The Best Answer to Fanaticism—Liberalism (1951) | Hacker News Reader

The Best Answer to Fanaticism—Liberalism (1951)

nytimes.com

26 pointsmpweiher38 comments

We've updated the link from a thread of tweets about a list from this article (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1017697437165785088.html). Another page with just the commandments: https://www.panarchy.org/russell/decalogue.1951.html.

From a time back when "Liberal" meant in America what it still means today in the rest of the world.

I doubt it, in France liberal is used only regarding economics and in that case it refers to neo liberalism. In Sweden nobody agrees on the term and for some it seems to be a synonym of libertarian.

Liberals of that time we're probably closer to libertarians than most American liberals today are

so why not actually define what you mean by “Liberal”? that would actually stimulate a thoughtful discussion; otherwise your comment comes off as just a snide remark.

bertrand russell seems to be saying liberalism is simply showing tolerance for people but denying appeals to authority (which is what fascism espouses). he’s saying give the benefit of doubt for ideas you think are wrong while challenging dogmatism (as a corollary, labels/identities like liberal and conservative are detrimental).

only by airing “wrong” ideas can we together reach for better versions of society, governance and culture.

Liberals in the US now seems to be synonymous with some (sometimes mild, sometimes not) form of socialism or to be a tad gentler, collectivism.

None of the folks whose prose I read or speech I've listened to that claim to be "liberals" in the US have any of the political attributes described by Russel.

Their agenda is squarely focused on improving the well-being of the group over that of the individual.

They're something all right, but "liberal" isn't it at all if you understand the word as per item 6 of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal namely:

"associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives"

Or from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism :

"a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard"

None of the US "liberals" fit this definition.

OTOH, they certainly have co-opted the word and, along with it, the unsuspecting crowd that still understands "liberalism" as being focused on individual freedoms.

so i think your definition is couched in the political (as opposed to, say, the philosophical), and that leads into the identity politics that russell argued against.

regardless, why confine liberalism as simply encompassing the individual end of the individual<—-—>collective freedoms spectrum? it seems that liberalism could encompass all of these freedoms as well as russell’s definition, no?

Link to the full PDF:

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1951/12/16/898...

As a Brit with parents who lived through both Fascism (World War Two) and Communism (Cold War), this rings true.

[flagged]

Please don't post ideological rants to HN.

I wasn’t trying to rant and I’m sorry it came off that way.

I was trying to ask a genuine question about how real conversation happens when neither sides seems to care about the real meaning of words.

>At issue today is that many who call themselves Liberals are in fact calling for a fascist, socialist new order.

That's an issue with people who believe in the "cultural marxist" conspiracy view of liberalism, but in reality most liberals don't want a "fascist, socialist new order" any more than most conservatives want Nazism or most feminists hate men. The premise that the lunatic fringe of any ideology represents the mainstream is one commonly employed to ridicule and dismiss any arguments presented on their behalf.

>In age when words have no meaning (fake news, alt facts, unlimited, gender/sex, etc) how do we communicate?

It's not true that words have no meaning.

Fake news, for instance, has an explicit meaning, despite attempts by the right wing to muddy the waters and imply that it either means nothing, or should only apply to mainstream media. "Alternative facts" was a hamfisted attempt at propaganda on behalf of the Trump administration which has its roots in "post-truth" politics[0] and the premise of the "reality based community"[1], and it was all but entirely ridiculed.

Your inclusion of "gender/sex" here, for instance suggests you don't believe LGBT identity represents a valid definition of the meaning of gender and sex, but it isn't correct, or productive, to view that definition as an erasure or corruption of a term. Simply dismissing other definitions of a term as valid isn't the same as that term no longer having meaning.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

You’re trying to say that each one of the examples I gave can actually be explained away and really doesn’t say anything about our society, but I do think that the fact that you had to spill so much explaining these terms says as much as needs to be said on the matter.

fascist socialist new order? Nice example of words having no meaning. You should be reading more.

Fanaticism - subjective word associated with being in the wrong, and can be subjectively used to accuse the other party when they don't agree with your groups solutions on most important issues.

NY Times selling liberalism is akin to Google giving away "free" OS.

It's not really subjective, unless you're going to go down the rabbit hole of "everything" being subjective making any discussion around this matter pointless.

>when they don't agree with your groups solutions on most important issues.

No, it's typically done when there are well-understood motivations behind people's opinions and the negative effects such opinions have when they make the status quo.

Most important issues in any society which is going back and forth between 2 parties are subjective, gun control, abortion, illegal aliens etc. Each party tries to insults other party's stance on very complicated subjective feelings, or at least that's what I see on news networks and late night shows(which are mostly liberal).

There is a narrative that things like gun control, abortion, etc are subjective subjects. They're really not. Being disingenuous (which is really pervasive in American politics) or taking nonconstructive stances to support a narrative does not make certain view points or stances subjective, despite some people's best efforts to control rhetoric surrounding these conversations.

All opinions are not equal and not all opinions deserve the same stage time. Especially when those opinions and view points are not based on any data but rather ideological motivations.

>There is a narrative that things like gun control, abortion, etc are subjective subjects. They're really not.

So, what are the objectively correct stances on these issues?

one objectively measurable observation is that freely distributing birth control reduces the incidence of abortion. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colorado-birth-control-fac...

Absolutely - and a great example - but that's more of a sub-issue than the actual issue itself.

Subjective in the sense that people are free to opine on those matters, but there will always be one approach that, based on empirical data, works, and one that doesn’t.

Technology.

Come again?

Political pieces aren't appropriate for Hacker News.

I disagree. Political flamewars aren’t appropriate, but this doesn’t seem to be that. It’s a thoughtful piece, and will likely generate both thoughtful responses and flamewars.

Let’s just downvote the flamewars and enjoy life :)

What about fanatical liberalism, though? How things have changed since this article was written. What is this "calm search for truth" they spoke of? :)

relevant to this topic is a new, controversial book called, "Why Liberalism Failed": https://www.amazon.com/Why-Liberalism-Failed-Politics-Cultur...

the author spoke with Russ Roberts on EconTalk this week:http://www.econtalk.org/patrick-deneen-on-why-liberalism-fai...

Given that fanatical liberalism is a subset of fanaticism, the best answer to fanatical liberalism would also be liberalism.

I believe the decalogue by Bertrand Russell supports this premise, since what it describes would be contrary to fanaticism of any particular stripe.

Progressive supremacism is a far more accurate term, denoting the outright hostility towards even tacit opposition or signs of hesitation.

First, I recognize we're painting with a broad brush here. I wouldn't call it supremacism. But too often I find "progressives" see themselves a moral high ground. Often dismissing nuanced conversation for a "winner" due to morals.

I don't care for discussing actual policies since I'm no law expert. I do like drilling down into first principles with "either side" and seeing what their ideal treatment of individuals in situations would be. It's just... difficult to discuss such things without being seen as insensitive or even prejudicial.

This being said, this article has nothing to do with technology :). And subscribing to view the full article... gross.

> But too often I find "progressives" see themselves a moral high ground. Often dismissing nuanced conversation for a "winner" due to morals.

This isn't a trait specific to progressives alone, given how often conservatives insist their views are morally superior because they represent the will of God or the founding fathers.

See: every argument about abortion or gun control ever.

Absolutely. It's a thing among most ideologies. But I see the term "progressive" itself as positioned where opposing views aren't progressing society. Which is a sort of moral high ground. But, that's looking too far into it I'm sure. Not what most would intend and is a matter of perspective.

Libertarians, too. I consider myself an extreme libertarian, for what it’s worth.

Why even make an argument if you don’t believe it is the “moral high ground”?

>Why even make an argument if you don’t believe it is the “moral high ground”?

Everyone, at the very least, believes their arguments to be correct (unless they're doing some Devil's Advocate/false-flagging/Socratic thing,) but the problem with believing one view to be morally superior is the tendency to then believe other views are immoral, and therefore invalid, rather than see those views as being held from alternate moral perspectives.

Both sides of the abortion debate, for instance, believe with absolute and unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground.

Everyone, at the very least, believes their arguments to be correct

No. Some people want their conclusion and really don't care about the argument and how it gets there. It sounds impolite but some people lie.

> Both sides of the abortion debate, for instance, believe with absolute and unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground.

I know people who preface an explanation of their support for pro-choice policy with something like "I would never have an abortion myself, but..." That's the opposite of "absolute and unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground." Most of the time it's the words of someone who recognizes a compromise needs to be made.

Then again, the reason "pro life" exists as a term is to imply that the other side is "anti life" or "pro death."

I may have engaged in hyperbole but this particular issue is still legendary for the intransigence on both sides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com