#whiggism

[nuwoman]

Whiggism

Whig history (or Whig historiography) is an approach to historiography that presents the past as an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy.

Whiggism, in North America sometimes spelled Whigism, is a historical political philosophy that grew out of the Parliamentarian faction in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639–1651).

[mandrocles]

The difference between victorian liberalism and neoliberalism

The term "neoliberalism" is a bit ambiguous, but whatever it means is rooted in the ideology of classic (victorian) liberalism, that is the primacy of markets, investors, individualism and globalization over institutions, workers, reciprocity and internationalism.

Neoliberalism for me largely coincides with the Washington Consensus and reaganism/thatcherism, and a classic liberal like Peter Mandelson summarized well in 2002:

“in the urgent need to remove rigidities and incorporate flexibility in capital, product and labour markets, we are all Thatcherites now”

And Tony Benn had already pointed out in 1993 the roots of that ideology in classic liberalism:

“These so called modernisers are really Victorian Liberals, who believe in market forces, don't like the trade unions and are anti-socialist.”

But "neoliberalism" is not quite the same "classic liberalism" and the major difference is that while classic liberalism applied to all areas of economic activity, and classic liberals opposed both conservatives/rentiers and progressives/socialdemocrats, and state intervention in any economic areas, neoliberals only oppose progressive/socialdemocrats, and strongly support land and finance based conservativism and rentierism, and support strong government intervention to support rentier interests in land and finance: in neoliberal states there are huge state (treasury and central bank) programmes to provide cheap massive credits and subsidies and low taxation to land (agricultural, commercial and residential land interests) and finance interests, and to backstop their losses, for enormous (trillions of dollars) amounts.

While classic liberals were in part allied with socialdemocrats against land and finance rentiers, as classic liberals and socialdemocrats both derived their incomes from industry, neoliberals are allied with land and finance rentiers against socialdemocrats, to the point of prioritizing land and finance interests over industry. Some of the reasons why:

Traditional industry has been deemed to be a breeding ground for labor unionism.

Much of traditional industry has been offshored to countries where independent labor unions are illegal or very weak and wages are low.

The ruling industrial elites have moved much of their capital into land and finance.

The political power of right-wing neoliberal parties (Republicans and Democrats in the USA, Conservatives and New Labour in the UK, ...) depends on the votes of mass land and finance rentiers, in particular the upper-middle classes voters who own share-based pension accounts and residential real estate.

Neoliberalism is the result of a union of convenience between the ideas and interests of classic liberals and conservative rentiers: hard global market competition for workers, generous national state welfare for real estate and finance.

[eternaleve]

I am back to video making! So I did a video about historical theories and how they impact the modern political system. And with a clown.

So... What is Whig History? And Why Should You Care?

[almost-a-whig]

Discuss: Whiggism

Whiggism  [hwig-iz-uh m, wig-] : the belief that all of history is progress, leading inevitably from one state to a better state.

To me, this seems to be the predominant line of thinking in a lot of liberal academia. See: futurism, post-capitalist utopia, etc. There’s a general attitude that we are superior, both technologically and morally, to our predecessors. And in many ways, I agree. But that belief also implies that all the information we have today is a complete synthesis of everything we’ve learned before, with no loss of knowledge. We know that isn’t true (library of Alexandria, etc). 

Even in moral territory, there’s no guarantee that the human race, or any particular society thereof, is the best it’s ever been. We’ve seen societies regress morally, at least by our standards. And going by the maxim of moral relativity, another common line of thinking in modern academia, there may not even be such a thing as absolute moral superiority. I dunno.

Thoughts?

Further reading

[ask-the-son-of-liberty]

Manus haec inimica Tyrannis Ense petit placidam, sub libertate quietem.

"This hand (manus haec), an enemy to tyrants (inimica tyrannis), seeks with the sword ( ense petit) calm peace in freedom (placidam sub libertate quietem)."

This was the famed Latin motto of Algernon Sidney (1622-1683). In 1824, the motto was paraphrased by John Quincy Adams in the following lines: 

This hand to tyrants ever sworn the foe,

For freedom only deals the deadly blow.

In another adapted form, this saying is the motto of the state of Masschusetts: Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem, 

"It seeks by the sword a calm peace in freedom."

[godsavemonarchy]

I have always said, the first Whig was the Devil.

Dr Samuel Johnson