement on the current blight.
Post script: re Orwell there is a real howler and I’m surprised Unherd hasn’t spotted it. 1984 explicitly tells us that we have NO hope from the “proles”, one of the many ways in which that book challenges and upends “radical” and Marxist trash.
When âOn Libertyâ was published in 1859 we already had a perfectly satisfactory system of âweighted votingâ based on property ownership, NOT supposed intellect.
The 1832 Reform Act gave the vote to one MALE in five in England, in essence to those who owned or rented property and paid TAX.
This equitable system was to be fatally widened (diluted)in 1867, 1884,1918,1928 & 1969, resulting the current ludicrous system of one body one vote!
(* Predictably North Britain (sometimes known as Scotland) intends to reduce the voting age to 16.)
As a teacher in a supposedly top 10 global university (qs rankings) i would say be careful what you wish for. Since students became customers standards have tumbled, and are now exacerbated by post Covid “free play”. The coach to pass philosophy that this industry’s customers now seek as an escalator to guaranteed jobs is producing less critical thinking and very little orignality.
I haven’t read “On Liberty” in many, many years so I can’t comment either way as to whether he was a “Progressive” in the sense that we understand the word here in the 21st century. I do know that, like de Tocqueville, he is quoted by liberals/Progressives and by conservatives whenever it suits their arguments.
You are right to point out that the work of J S Mill does not need to be treated as a sacred text correct in all its pronouncements.
The stupid have interests to defend with their vote as well as the intelligent.
Indeed the educated today include a very high proportion of the population and are unlikely to be confined to profound thinkers. Instead they include a lot of intellectual conformists who accept dogmas current among their educated peers whether or not they are in fact rational and true. Even the brightest among us only have a limited amount of time and energy to truly examine every subject in depth and so are inclined to take the current ideas of their peers as correct, whether they in fact stack up on proper examination or not.
For misguided Mill nostalgics, I would also note as John Gray did that Mill believed in weighted voting in favour of the educated.
https://staging.unherd.com/2018/10/deluded-liberals-cant-keep-clinging-dead-idea/
He was ahead of his time on that as well.
This highlights the value of Unherd in providing an interesting and thought-provoking insight into the work of JS Mill and his elitist views that chime to some extent with the progressive ideology emanating from Universities and other institutions that do not reflect the common views of the bulk of the population.
However, much of the woke ideology is not simply authoritarian in nature but ant-rationalist. J S Mill would not have regarded appointing individuals to positions on the basis of their sex or ethnic origins rather than their ability and suitability for the post as sensible. Nor would he have regarded the explicitly anti-rational idea that a man could transform himself into a woman for all social purposes simply on the basis that he felt like a woman as sensible.
J S Millâs belief was that superior individuals would produce superior solutions as a result of liberty of thought and speech and that such superior solutions would become widely accepted. Unfortunately, because mankind tends to conformity the mediocre elites have produced a number mediocre and anti-rationalist ideological beliefs that conformism has helped to foster. There is nothing progressive in the sense of movement from an inferior set of beliefs to a superior set in much of the woke dogma. The true progressive should do their best to tear down these new conservative anti-rationalist dogmas.
I donât agree with you. First of all allow me to describe my impressions of myself – I see myself as anti-woke, right of centre and I think that most of what comes out of universities is garbage.
However, you talk about other people – âthe bulk of the populationâ – as if you can speak for them and you canât. I would suggest that you have no idea at all how the population thinks. You see yourself as right and that other ideas are plain wrong.
JS Mill would not have appointed people on the basis of their sex – is wrong. He would have appointed men to top jobs and not women – that was automatic in his day. Also he wouldnât have thought about ethnic minorities because there werenât any.
I can remember South Africa after apartheid. In their sports teams they had to have one non-white player who was always useless. But that meant that young black people had something to work towards, an aim in life to better themselves. It worked and the teams now are multi-ethnic. The same has to be true in non-sporting life because, otherwise, the non-white people would have no mechanism for improvement. To me, this is not woke. It is just plain obvious.
But South Africa’s cricket team is rubbish.
I beg to disagree CW – read on the ‘Subjugation of Women’ his great work with Harriet Taylor. He may not have gone for positive discrimination but he sure would have appointed Women to top jobs if they were the best.
I do not claim to speak for the bulk of the population I simply get the impression from conversations and what I read that most do not believe a man can transform himself into being a woman by believing he is really one nor that ethnic discrimination is a good idea. You may however be right that I have no clear evidence on the point and I may be mistaken in this impression despite believing it to be so.
As J Watson has pointed out Mill did not share the common prejudice of his time regarding women and so it is likely he would have favoured a sex blind appointment approach. In addition it is clearly incorrect that there werenât any ethnic minorities in the country when he wrote, merely that the numbers were much less than they are today. There is no reason to think he would have been against the appointment of the most suitable regardless of their ethnic origin were he faced with the issue today.
The argument that relatively useless ethnic individuals should be appointed to positions to inspire their fellow ethnics to better themselves is both deeply patronising and entirely speculative and unproved. Certainly the great Thomas Sowell has robustly rejected this argument as applied in the US.
But South Africa’s cricket team is rubbish.
I beg to disagree CW – read on the ‘Subjugation of Women’ his great work with Harriet Taylor. He may not have gone for positive discrimination but he sure would have appointed Women to top jobs if they were the best.
I do not claim to speak for the bulk of the population I simply get the impression from conversations and what I read that most do not believe a man can transform himself into being a woman by believing he is really one nor that ethnic discrimination is a good idea. You may however be right that I have no clear evidence on the point and I may be mistaken in this impression despite believing it to be so.
As J Watson has pointed out Mill did not share the common prejudice of his time regarding women and so it is likely he would have favoured a sex blind appointment approach. In addition it is clearly incorrect that there werenât any ethnic minorities in the country when he wrote, merely that the numbers were much less than they are today. There is no reason to think he would have been against the appointment of the most suitable regardless of their ethnic origin were he faced with the issue today.
The argument that relatively useless ethnic individuals should be appointed to positions to inspire their fellow ethnics to better themselves is both deeply patronising and entirely speculative and unproved. Certainly the great Thomas Sowell has robustly rejected this argument as applied in the US.
I agree. This essay is a very worthwhile read except that it utilizes the misnomer “progressive” for the ideology that has currently captured the Academy, most western government institutions and NGOs.
There is no progress in the mythology that men are women if they say so, that there is a sacred soul that has a sex which overrides one’s reproductive system and that small children have the intellectual capacity to define this and authorize the removal of reproductive organs and sign up for life-long medication. Insisting that an individual’s ethnic history dictates their place in a hierarchy more than their contextual status and power is also regressive as is the notion that a lesbian must accept as a sex partner a man who says he’s a lesbian or be tabled a hate-filled bigot is not social progress.
Contemporary “Progressivism” is a thinly-veiled regression to old entrenched hierarchies that reiterates the very thing against which Mill revolted.
I donât agree with you. First of all allow me to describe my impressions of myself – I see myself as anti-woke, right of centre and I think that most of what comes out of universities is garbage.
However, you talk about other people – âthe bulk of the populationâ – as if you can speak for them and you canât. I would suggest that you have no idea at all how the population thinks. You see yourself as right and that other ideas are plain wrong.
JS Mill would not have appointed people on the basis of their sex – is wrong. He would have appointed men to top jobs and not women – that was automatic in his day. Also he wouldnât have thought about ethnic minorities because there werenât any.
I can remember South Africa after apartheid. In their sports teams they had to have one non-white player who was always useless. But that meant that young black people had something to work towards, an aim in life to better themselves. It worked and the teams now are multi-ethnic. The same has to be true in non-sporting life because, otherwise, the non-white people would have no mechanism for improvement. To me, this is not woke. It is just plain obvious.
I agree. This essay is a very worthwhile read except that it utilizes the misnomer “progressive” for the ideology that has currently captured the Academy, most western government institutions and NGOs.
There is no progress in the mythology that men are women if they say so, that there is a sacred soul that has a sex which overrides one’s reproductive system and that small children have the intellectual capacity to define this and authorize the removal of reproductive organs and sign up for life-long medication. Insisting that an individual’s ethnic history dictates their place in a hierarchy more than their contextual status and power is also regressive as is the notion that a lesbian must accept as a sex partner a man who says he’s a lesbian or be tabled a hate-filled bigot is not social progress.
Contemporary “Progressivism” is a thinly-veiled regression to old entrenched hierarchies that reiterates the very thing against which Mill revolted.
This highlights the value of Unherd in providing an interesting and thought-provoking insight into the work of JS Mill and his elitist views that chime to some extent with the progressive ideology emanating from Universities and other institutions that do not reflect the common views of the bulk of the population.
However, much of the woke ideology is not simply authoritarian in nature but ant-rationalist. J S Mill would not have regarded appointing individuals to positions on the basis of their sex or ethnic origins rather than their ability and suitability for the post as sensible. Nor would he have regarded the explicitly anti-rational idea that a man could transform himself into a woman for all social purposes simply on the basis that he felt like a woman as sensible.
J S Millâs belief was that superior individuals would produce superior solutions as a result of liberty of thought and speech and that such superior solutions would become widely accepted. Unfortunately, because mankind tends to conformity the mediocre elites have produced a number mediocre and anti-rationalist ideological beliefs that conformism has helped to foster. There is nothing progressive in the sense of movement from an inferior set of beliefs to a superior set in much of the woke dogma. The true progressive should do their best to tear down these new conservative anti-rationalist dogmas.
Iâm having some difficulty in seeing some student, screaming for the dismissal of Professor Stock, as a ârare individual â liberated from the views of the masses.
I agree with you. Being an old person I see it as nonsensical. But I also see that my view is irrelevant.
Lecturers in universities have always veered towards Marxism, which was always perceived to be about Economics. There was the aim of revolution, to make rich people poor and allow the poor people to run the country.
Now Marxism has widened its scope. Now it challenges every idea and everything is about revolution – however stupid the aims. In fact, the more stupid the aim, the more successful the lecturer.
I agree with you. Being an old person I see it as nonsensical. But I also see that my view is irrelevant.
Lecturers in universities have always veered towards Marxism, which was always perceived to be about Economics. There was the aim of revolution, to make rich people poor and allow the poor people to run the country.
Now Marxism has widened its scope. Now it challenges every idea and everything is about revolution – however stupid the aims. In fact, the more stupid the aim, the more successful the lecturer.
Iâm having some difficulty in seeing some student, screaming for the dismissal of Professor Stock, as a ârare individual â liberated from the views of the masses.
“…because of the âdespotism of customâ, and the growing political influence of ordinary people, such individuals will need both active political protection from the masses, and, better yet, eventually enjoy political control.”
“… to liberate the unique, inventive, free-thinking few from the oppression of the herd-like, tradition-bound, narrow and unadventurous many.’
The ‘unadventurous many’, ‘everyday people’. ‘ordinary people’ … In modern parlance (thank you, Hilary Clinton!) ‘the deplorables’, or David Cameron’s ‘the little people’.
The rallying cry of the 1960s, when the cultural marxists of the day were preoccupied with liberation struggles (decades later they were more wars of acquisition), especially those in Africa, their rallying cry was ‘Majority Rule!’ Nowadays, the majority is despised, the law has been inverted, nay perverted, to bolster the rights of minorities against those of the majority and to contextualise the struggle of all those deemed to be oppressed against their oppressors.
Mill’s vision of liberty as portrayed in this article is akin to the ‘liberty’ imposed upon and in the name of the ‘demos’ (to use the author’s term for the people) by Lenin (one “rare individual … liberated from the oppressiveness of the masses”). He held that once the proletariat had destroyed the established order by violent revolution, a small (very) intellectual revolutionary elite (the ‘individuals’ so admired by Mills apparently) would seize power and maintain power by calculated terror thereafter in a “a society of constant change, disruption, and transformation.” Hmmm!
Like Mill, our 21st Century ‘progressives’ “have nothing but contempt for the backwardness of ordinary people.” We live under a progressive tyranny – a new condition in human history.
“…because of the âdespotism of customâ, and the growing political influence of ordinary people, such individuals will need both active political protection from the masses, and, better yet, eventually enjoy political control.”
“… to liberate the unique, inventive, free-thinking few from the oppression of the herd-like, tradition-bound, narrow and unadventurous many.’
The ‘unadventurous many’, ‘everyday people’. ‘ordinary people’ … In modern parlance (thank you, Hilary Clinton!) ‘the deplorables’, or David Cameron’s ‘the little people’.
The rallying cry of the 1960s, when the cultural marxists of the day were preoccupied with liberation struggles (decades later they were more wars of acquisition), especially those in Africa, their rallying cry was ‘Majority Rule!’ Nowadays, the majority is despised, the law has been inverted, nay perverted, to bolster the rights of minorities against those of the majority and to contextualise the struggle of all those deemed to be oppressed against their oppressors.
Mill’s vision of liberty as portrayed in this article is akin to the ‘liberty’ imposed upon and in the name of the ‘demos’ (to use the author’s term for the people) by Lenin (one “rare individual … liberated from the oppressiveness of the masses”). He held that once the proletariat had destroyed the established order by violent revolution, a small (very) intellectual revolutionary elite (the ‘individuals’ so admired by Mills apparently) would seize power and maintain power by calculated terror thereafter in a “a society of constant change, disruption, and transformation.” Hmmm!
Like Mill, our 21st Century ‘progressives’ “have nothing but contempt for the backwardness of ordinary people.” We live under a progressive tyranny – a new condition in human history.
Excellent article. Excellent comments. Not being a philosopher (at least not in the academic sense), I welcome this opportunity to learn about an ironic twist in the history of philosophical and political discourse. Even the word “liberal” has meant so many things over the century or so, sometimes contradictory ones, that it has little use by now except (like “conservative”) as a hostile slogan.
I can add here only one note of caution. Discussions of the dismal current situation often end up as disputes over how we got to this point by tracing the evolution of ideas but without taking responsibility for wielding those ideas as weapons in the present: capitalism vs. socialism, say, or liberalism vs. progressivism. In my experience, for example, these arguments often amount to individualism vs. collectivism–as if we could ever live as humans with either but not the other. One of my friends insists that wokism is the inevitable result of individualism (but not the communally responsible kind that Thomas Jefferson fostered), because capitalism has turned us all not only into self-centered consumers but also into hedonistic seekers of personal gratification–that is, self-righteousness. (As a linguistic separatist, he has a stake in collectivism for reasons of his own.) Never mind that the wokers themselves insist, loudly and often, that the only source of meaning is membership in a group–especially in groups that define themselves biologically and immutably by race or sex; personal interests, abilities and motivations are of no political importance in this Darwinian struggle for collective power. Okay, maybe capitalism is among the factors that have led us to this point, but here we are now with the wokers turning capitalism (and everything else, including personal reliance on merit and reason) upside down in the name of “marginalized groups” and corporate giants turning cartwheels to be on the “right side of history.”
Good contribution to the commentary. We’re a bit trapped within a “prism of isms” nowadays, I think. There are so many seemingly precise or meaningful terms and labels that, in practice, become facile abstractions that turn us away from true engagement with our human fellows.
My neighbor? Why would I interact with him/her/them when he/she/they seems to represent materialism/hedonism/traditionalism…you name it, ad infinitum. Our tendency to throw around these conceptual labels as if they capture individual and societal complexities tends to serve as a sort of makeshift crutch, or cheap knowingness that borders on gnosticism.
Just lurve âprism of ismsâ.
Just lurve âprism of ismsâ.
Good contribution to the commentary. We’re a bit trapped within a “prism of isms” nowadays, I think. There are so many seemingly precise or meaningful terms and labels that, in practice, become facile abstractions that turn us away from true engagement with our human fellows.
My neighbor? Why would I interact with him/her/them when he/she/they seems to represent materialism/hedonism/traditionalism…you name it, ad infinitum. Our tendency to throw around these conceptual labels as if they capture individual and societal complexities tends to serve as a sort of makeshift crutch, or cheap knowingness that borders on gnosticism.
Excellent article. Excellent comments. Not being a philosopher (at least not in the academic sense), I welcome this opportunity to learn about an ironic twist in the history of philosophical and political discourse. Even the word “liberal” has meant so many things over the century or so, sometimes contradictory ones, that it has little use by now except (like “conservative”) as a hostile slogan.
I can add here only one note of caution. Discussions of the dismal current situation often end up as disputes over how we got to this point by tracing the evolution of ideas but without taking responsibility for wielding those ideas as weapons in the present: capitalism vs. socialism, say, or liberalism vs. progressivism. In my experience, for example, these arguments often amount to individualism vs. collectivism–as if we could ever live as humans with either but not the other. One of my friends insists that wokism is the inevitable result of individualism (but not the communally responsible kind that Thomas Jefferson fostered), because capitalism has turned us all not only into self-centered consumers but also into hedonistic seekers of personal gratification–that is, self-righteousness. (As a linguistic separatist, he has a stake in collectivism for reasons of his own.) Never mind that the wokers themselves insist, loudly and often, that the only source of meaning is membership in a group–especially in groups that define themselves biologically and immutably by race or sex; personal interests, abilities and motivations are of no political importance in this Darwinian struggle for collective power. Okay, maybe capitalism is among the factors that have led us to this point, but here we are now with the wokers turning capitalism (and everything else, including personal reliance on merit and reason) upside down in the name of “marginalized groups” and corporate giants turning cartwheels to be on the “right side of history.”
That the other philosophical idea most closely associated with Mill is utilitarianism is the giveaway.
Great article.
How then do you judge of public value? Do you build a hospital or a palace? A factory or a casino? And yes you can give me the usual romantic / cultic squirming, viz that a factory belches out smoke and that palaces give tourists pleasure down the line, but we all know that were you in charge of a local council or a government, utility would trump all that. And you further know that palaces, casinos, theatres etcetera are the froth generated and made possible by the hospital (keeping the bulk of us alive to enjoy them) and the factory (supplying the energy and the money). As to religious observance, if it is necessary to man – and it appears to be – then spending large sums on ceremonial monuments is equally otiose, for true observance lives – surely – as Milton said, in an upright heart, not in massive buildings, albeit that they can adorn commitment.
How then do you judge of public value? Do you build a hospital or a palace? A factory or a casino? And yes you can give me the usual romantic / cultic squirming, viz that a factory belches out smoke and that palaces give tourists pleasure down the line, but we all know that were you in charge of a local council or a government, utility would trump all that. And you further know that palaces, casinos, theatres etcetera are the froth generated and made possible by the hospital (keeping the bulk of us alive to enjoy them) and the factory (supplying the energy and the money). As to religious observance, if it is necessary to man – and it appears to be – then spending large sums on ceremonial monuments is equally otiose, for true observance lives – surely – as Milton said, in an upright heart, not in massive buildings, albeit that they can adorn commitment.
That the other philosophical idea most closely associated with Mill is utilitarianism is the giveaway.
Great article.
The chimpanzees that took over the law profession took pornography as free speech and decided it was OK. They don’t know the difference between good and right political discourse and sex. Now they have taken away the free speech but left the porno sites for all the kiddies to watch so they won’t object when the teacher wants some closet time with them.
The chimpanzees that took over the law profession took pornography as free speech and decided it was OK. They don’t know the difference between good and right political discourse and sex. Now they have taken away the free speech but left the porno sites for all the kiddies to watch so they won’t object when the teacher wants some closet time with them.
More relevant is that Mill’s defence of liberty isn’t strong enough because it’s grounded in his utilitarianism. He limits personal liberty if it does ‘harm’ to others, but nowadays even disagreeing with someone or ‘offending’ them can be interpreted as harming them. Personal liberty has to be grounded in some notion of individual rights or (as Hayek does) the rule of law.