Liberalism in the FSU and Eastern/Central Europe

[KC]

A journal I read yesterday about environmental sustainability in Ukraine got this question in my head, and it won't come out. While the author was pushing a more progressie agenda, most of his critiques were actually due to the difficult transition o ideological and market liberalism.

Can liberalism survive in the former Soviet Union and other countries without a strong tradition to draw upon?

[corrocamino]

I find that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are not useful, and in fact are mainly obfuscatory. They each, as we all know, are principally deployed as pejorative labels. I find certain traits commonly said to be "liberal" in my own perceptive and intellectual make-up, and I likewise see in myself certain characteristics and views commonly said to be "conservative". So, in general I find that to use these terms blandly is not good practice. And, still higher on my personal scale of inutility, are the -isms: liberalism and conservatism, among others. :>)

[Chris]

I find that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are not useful, and in fact are mainly obfuscatory. They each, as we all know, are principally deployed as pejorative labels. I find certain traits commonly said to be "liberal" in my own perceptive and intellectual make-up, and I likewise see in myself certain characteristics and views commonly said to be "conservative". So, in general I find that to use these terms blandly is not good practice. And, still higher on my personal scale of inutility, are the -isms: liberalism and conservatism, among others. :>)

Perhaps then you're libertarian. :-P

[corrocamino]

Actually, I'm a frisbie-terian. I believe that when I die my soul will sail up onto the roof and get stuck there.

[Mister D]

A journal I read yesterday about environmental sustainability in Ukraine got this question in my head, and it won't come out. While the author was pushing a more progressie agenda, most of his critiques were actually due to the difficult transition o ideological and market liberalism.

Can liberalism survive in the former Soviet Union and other countries without a strong tradition to draw upon?

I'm hard pressed for positive historical parallels. Where indeed has liberalism flourished in regions with no tradition of it? Outside of nations that suffered a catastrophic defeat in war (i.e. Germany and Japan) I can think of none.

[KC]

I find that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are not useful, and in fact are mainly obfuscatory. They each, as we all know, are principally deployed as pejorative labels. I find certain traits commonly said to be "liberal" in my own perceptive and intellectual make-up, and I likewise see in myself certain characteristics and views commonly said to be "conservative". So, in general I find that to use these terms blandly is not good practice. And, still higher on my personal scale of inutility, are the -isms: liberalism and conservatism, among others. :>)

Oh, I should be clear that by"liberalism" I'm talking more about classical, not modern liberalism.

[KC]

I'm hard pressed for positive historical parallels. Where indeed has liberalism flourished in regions with no tradition of it? Outside of nations that suffered a catastrophic defeat in war (i.e. Germany and Japan) I can think of none.

So what do you think will happen then? If the interwar period is any teacher, most will crumble toward authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Is there some kind of preferable third way? I hate to think these countries will return to the command structures that destroyed them in the first place.

[Chris]

Sorry for getting off track earlier. When you speak of market liberalism, I think there are good strong traditions throughout the world for all it really means is free trade. And there is an equally strong tradition of managed trade, taxing, regulating, protecting it. Japan has been traditionally protective, at least since the Meiji Era; Singapore and Hong Kong free. If you think about it, there is not, and never has been other than local control over global trade, so the world as a whole has a good long tradition of it.

[Mister D]

So what do you think will happen then? If the interwar period is any teacher, most will crumble toward authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Is there some kind of preferable third way? I hate to think these countries will return to the command structures that destroyed them in the first place.



I'm becoming increasingly anti-liberal and anti-modern so what I would like to see happen is whatever the peoples of those regions desire. If that means authoritarianism or "totalitarianism" (as western liberals define it) then so be it. Frankly, I'd hate to see them become more liberal. As for "command structures", I think it's abundantly clear that command economies simply don't work. Apparently, only American progressives have yet to learn this.

[KC]

I'm becoming increasingly anti-liberal and anti-modern so what I would like to see happen is whatever the peoples of those regions desire. If that means authoritarianism or "totalitarianism" (as western liberals define it) then so be it. Frankly, I'd hate to see them become more liberal. As for "command structures", I think it's abundantly clear that command economies simply don't work. Apparently, only American progressives have yet to learn this.

Don't forget social democrats around the globe, D.

The idea you express about self determination seems to be an inherently liberal idea, btw.

[Carygrant]

I'm becoming increasingly anti-liberal and anti-modern so what I would like to see happen is whatever the peoples of those regions desire. If that means authoritarianism or "totalitarianism" (as western liberals define it) then so be it. Frankly, I'd hate to see them become more liberal. As for "command structures", I think it's abundantly clear that command economies simply don't work. Apparently, only American progressives have yet to learn this.


More drivel . Who here really believes Bush was progressive ?
He commanded and you puppets jumped into Afghanistan and Iraq and developed nightmares about all non whites .

[Mister D]

So what you are saying is that something like the advent of the motor car would have never flourished unless it had a successful tradition behind it .
Simple example .
In fact anything new is doomed without a tradition of past success . According to you .
OMG .

:laugh: no.

Can you think of any positive historical parallels?

[Mister D]

More drivel . Who here really believes Bush was progressive ?
He commanded and you puppets jumped into Afghanistan and Iraq and developed nightmares about all non whites .

Bush? What are you babbling about? Afghanistan and Iraq? What?

[IMPress Polly]

Left wing politics can definitely survive in Eastern Europe (with or without green politics). There are all kinds of expressions of that. For instance, polling over the last couple years has found that more than 60% of Romanians wish they had never scrapped their socialist economic system, doubtless mainly due to their subsequent major housing problems. Likewise the majority of Russians now say they regret the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party is likewise major significant political advances in Austria right now. That's not to say that any of these peoples have embraced totalitarian politics. Few people actually want to go back to the old days in that sense. But it is to say that they've seen the faults of neo-liberalism in the post-Cold-War era with catastrophic economic depressions that make our Great Depression look like child's play by comparison and have moved ideologically to the left as a result.

[Mister D]

Don't forget social democrats around the globe, D.

The idea you express about self determination seems to be an inherently liberal idea, btw.

no doubt our way of life has fans everywhere.

Is it? Then liberals need not worry. They should follow their own principles.

[KC]

Left wing politics can definitely survive in Eastern Europe (with or without green politics). There are all kinds of expressions of that. For instance, polling over the last couple years has found that more than 60% of Romanians wish they had never scrapped their socialist economic system, doubtless mainly due to their subsequent major housing problems. Likewise the majority of Russians now say they regret the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party is likewise major significant political advances in Austria right now. That's not to say that any of these peoples have embraced totalitarian politics. Few people actually want to go back to the old days in that sense. But it is to say that they've seen the faults of neo-liberalism in the post-Cold-War era with catastrophic economic depressions that make our Great Depression look like child's play by comparison and have moved ideologically to the left as a result.

Oh, I have no doubt left wing politics can survive in Eastern Europe, but can Eastern Europe express left wing politics without moving toward absolutism, whether that expresses itself in Communism, Fascism or some other version of authoritarian government?

[Chris]

Left wing politics can definitely survive in Eastern Europe (with or without green politics). There are all kinds of expressions of that. For instance, polling over the last couple years has found that more than 60% of Romanians wish they had never scrapped their socialist economic system, doubtless mainly due to their subsequent major housing problems. Likewise the majority of Russians now say they regret the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party is likewise major significant political advances in Austria right now. That's not to say that any of these peoples have embraced totalitarian politics. Few people actually want to go back to the old days in that sense. But it is to say that they've seen the faults of neo-liberalism in the post-Cold-War era with catastrophic economic depressions that make our Great Depression look like child's play by comparison and have moved ideologically to the left as a result.


That's not to say that any of these peoples have embraced totalitarian politics.

You can't have one without the other. Based on central planning and the notion you can design and manage economies, left liberalism always ends up totalitarian and, there, destroys itself. Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy to name a few examples. That may well be the tradition Europe follows, having adopted the latest form of socialism, social democracy and now faced with yet again failure.

[Mister D]

"Our" Great Depression?

[Chris]

Far as I'm concerned the Great Depression came about because progressives like FDR adopted the socialism of Europe, of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini--just Obama now adopts its social democracy.

Maybe--sometimes I get to thinking--there are forces beyond this that keep us in these endless cycles for while free liberal trade is better than socialized, centrally planned trade, it too has not been a panacea, but just a forestalling of the inevitable--as Buckley said: "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

[Peter1469]

Sorry for getting off track earlier. When you speak of market liberalism, I think there are good strong traditions throughout the world for all it really means is free trade. And there is an equally strong tradition of managed trade, taxing, regulating, protecting it. Japan has been traditionally protective, at least since the Meiji Era; Singapore and Hong Kong free. If you think about it, there is not, and never has been other than local control over global trade, so the world as a whole has a good long tradition of it.

Also look at the black market that springs up where totalitarianism takes hold.

[Chris]

Also look at the black market that springs up where totalitarianism takes hold.

Indeed, a free market resistance to totalitarianism. The liberal or free market is natural, totalitarianism artificial.

[corrocamino]

In the broadest terms, there is only one form of government, present or past: plutocracy. It goes under many other names, but it's still plutocracy. (Do I approve? No.)

[Chris]

In the broadest terms, there is only one form of government, present or past: plutocracy. It goes under many other names, but it's still plutocracy. (Do I approve? No.)

Yea, I see that coming up more and more from liberal politicians and press. Plutocracy can't happen without the necessary ingredient of a corrupt government willing to sell regulatory economic favors for political power. None of the great socialist systems--Communism, Nazism, Fascism--existed without some form of this collusion, call it corporatism as Mussolini did, or the contemporary name, crony capitalism. Social democracy is no different.

[KC]

Yea, I see that coming up more and more from liberal politicians and press. Plutocracy can't happen without the necessary ingredient of a corrupt government willing to sell regulatory economic favors for political power. None of the great socialist systems--Communism, Nazism, Fascism--existed without some form of this collusion, call it corporatism as Mussolini did, or the contemporary name, crony capitalism. Social democracy is no different.

Regulatory economic favors are not the only necessary ingredient. It can also come in the form of tax incentives, tariffs (protectionism), special subsidies, etc. But I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

[Chris]

Regulatory economic favors are not the only necessary ingredient. It can also come in the form of tax incentives, tariffs (protectionism), special subsidies, etc. But I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Agree. I tend to see two forms of expropriation: Directly through taxation and indirectly through regulation. where I'd put tariffs. Both are used to redistribute wealth, be it social or corporate welfare.

[Peter1469]

Tariffs are also used to punish other nations for not playing fair in the market place.

[corrocamino]

Has there ever been an ultimately incorruptible government -- anywhere? I think not. Plutocracy is diachronic, transcultural, and omnipartisan.

[Peter1469]

Has there ever been an ultimately uncorruptible government -- anywhere? I think not. Plutocracy is diachronic, transcultural, and omnipartisan.

Correct. Even an "uncoruptilbe" government will eventually decay and collapse.

[corrocamino]

I'm becoming increasingly anti-liberal and anti-modern so what I would like to see happen is whatever the peoples of those regions desire. If that means authoritarianism or "totalitarianism" (as western liberals define it) then so be it. Frankly, I'd hate to see them become more liberal. As for "command structures", I think it's abundantly clear that command economies simply don't work. Apparently, only American progressives have yet to learn this.

Can't resist opining that what American anti-progressives have yet to learn is that runaway capitalism (unmodulated by sensibly equitable taxation) is parasitism that eventually kills the host organism. [Look at me -- deploying three -isms in a single short sentence! Tsk, tsk!]

[Peter1469]

Can't resist opining that what American anti-progressives have yet to learn is that runaway capitalism (unmodulated by sensibly equitable taxation) is parasitism that eventually kills the host organism. [Look at me -- deploying three -isms in a single short sentence! Tsk, tsk!]

Do we have any historic examples of runaway capitalism killing a nation? Please include a definition of runaway capitalism so we are all on the same page.

[corrocamino]

Do we have any historic examples of runaway capitalism killing a nation? Please include a definition of runaway capitalism so we are all on the same page.

The book (a tragedy) is still being written on Wall Street (and in London), I believe. :>(

[Chris]

Tariffs are also used to punish other nations for not playing fair in the market place.

They may be enacted with that intention but in fact only harm those it's intended to help.

[Chris]

Has there ever been an ultimately incorruptible government -- anywhere? I think not. Plutocracy is diachronic, transcultural, and omnipartisan.

Where is the international authority that gives the wealthy this power? It is no where to be found. It is a phantom.

[Chris]

Can't resist opining that what American anti-progressives have yet to learn is that runaway capitalism (unmodulated by sensibly equitable taxation) is parasitism that eventually kills the host organism. [Look at me -- deploying three -isms in a single short sentence! Tsk, tsk!]

How? Really, explain how capitalism is a parasite the way socialism is.

[corrocamino]

Without "socialism", there can be no society. Do I endorse welfare dole as a profession? Of course not. :>)

[Chris]

Without "socialism", there can be no society. Do I endorse welfare dole as a profession? Of course not. :>)

Socialism = central planning. Society exists without that.

[corrocamino]

Socialism = central planning. Society exists without that.

A narrow definition, to my mind. I might add that much that can well be described as "central planning" is in fact carried out in such places as..."The American Enterprise Institute".

[Chris]

A narrow definition, to my mind. I might add that much that can well be described as "central planning" is in fact carried out in such places as..."The American Enterprise Institute".

We are in the political science room so I think an politico-economic definition appropriate rather than some fuzzy personal one. If you take all the various sorts of socialism--communism, nazism, fascism, social democracy--the one single common element among them is central planning.

The American Enterprise Institute, as an example of market liberalism, does not have the coercive power of the state to back it's central planning.

Remember, that was the question of the OP, can the the FSU and Eastern/Central Europe transition from one to the other?

[corrocamino]

"Market liberalism" is a strange description for the Iraq invasion, I think. Exiting now from this to something less tendentious. :>)

[IMPress Polly]

KC wrote:
Oh, I have no doubt left wing politics can survive in Eastern Europe, but can Eastern Europe express left wing politics without moving toward absolutism, whether that expresses itself in Communism, Fascism or some other version of authoritarian government?

That's something they have to work through. Democracy is the path of the future though. Not even the communists there are generally interested in returning to one-party states and stuff like that.

[Chris]

That's something they have to work through. Democracy is the path of the future though. Not even the communists there are generally interested in returning to one-party states and stuff like that.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
~Alexander Tytler

[corrocamino]

I personally think that a benevolent autocrat makes the ideal ruler. The problem is, finding and keeping one.

[Peter1469]

The book (a tragedy) is still being written on Wall Street (and in London), I believe. :>(
That is why I asked for a definition of runaway capitalism. My view of Wall Street and its control over Congress is not a picture of capitalism. So while we likely agree with the result, we don't agree with the cause.

[Peter1469]

They may be enacted with that intention but in fact only harm those it's intended to help.

They do have negative effect. The question is whether doing nothing creates more harm as the other nation rapes you with no lube. I hear that can be uncomfortable.

[Captain Obvious]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
~Alexander Tytler

I sort of agree with that, you can see it in practice here in the US but what isn't considered is the role of the aristocracy who, in league with politicians who allow these treasury bones to be thrown while they manipulate the economic scene.

[Chris]

They do have negative effect. The question is whether doing nothing creates more harm as the other nation rapes you with no lube. I hear that can be uncomfortable.

The only negative effect is to harm those intended to help. Say we protect sugar. Cuba doesn't suffer one bit as it has a worldwide market to export to, American consumers pay the tariff, American sugar growers suffer a false sense of security, and socialism has made another step in the redistribution or maintenance of wealth of a special interest.

I think we're off topic though.

[Chris]

I sort of agree with that, you can see it in practice here in the US but what isn't considered is the role of the aristocracy who, in league with politicians who allow these treasury bones to be thrown while they manipulate the economic scene.

The aristocracy (the rich, the wealthy) are just the same as others, voting for their share of the public treasury, though with their wealth they can afford to bribe with hefty contributions for special favors. Social, corporate welfare is ultimately one and the same.

[Chris]

I personally think that a benevolent autocrat makes the ideal ruler. The problem is, finding and keeping one.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
~Madison, Federalist 51, my emphasis.

[corrocamino]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
~Madison, Federalist 51, my emphasis.

According to religious doctrine, even angels have a governor. ;>)

[Chris]

According to religious doctrine, even angels have a governor. ;>)

But again, who governs the governor? That is why, to tie back to the topic, market liberalism will fail.

[corrocamino]

But again, who governs the governor? That is why, to tie back to the topic, market liberalism will fail.

History (and prehistory) seems to indicate that EVERYTHING will fail. Party hardy, pal!

[Chris]

History (and prehistory) seems to indicate that EVERYTHING will fail. Party hardy, pal!

Not true. Market liberalism will continue to succeed globally. What I meant is it will fail locally in the FSU and Eastern/Central Europe.

[corrocamino]

Not true. Market liberalism will continue to succeed globally. What I meant is it will fail locally in the FSU and Eastern/Central Europe.

According to astrophysicists, the sun will expand and incinerate the earth, which will serve to discontinue just about all earthly continuances. Closer to temporal home, the consensus of our world's brightest thinkers allows civilization itself only a 50:50 chance of surviving the present century. Market liberalism will endure longer than, say, the Third Reich, but may not by that much. Again, party hardy, whilst thou may!

[Chris]

According to astrophysicists, the sun will expand and incinerate the earth, which will serve to discontinue just about all earthly continuances. Closer to temporal home, the consensus of our world's brightest thinkers allows civilization itself only a 50:50 chance of surviving the present century. Market liberalism will endure longer than, say, the Third Reich, but may not by that much. Again, party hardy, whilst thou may!

And Keynes said in the long run we're all dead. One way to dismiss arguments. The assumption here, in Other Discussions (see rule 9) is that we are here to discuss topics at hand.

[corrocamino]

And Keynes said in the long run we're all dead. One way to dismiss arguments. The assumption here, in Other Discussions (see rule 9) is that we are here to discuss topics at hand.

Your open-ended phrase "will continue to succeed" invited the comment. Perhaps you'll clarify your own point with some useful modifier: "through eternity", "for a few years" -- however you see it. :>)

[truthmatters]

unregulated markets always fail

[KC]

unregulated markets always fail

Because eventually they become heavily regulated, right?

[corrocamino]

Thomas Bewick, noted for his seminal woodcut vignettes in early nineteenth-century books, included this text with one such vignette: "Good times and bad times and all times get over." Sic transit.

[Chris]

Your open-ended phrase "will continue to succeed" invited the comment. Perhaps you'll clarify your own point with some useful modifier: "through eternity", "for a few years" -- however you see it. :>)

Let's not get pedantic, let's stay within the context of the OP question. Again, while market liberalism will fail locally there, it will continue to succeed globally. The world ending or all of us dying, whatever stretched relevance that may have to the question at hand, is not a failure of market liberalism.

[corrocamino]

Let's not get pedantic, let's stay within the context of the OP question. Again, while market liberalism will fail locally there, it will continue to succeed globally. The world ending or all of us dying, whatever stretched relevance that may have to the question at hand, is not a failure of market liberalism.

Thanks for the smoke! (I don't smoke.) ;>)

[truthmatters]

Because eventually they become heavily regulated, right?


consolidation of wealth ends a free market.

Unregulated markets produce consolidation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands

[Chris]

unregulated markets always fail

Prove it.

Discussion is more than tossing out vacuous remarks.

The global market is not regulated. It has survived since time immemorial, and will continue to do so.

What we see historically is statist attempts at managing the market, from looters and plunderers, to kings and queens, to nazis, facists and communists, to social democracy today. Where did all those states go? Yet people go right on trading every day.

[Chris]

Thanks for the smoke! (I don't smoke.) ;>)

See rule #9 please.

[corrocamino]

No, thanks.

[Chris]

No, thanks.

Thread banned, see rule #9.

[Peter1469]

unregulated markets always fail

That is why the black market operates behind the scenes.

[KC]

consolidation of wealth ends a free market.

Unregulated markets produce consolidation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands

I don't think consolidation of wealth into a couple hands is possible without the state backing one or more players. Competition prevents the consolidation of wealth.