This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed.
Response Paper #4: Modern Ideologies
Remember the recommendations for completing response papers:
1. Read each step of the assignment carefully and be sure to complete the bullet points for each step.
2. Complete each bullet point with detailed explanations. Don’t just list information quickly. Show
your mind working by providing explanations which prove you studied and understood the details
of the lectures.
3. Don’t copy my sentences. Don’t use my sentences with just a few word changes. Write your own
sentences. You may use words, phrases, and concepts from the lectures. But the sentences should
be your own. That means your sentences should clearly be distinct from mine – in order to show
your mind working.
4. Re-read your writing before submitting your work. Look for mistakes and unclear sentences to fix.
The more time you invest in your writing, the more your writing will express your intelligence.
Here’s the assignment for Response Paper #4:
Write an essay completing the four steps below. Make sure your essay is based exclusively on studying
the assigned lectures on Blackboard in the “Modern Ideologies” folder. Do not use the Internet or other
sources.
1) Write a paragraph (or two) discussing Classical Liberalism. Identify two Classical Liberal authors, their
books, and dates. Be sure to explain
• what natural rights are – give an example.
• why the right to private property is a natural right
• what a free market is
o Base your discussion exclusively on the lecture “Classical Liberalism.” That means do not use the
Internet or other sources. Focus on the assigned lecture. Show that you studied this lecture.
2) Write a paragraph (or two) discussing Modern Liberalism. Identify two Modern Liberal authors, their
books, and dates. Be sure to explain
• how Modern Liberals understand democracy and human nature
• how Modern Liberals understand freedom
• what a Welfare State is. Include examples of what a Welfare State does
o Base your discussion exclusively on the lecture “Modern Liberalism.” That means do not use the
Internet or other sources. Focus on the assigned lecture. Show that you studied this lecture.
3) Write a paragraph (or two) discussing Communism. Identify two Communist authors, their book, and
date. Be sure to explain
• how Marx and Engels simplify the complexity of industrial society
• how Marx and Engels see society as a zero-sum conflict
• what Marx and Engels thought would happen in industrial society, including whether they were
correct
• the lasting influence of Marx and Engels. Helpful hint: Include Gramsci and Marcuse
o Base your discussion exclusively on the lecture “Communism.” That means do not use the Internet or
other sources. Focus on the assigned lecture. Show that you studied this lecture.
4) Write a paragraph discussing Socialism. Identify a Socialist author, book, and date. Be sure to explain
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed.
• why Bernstein revised Marx and Engels’ philosophy
• what Bernstein wanted the working class to do
• the British experience with Socialism
• the difference between a Welfare State and Socialism
o Base your discussion exclusively on the lecture “Socialism” (and “Modern Liberalism” for the fourth
bullet point). That means do not use the Internet or other sources. Focus on the assigned lecture.
Show that you studied this lecture.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Socialism – 1
Modern Ideologies – Socialism
We continue our discussion of modern ideologies by examining the ideology of Socialism.
What does Socialism Mean?
The word “Socialism” is not always used clearly. People have used the term to mean different
things.
• The 19th century communist philosopher Karl Marx used the term socialism to mean the
same as communism.
• In contrast, some politicians and media figures call countries like Denmark and Sweden
socialist even though neither is socialist.
• When asked, many might say that Socialism means equality. But that doesn’t really help
since the term equality can also be used in different ways.
Here is an essential element of socialism: State officials in charge of the economy.
• An economy is the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
• So Socialism is when State officials have large control over the production, distribution, and
consumption of goods and services.
• In contrast, in a capitalist system, private businesses and consumers control the production,
distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
We began thinking this through in the lecture on Modern Liberalism. That lecture suggested the
following: Think of all the goods and services you consume. By reading this lecture, you are
consuming a service – education. When you go to the doctor, you consume medical services. By
drinking coffee or eating a sandwich, you consume a good.
Let’s focus on drinking and eating – i.e., food. Some organizations produce food, some
organizations distribute food, and you consume food. Under Socialism, it is State officials who
control the production and distribution of food. And even though you consume the food, the
State plays a large role in that consumption because State officials control the price of food.
With this understanding of Socialism, let’s think historically.
The Failure of Marx and Engels’ Prediction about Capitalism
There were various kinds of Socialism in the 19th century. The most influential version of
Socialism emerged in response to the failure of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ prediction about
capitalism.
Let’s remind ourselves what Marx and Engels said about capitalism in The Communist
Manifesto (1848).
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Socialism – 2
• They argued that capitalism would fail within a couple generations.
• They thought capitalism would produce an extremely small class controlling nearly all the
wealth (the bourgeoisie), leaving the vast majority of society in subsistence poverty (the
proletariat).
• This terrible poverty, in turn, would motivate the proletariat to rise up in a violent
communist revolution.
As we noted in discussing Communism, if Marx and Engels were right, violent communist
revolutions would have happened in the most advanced industrial societies by 1900 – Great
Britain, the United States, and Germany.
Yet by 1900 it was clear that violent communist revolutions had not occurred in these
countries. Many thinkers began to analyze why. One such thinker was the German philosopher
Eduard Bernstein.
Bernstein clearly saw that capitalism had not failed. He understood that the overwhelming
majority were not falling into subsistence poverty. He saw that the proletariat’s standard of
living was going up and, as a result, the proletariat were not motivated to rise up in a violent
communist revolution.
Because most proletariat were not about to rise up in violence, Bernstein thought it was
necessary to revise Marx and Engels’ ideology of Communism. Bernstein called this revision of
Communism by the name of “Socialism.” So Socialism is a revised form of Communism, like a
sibling of Communism.
Eduard Bernstein, The Preconditions of Socialism (1899)
Notice the date of Bernstein’s book – 1899. That’s 51 years after Marx and Engels’ Communist
Manifesto (1848). The dates are important because if Marx and Engels’ prediction about the
failure of capitalism – terrible poverty for almost all leading to a violent revolution – was to
come true, it should have come true by 1899. Or at least it should have seemed close to coming
true.
But as Bernstein looked at the advanced industrial societies like Great Britain and Germany, he
saw what we noted above – the standard of living for many of the proletariat was going up. The
proletariat were not rich or what you and I today would call well off. But the vast majority was
not falling into subsistence poverty. As a result, most were not motivated to rise up in violence.
So Bernstein saw the need to revise Communism.
In the revised Communism which Bernstein called Socialism, Bernstein had to come up with a
different plan for the proletariat or working class. Since the proletariat was not going to rise up
in violence, what exactly would it do?
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Socialism – 3
Bernstein envisioned a three-step process for what the proletariat or working class would do:
1. Bernstein wanted the proletariat to organize politically, meaning to organize socialist
political parties.
• Bernstein was not original with this idea. Socialist political parties were developing in the
late 19th century. Many were called social-democratic parties. There was the German Social
Democratic Party and the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party. By 1900 there was the
British Labour Party (“Labour” is the British spelling of “Labor” in American English).
• The British Labour Party reminds us of the definition of Socialism.
o Remember, Socialism means State officials controlling the production, distribution, and
consumption of goods and services.
o This is what the Labour Party meant when it called for “common ownership [i.e., State
ownership] of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.”
• But how, we might ask, is the State going to take over and control production, distribution,
and consumption? Steps 2 & 3 below answer that question.
2. Bernstein wanted working-class voters to vote socialist parties into government. The idea
was simple: socialist parties use democracy to take control of the State.
• Here we see an important way in which Socialism revises Communism.
• Under Communism, the working class was to act violently – to rise up in violent revolution.
• Under Socialism, the working class was to dominate democracy – to vote socialist parties
into government so these parties can control and run the State.
3. Once in power, socialist parties would change many of the laws that protected private
property. They would change private property into State property – a revolution in property
ownership.
• Before this change, the businesses which produced and distributed goods and services
were privately owned. They were private companies like John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil
company, J.P. Morgan’s U.S. Steel company, or Henry Ford’s automobile company.
• Once socialist parties run the State, their goal was to change the laws that protected these
businesses as private property and, instead, write new laws making these businesses State
property. The new laws would take the property away from the private owners and
transfer ownership to the State.
• The companies would go from private ownership to State ownership, which again reminds
us of our definition of Socialism – State control of the production, distribution, and
consumption of goods and services.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Socialism – 4
20th Century Socialism
Let’s pause here and reflect on what we’ve said.
We said that Communism wants the working class to act violently – to rise up in violent
revolution.
• We noted in the last lecture that Karl Marx used both terms – Communism and Socialism –
to describe this violent approach to revolution.
• We’ve called it Communism, though we could also call it revolutionary Socialism.
• The idea is to overthrow the existing government and seize the power of the State by force
of arms.
• We’ll discuss 20th century Communism – revolutionary Socialism – in a later lecture when
we explore the Russian Revolution of 1917.
For now, let’s finish our discussion of Bernstein’s type of Socialism.
• The idea here is not to rise up in a violent revolution, not to seize the State by force of arms.
• Rather, the idea is for socialists to use democracy to control and run the State. Think of this
as a two-step process:
1. vote socialists into government
2. then socialists in government institute socialist policies – i.e., transfer private businesses
to State ownership so the State can control the production, distribution, and
consumption of goods and services.
• This type of Socialism is sometimes called evolutionary Socialism. It develops or evolves the
more socialists dominate democracy. It can also be called democratic Socialism.
A primary goal of evolutionary Socialism is to transform big industries from private property
into State property. Big industries include
• energy – coal, oil, gas, electricity
• durable goods – iron, steel, rubber
• transportation – rail, air
• medical – doctors, hospitals, technology
• financial – banks
• farming and food
Great Britain tried evolutionary Socialism in the 20th century. As we noted above, the British
Labour Party was founded in 1900. It was an evolutionary Socialist party.
The Labour Party won a major election in Britain in 1945. They gained control of the British
State democratically. And they began to institute socialist policies, what they called “common
ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” The Labour party thus
began the State takeover of
• energy companies – oil, coal, electricity
• transportation companies – railroads
and airlines
• durable goods companies – steel
• health care
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Socialism – 5
Focusing on health care, the British Parliament passed the National Health Service Act in 1946.
This law put the State in charge of the production, distribution, and consumption of health care
services.
But by the 1970s, the British economy was facing serious problems. Under the Socialism that
began in the late 1940s, economic growth had slowed dramatically and Britain’s economic
ranking in the world was declining. As a result, by the 1980s, Britain began some free market
reforms which undid parts – not all – of its socialist policies. The reforms
• decreased State control over energy by allowing private investment – meaning private
ownership – in energy companies like coal, oil, electricity.
• allowed private investment in transportation companies like railroads and airlines.
But Great Britain – also called the United Kingdom – maintained its socialized health care, the
National Health Service. The reforms did increasingly allow citizens to seek private health care,
meaning care in privately owned hospitals and facilities, but the State continued to run the
National Health Service.
This leads us back to an earlier lecture when we discussed a Welfare State with some socialist
policies. Great Britain had tried Socialism in the mid-20th century, but by the late 20th century it
had become a Welfare State with some socialist policies. The National Health Service continues
to this day. It controls the cost of health care by limiting the production of health care services.
Other countries had similar experiences with Socialism in the mid-20th century. By the late 20th
century, they too were undoing some of their socialist policies. Two examples are Sweden and
India.
India began Socialist planning of the economy in 1947. Over the next 35 years – 1947 to 1982 –
average income in India increased only 43%. That’s only 1.2% per year. As a result, in the late
20th century, India like Great Britain began to institute some free market reforms.
• India reduced its large State bureaucracy and developed greater protections for private
property rights.
• As State control of the economy decreased, private investment surged.
• In only 25 years from 1990 to 2015, as the reforms took hold, average income in India
increased over 225% — compared to only 43% over the previous 35 years.
Sweden had similar experiences. It instituted Socialist policies in the mid-20th century.
Government spending in Sweden doubled in only 20 years. But the Swedish economy fell in
economic standing, from 4th highest average income in the world to 20th. Almost unbelievably,
the Swedish economy failed to increase the number of jobs in its economy in the 1970s and
’80s. Think about that – no increase in the number of jobs for an entire generation. The Swedish
economy was stagnating. As a result, in the 1990s, Sweden like Great Britain and India began to
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Socialism – 6
reform its socialist system. It cut government spending by a third, reduced regulations on
business, reduced the corporate tax rate, and partially privatized its State pension system.
In short, by the late 20th century the economic problems with Socialism became difficult to
ignore. These problems were noted by The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development when it described the “disillusionment with the generally poor performance of
state-owned enterprises.”
Many countries which had practiced Socialism thus transitioned to a Welfare State with some
socialist policies.
Be clear on the difference:
• Socialism sought to end much of capitalism by having the State control the production,
distribution, and consumptions of goods and service.
• A Welfare State depends on capitalism – i.e., mostly private ownership. Private companies
and consumers, not the State, control most of the production, distribution, and
consumption of goods and services.
The logic of a Welfare State is this:
• Private ownership of most of the economy creates wealth.
• The State taxes a significant part of that wealth in order to redistribute some of the wealth
in providing certain services.
Some countries which have transitioned to a Welfare State like Sweden still maintain one
socialist element in their economy – State run health care. Hence, they are a Welfare State with
some socialist policies. They fund their State health care with broad-based taxes paid by
everyone. Sweden, for example, has a 25% national sales tax – paid by everyone at the same
rate, meaning most goods and services cost 25% more to buy.
Yet even with this high national sales tax, the Swedish State spends less per person on health
care than the U.S. State spends per person on healthcare.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 1
Modern Ideologies – Communism
In this lecture we continue our discussion of modern ideologies by examining Communism.
Communism fully emerged as an ideology in the 19th century. This ideology could also be called
“revolutionary socialism,” as we’ll see in the next lecture. In this lecture, we’ll mostly use the
word “communism” and we will focus on the famous work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
The Communist Manifesto (1848).
Marx and Engels presented their communist ideology as “science.” They called it “scientific
socialism.” In reality, though, their ideology was not science. It was a utopian way of thinking. It
did include interesting insights and had a lasting impact, as we’ll discuss below. But Marx and
Engels’ communism – a.k.a. “scientific socialism” or “revolutionary socialism” – was based on a
utopian vision. It promised – after a period of violence and bloodshed – an incredible future of
less work and more abundance, a future of humans living in harmony, a future so good that
humans wouldn’t even need government. Let’s explore Marx and Engels’ thinking.
Intellectuals & Categories
The basis of Marx and Engels’ philosophy is how they categorize people. They think about
members of society not as individuals – with individual qualities and characteristics – but as
members of groups.
Let’s pause and consider this point. Marx and Engels were intellectuals (and activists).
Intellectuals analyze society. Yet society is highly complex – almost infinitely complex. It
includes millions of people with different attitudes and habits. It includes various systems and
institutions with multiple purposes – economic, political, legal, educational, religious, etc. It
involves vast networks of evolving relationships, billions of interactions every day. Society
includes all kinds of people doing all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.
Intellectuals try to make sense of all this. They analyze society in the hopes of explaining how it
works. Key here is how intellectuals organize the complexity of society in their own minds. They
mentally arrange the complexity in ways that make sense to them. They develop categories to
classify and label people, relationships, and institutions. Their explanations for how society
works – how good those explanations are – depend on how well their categories and
classifications explain the infinite complexity of society.
The categories Marx and Engels use to analyze society are economic classes. They argue that
industrial society – what they call “capitalism” – was increasingly dividing into just two classes.
They call these classes the “Bourgeoisie” and the “Proletariat.”
• The Bourgeoisie were the owners of factories and mines. This means the bourgeoisie own
and make money from technology. Consider such ownership on two levels.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 2
o On one level is the original creator of technology. Remember James Watt. He patented
the steam engine in 1769. He owned this technology and made money from it.
o On a second level are factory owners. They didn’t create the steam engine, but in the
early 1800s they bought steam engines to power their textile factories. They thus make
money from this technology because their workers use steam engines to produce textiles,
which factory owners sell for profit.
• The Proletariat were factory and mine workers. They use technology, but do not own the
technology and thus do not make money from it. Factory workers use the technology of the
steam engine making textiles, but since they do not own the steam engine, they do not
make money from it. They simply get paid wages for their time.
So Marx and Engels use the category of class to analyze society. They seek to make sense of the
complexity of industrial society by classifying people and their relationships into two categories
– bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Yet even as they use the “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat” categories, Marx and Engels realize
that industrial society was more complex than just two classes. They admit that some people do
not easily fit into these two categories. They acknowledge what they call “middle classes.”
These include merchants, artisans, shopkeepers, machinists, and farmers, as well as
professionals like doctors and lawyers. All these “middle classes” are not clearly bourgeoisie or
proletariat. They do not easily fit into Marx and Engels’ categories.
Marx and Engels even realize that those they classify as proletariat were not really a proletariat
class in 1848. Workers in different industries – textile factories, coal and iron mines, railroads,
handicraft shops – did not think of themselves as all belonging to the same group, as members
of one proletariat class. That’s why Marx and Engels describe their “immediate aim” as the
“formation of the proletariat into a class.” The class was not really formed in the minds of
people. Not enough people thought of themselves in terms of Marx and Engels’ proletariat
category.
• Notice the goal here – to convince people to think of themselves in terms of particular
categories.
Marx and Engels seek to convince various people working in different jobs to think of
themselves as one class – to create a proletariat identity.
These facts – the existence of “middle classes” and the variety of workers in different industries
– highlight the complex nature of industrial society.
Marx and Engels seek to simplify this complexity. They seek to present a picture of industrial
society that has only two classifications – bourgeoisie and proletariat. So Marx and Engels argue
that although middle classes appear to exist, these middle classes are actually proletariat, or in
the process of becoming proletariat. That is what they mean when they say “the proletariat is
recruited from all classes of the population.” Marx and Engels also promote the proletariat
identity to convince workers in different industries to think of themselves as belonging to the
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 3
same group. In this way, Marx and Engels simplify the complexity of industrial society by
insisting that everyone fit into their categories – bourgeoisie or proletariat.
Let’s explore these points further. Marx and Engels do not simply argue that there were factory
owners and factory workers in 1848. Anyone looking at industrial society, such as Great Britain,
could see that. Rather, Marx and Engels insist that their classifications of people were all that
really existed in industrial society. They insist, in other words, on these two points:
• Everyone fit into the classifications of bourgeoisie or proletariat.
• These classifications are the essential part of each person.
o Think about this. Every individual has many parts to themselves. They have a nationality, a
sex, maybe a religion, etc.
o Marx and Engels argue that things like nationality, sex, or religion do not define an
individual. Only class defines an individual. If a person is proletariat, then being proletariat
is the essential part of who they are. Their class defines their social existence, and the
other things like nationality, religion, etc. don’t really matter.
Let’s continue exploring these points, but from a different perspective. Let’s use an example
from today to compare to Marx and Engels. Let’s use the example of my nephews. I have
several nephews who are a quarter Polish, a quarter Italian, and half Japanese. When they fill
out forms which ask for their national, ethnic, or racial identity, there is no box for the
complexity of their heritage – there is no “quarter Polish, quarter Italian, and half Japanese”
box to check.
So what do my nephews do? What box do they check? Perhaps they check the “Japanese” box.
This would simplify a complex reality – it would ignore the quarter Polish and quarter Italian
parts (ignore one parent and two grandparents). But even this level of simplification may not
work because there may not be a “Japanese” box. Often there is just an “Asian” box. And Asia
has almost 50 different nations, each with its own culture and history – Kazakhstan, Burma,
India, China, Bangladesh, South Korea, Pakistan, Japan, Vietnam, Laos, Malaysia, etc. So even if
my nephews decide to simplify their heritage by focusing only on the Japanese half, they then
have to simplify even further by checking the “Asian” box – making them appear the same as
someone who is Chinese, or someone who is half Indian and half Bangladeshi.
The example of my nephews highlights how we as humans are always trying to organize the
complexity of society in our minds. We use categories and classifications to try to explain how
society works. In the process, we simplify society. We force everyone into the classifications we
develop.
• We could use other examples to highlight the same point.
• The “Asian” box is like the “Hispanic” box. There are about 20 counties in which Spanish is
the official language, each with its own culture and history, each distinct from the other.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 4
• Yet because of our classifications someone who is half Columbian, a quarter Italian, and a
quarter Greek, appears the same on paper – “Hispanic” – as someone who is Cuban, or
someone who is half Peruvian and half Uruguayan.
Notice how today we often use classifications of nationality, ethnicity, or race in ways similar to
how Marx and Engels used classifications of class. Many argue today that a person’s ethnicity or
race is central to who they are. Marx and Engels did not care about nationality or race, but
argued that a person’s class is central to who they are, the defining feature of their existence.
And just like we know today that our categories simplify a complex reality, so too Marx and
Engels realize their classifications simplify reality. They acknowledge that “middle classes” exist
between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Yet they still defend their simplification by arguing
that individuals in the middle classes are really just proletariat – similar to how we today put all
those with complex national, ethnic, or racial ancestries into a specific box. In these ways,
intellectuals (and activists) simplify reality by fitting individuals into the classifications they
develop.
Zero-Sum Conflict
After Marx and Engels fit everyone into their categories, they then emphasize intense conflict
between the categories. They describe the bourgeoisie and proletariat as two opposing classes
with no common interests – the oppressors vs. the oppressed engaged in unavoidable conflict.
Notice how in the following quote, Marx and Engels describe the two classes in military
language, as two hostile camps or combat units facing each other:
• “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two
great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”
Let’s pause and consider this point. Marx and Engels do not just say that there are big
differences in wealth between the bourgeoisie and proletariat in 1848. There certainly were.
Marx and Engels do not simply say that working conditions in factories and mines were hard
and dangerous. They certainly were. In fact, there were already British “commissions” studying
working conditions, resulting in British laws such as the Factory Act (1833) and the Mines Act
(1842).
So if Marx and Engels were simply criticizing great differences in wealth or dangerous working
conditions, they would have been making the same point as many others. Instead, Marx and
Engels make more specific arguments. They argue that the bourgeoisie and proletariat
• share no common interests and
• are adversaries in a zero-sum conflict – if one gains the other loses
These two points are related. If you and I are in a zero-sum conflict – you getting a raise of
$1,000 means I make a thousand less – then we will share no common interests. You (or your
group) can only gain in wealth or status if I (or my group) lose in wealth or status. Conditions
cannot improve for both of us at the same time – it’s zero-sum.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 5
Let’s think more about “no common interest.” To do so, let’s consider two people in our society
today, one in the upper class and one in the lower class. Obviously, there is a big difference in
wealth, which means big differences in lifestyle, status, etc. But does this mean they share no
common interests? To be clear, the question is not whether they have many different interests
(they likely do) but whether any of their interests overlap.
• For example, do they share a common interest in supporting the 4th Amendment, the idea
that the police need a warrant to search a person’s home? Even with their differences in
wealth, do they both support this idea?
• Do they share a common interest in the 5th Amendment which protects a person from being
put on trial twice for the same crime? Or a common interest in the presumption of
innocence implied in the 6th Amendment?
Again, to be clear, the question is not whether any criminal justice system always lives up to
these principles. The question is whether members of all classes – despite differences in wealth
– share a common interest in supporting the principles. We might also ask whether there’s a
common interest in supporting things like free speech, freedom of religion, the right of peaceful
assembly, the right to bear arms, etc.
Marx and Engels deny the bourgeoisie and proletariat share any such common interests. They
argue that principles like these are really just ways the bourgeoisie oppress the proletariat.
Here’s where we see the activist side of Marx and Engels. Though they describe their ideology
as “science,” they intend their “science” to promote social conflict. That is why they help create
an international organization in 1847 called the Communist League. This League promoted “war
against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism.” Marx and Engels
hope their description of industrial society as oppressors vs. oppressed will provoke animosity
and violence. Think about it:
• Insisting that different groups in society share no common interests and are adversaries in a
zero-sum conflict will increase animosity between the groups, and raise the chance of
violence.
• This is the picture of society Marx and Engels present. They add the idea that one side in the
conflict is “bad” (bourgeoisie) and the other side is “good” (proletariat) – oppressor vs.
oppressed.
• It’s not hard to see that the more members of a society perceive each other in these terms
– perceive each other as engaged in a zero-sum conflict between an oppressor side and an
oppressed side – the more likely there will be animosity and violence.
In fact, this is exactly what Marx and Engels predict. In 1848, they predict a fast-approaching
future of misery and violence which, they say, will somehow lead to a utopian society of peace
and plenty. They think intense conflict, including violence and bloodshed, brings progress. They
thus seek to promote that conflict.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 6
Predicting the Future:
Subsistence Poverty & Violent Revolution
Marx and Engels try to predict the future. They argue that in the next few decades after 1848,
two things will happen to the bourgeoisie class:
1) it will get much smaller in number
2) it will control almost all wealth in society
They argue the opposite will happen to the proletariat class:
1) it will get much bigger in number
2) it will fall into subsistence poverty – a crucial point
Subsistence poverty means barely enough to survive. So Marx and Engels predict that almost
everyone in industrial society will become members of the proletariat and will fall into terrible
poverty with barely enough to survive.
No doubt, Marx and Engels understood what we’ve said about industrialization – that
industrialization creates great wealth. Remember our discussion of technology increasing
productivity which increases wealth. Marx and Engels understood this. They knew that
industrial societies had more total wealth than non-industrial societies.
• But because they insist that the bourgeoisie and proletariat are engaged in a zero-sum
conflict – oppressor vs. oppressed – they deny that social conditions can improve for both
classes.
• They deny that the standard of living can go up for both.
They predict that the zero-sum conflict only benefits the bourgeoisie who will control almost all
the wealth, driving the vast majority – the proletariat – into subsistence poverty. It’s a grim
vision!
Let’s stop to make sure we understand this point. Marx and Engels do not simply argue that
there is poverty in industrial societies. Rather, they argue that industrialization will vastly
increase poverty. That means they think industrial societies will fail.
• Think about it. Imagine a society in which the overwhelming majority have only the most
minimal enough to survive. Any such society has clearly failed.
• This is what Marx and Engels argue will happen in industrial societies: In the next few
decades after 1848, the vast majority will have barely enough to survive – subsistence
poverty.
Marx and Engels then think that subsistence poverty will motivate the proletariat to rise up in a
violent communist revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie. They do not say exactly when this
revolution will happen, but they suggest within several decades or perhaps a couple
generations after 1848 when they wrote The Communist Manifesto. So they think the
revolution will happen sometime in the late 1800s.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 7
Now that we see that Marx and Engels think a violent communist revolution is coming, let’s
consider what they think this revolution will achieve.
Goals of the Communist Revolution
For Marx and Engels, a primarily goal of their predicted revolution was this: to destroy the laws
that define property as private property. Let’s think this through.
• If I own land, what defines the land as my private property? The law does. I have a deed – a
legal document – stating that I own the land and this document has been recorded by the
government.
o Imagine if we destroy the law that says the land is my private property. Without that law,
the land is no longer mine.
o What happens if we destroy all laws that define land as private property? The land would
no longer be privately owned. The land would be “publicly” owned (which today usually
means owned by government).
• But let’s not just think about land. Let’s also think about technology. Remember, the
bourgeoisie own technology and make money from it.
o What defined the steam engine as belonging to James Watt? The law did. He got a patent
from the British government for the steam engine. The patent identified Watt as the
owner of the technology of the steam engine.
o But what happens if we destroy the law that defines the technology as private property?
Who would then own the technology? No one would. The technology would be “publicly”
owned – owned by everyone which is the same as owned by no one.
• Put this in today’s terms. We all know that we cannot take an iPhone apart, figure out how
it works, and then try to make iPhones and sell them. If we did this, the Apple Corporation
would sue us for infringing on its patent. The technology of the iPhone is private property. It
is owned by Apple. We can buy an individual phone and use it. But the technology is private
property and only owners of the technology make money from it.
o If, however, we destroy the law that defines the technology as private property, then the
technology does not belong to anyone.
To be clear, Marx and Engels do not want their predicted revolution to destroy the actual
technology, like the steam engine. They want to keep the technology, but destroy the laws that
define the technology as private property. If those laws are destroyed, the technology will be
owned by no one.
To destroy private property laws, Marx and Engels promote violence. They envision
revolutionary bloodshed to eliminate the defenders of private property – the bourgeoisie.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 8
• As Engels explains: the “revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the
act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of
rifles, bayonets, and canon.”
• Marx and Engels describe this revolutionary violence as the “dictatorship of the proletariat”
– meaning the oppressed becomes the oppressors. As they say, the proletariat “must
maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire.”
• They predict that a small portion of the bourgeoisie – in fear for their lives – will join the
revolution. “When the class struggle nears the decisive hour,” they say, “a portion of the
bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat.”
In their visions of revolution, Marx and Engels’ writings are almost like literature. They argue
that it is through the violence and bloodshed of class warfare that somehow a utopian
(communist) society of peace and plenty will emerge. And they call this kind of thinking
“science.”
At this point, you might be thinking that it’s hard to imagine how communism would work. How
would a communist society work after the laws protecting private property were destroyed and
technology was owned by no one?
How Would Communism Work?
Unfortunately, Marx and Engels did not explain how a communist society would actually work.
They wrote a lot about industrial society – their classifications and predictions, their description
of a zero-sum conflict between oppressor and oppressed. But they actually wrote very little
about how communist society would work – how the terror of violence and bloodshed would
somehow create a classless society of peace and plenty.
That’s because they did not know how a communist society would work. Marx and Engels did
not know how the bloodshed of class warfare would create peace. They did not know how the
abolition of private property would create plenty. They expressed many ideas which they
hoped would promote revolution. These included, in their words,
• the “abolition of property in land”
• the “centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State”
• the “establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”
But these ideas largely repeated what earlier radicals had said. Marx and Engels read the Italian
revolutionary Filippo Buonarroti who tried to destroy private property as part of the
“Conspiracy of Equals” (1796) in the French Revolution. Buonarroti thought that “Rousseau was
master.”
Another group of earlier revolutionaries called the Perfectionists similarly promoted the
“abolition of private property.” The Perfectionists also promoted the abolition of government
and the family. Marx and Engels sound similar. They argue that after the bloodshed of class
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 9
warfare – after the bourgeoisie are destroyed – government would disappear and the family
would be transformed.
Yet readers of The Communist Manifesto are left to wonder exactly how all of this would work –
how a society would work without government, without the family structure, and without
someone owning technology. One might ask: If technology cannot be privately owned, then
what would be the motivation to create it in the first place? It’s not clear.
Reflections
Marx and Engels did not predict the future correctly. If they were correct, there would have
been communist revolutions in the most advanced industrial societies by the late 1800s – or
the early 1900s at the latest. That means communist revolutions would have occurred in
England, Germany, and the United States. Yet no communist revolutions occurred in these
countries.
Communist revolutions did not occur in advanced industrial societies because the working
classes in these societies were not all united in one “proletariat” group. They did not all think of
themselves as belonging to the same proletarian identity – as Marx and Engels’ classification
system said they should. And – importantly – the working classes saw their standard of living
going up by the beginning of the 20th century.
• We shouldn’t exaggerate their standard of living. By our standards today, factory and mine
workers around 1900 worked long hours for mediocre or low wages, often in difficult and
dangerous conditions.
• However, their standard of living was slowly increasing, not falling. Industrial workers
around 1900 had a higher standard of living than industrial workers in 1848 when Marx and
Engels wrote.
• As a result, the overwhelming majority of people in advanced industrial societies were not
falling into subsistence poverty as Marx and Engels predicted. Most were not motivated to
rise up in a violent revolution.
There were communist revolutions after 1900. But the communist revolutions of the 20th
century did not occur where Marx and Engels thought they would – in advanced industrial
societies.
• Rather, communist revolutions occurred in largely agricultural societies – Russia (1917),
North Korea (1948), China (1949), Cuba (1959).
• And in those societies, government did not disappear after the communist revolution as
Marx and Engels predicted.
• Instead, communist governments sought to become one-party totalitarian States. In the
20th century, communist States became oppressive systems which stripped average people
of their individual rights, built vast networks of concentration camps, and killed over 100
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 10
million of their own people. The most murderous government in history is currently
controlled by a communist party – the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Why Study Marx?
If you’ve followed the discussion above, you might ask: Why study Marx and Engels? If their
prediction about the future of industrial societies was wrong, and if their prediction about
communist revolutions leading to a just society without government was wrong, then why
spend time examining their philosophy?
The answer is that Marx and Engels had a big impact on later generations of intellectuals and
activists. These later generations developed variations of Marxism – revised versions of Marx
and Engels’ philosophy – which greatly impacted the 20th century and still live on today.
• We will see one form of revised Marxism in our next lecture on Socialism.
• Another form of revised Marxism was Leninism, developed by Vladimir Lenin who led the
Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917. We’ll look at Lenin later in the course.
• Another form of revised Marxism was developed in the early 20th century by the Italian
Antonio Gramsci.
• And another form was developed in the 1950s and ’60s by the German émigré to the
United States Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse taught at Columbia University, Harvard University,
Brandeis University, and the University of California.
Let’s spend a few moments on Gramsci and Marcuse. Gramsci laid the basis in the early 20th
century for what became known as Critical Theory – a revised form of Marxism often called
“cultural Marxism.” Marcuse then picked up and developed Critical Theory later in the 20th
century.
Gramsci understood that Marx and Engels’ prediction about the working classes rising up to
overthrow the bourgeoisie was wrong. By the early 20th century, most members of the working
classes in advanced industrial societies were not revolutionary. Many wanted higher pay, better
working conditions, and shorter hours, but they were not revolutionary. Gramsci thinks this was
because of their cultural values. He thinks the working classes were deeply misguided – and not
radical enough – because most of them valued the following:
• the institution of the nuclear family
• the idea of a nation with a shared national identity
• individual rights
• the industrial system which was increasing standards of living
• God
Gramsci focuses on these cultural values. He knows that Marx and Engels’ economic predictions
were wrong – the vast majority in industrial societies did not end up in subsistence poverty. So
Gramsci changes the focus from economics to culture. He is a “cultural Marxist” because he
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 11
argues it was the working classes’ own cultural values which oppressed them – cultural values
such as believing in 1) the nuclear family, 2) a shared national identity, 3) individual rights, 4)
rising living standards, and 5) traditional religion.
Gramsci seeks to destroy these cultural values. The first step in doing so is to label them
“bourgeois” values. Gramsci labels these values “bourgeois” because he thinks it is the
bourgeoisie who develop and spread these values in society. He views these values as serving
their interests and power. Consider Gramsci’s logic:
• He needs to explain why most members of the working classes are not revolutionary.
• His explanation is that the bourgeoisie brainwashed the working classes into believing
“bourgeois” values.
• He suggests that as the working classes internalize these values, they essentially oppress
themselves.
Notice that as Gramsci changes the focus from economics to culture, he keeps Marx and Engels’
description of society as oppressor vs. oppressed. He simply sees culture – not subsistence
poverty – as the main way the oppression happens. He thinks the bourgeoisie control culture
and impose their values on the working classes – thought he does not think the working classes
realize this. So he thinks the working classes need to be “awakened” to their own oppression.
The second step to destroy “bourgeois” values, for Gramsci, was for radicals to infiltrate society
– to get jobs in the institutions that produce culture. These include educational institutions,
religious institutions, media, law, entertainment, etc. As more radicals work in these
institutions, Gramsci hopes they will slowly take over the institutions and spread their
revolutionary message throughout society. The goal was to “awaken” the working classes to
their own oppression and thereby start a cultural revolution against 1) the family, 2) national
identity, 3) individualism, 4) rising living standards, and 5) God.
A follower of Gramsci called this infiltration process “the long march through the institutions” –
the process of taking over society’s institutions and dismantling society’s cultural values from
within. Gramsci argues that subverting these values would lead to “liberation” – meaning a
freer, more meaningful, and more just society. Like Marx and Engels, Gramsci does not explain
exactly how unraveling the central values of society – “liberation” – will lead to superior forms
of freedom, meaning, and justice.
Gramsci’s idea of liberation from “bourgeois” values influenced what became known as Critical
Theory – cultural Marxism. Herbert Marcuse picked up on these ideas later in the 20th century.
Like Gramsci, Marcuse realizes that the working classes did not rise up in violent revolution.
That’s because industrial capitalism had raised their standard of living.
• Marcuse complains in 1964 that the working classes’ standard of living was “much better
than before, and as a good way of life, it militates against qualitative change” – meaning
better standards of living make people less radical.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism – 12
• In 1969, Marcuse similarly complains about industrial capitalism’s “capacity to produce
long-range contentment and satisfaction” in the working classes.
Like Gramsci, Marcuse thinks the working classes are brainwashed – brainwashed by their own
contentment and satisfaction into believing “bourgeois” values. Marcuse thus criticizes the
working classes as a “conservative popular base” – meaning they were not revolutionary.
Marcuse looks to other groups to lead the cultural revolution against the nuclear family,
national identity, individualism, rising living standards, and God. He considers that college
students might lead the way – that it is possible to “awaken” college students from the
oppression of “bourgeois” values and have them promote what he calls “cultural subversion.”
Marcuse also thinks that others had the potential to be “awakened” and radicalized. He thinks
he sees this radical potential in what he calls people of “other races and other colors” –
meaning he hopes that ethnic and racial minorities would lead the cultural revolution in the
United States whether they were college students or not. He still uses Marx and Engels’
description of society as oppressor vs. oppressed, but begins to envision the cultural revolution
as an identity-based revolution.
By the end of the 20th century, others were picking up on and developing Marcuse’s way of
thinking. They began suggesting that there were different degrees of oppression associated
with different identity groups. This thought process became known as intersectionality.
Intellectuals like Gramsci and Marcuse certainly revise Marx and Engels’ philosophy. They focus
more on culture than on economics, which is why they’re called “cultural Marxists.” Yet they do
so by developing certain assumptions they learn from Marx and Engels – ways of thinking about
society and human relationships.
For example, Gramsci and Marcuse not only simplify the infinite complexity of society by
categorizing individuals as members of groups, but they describe the relationships between
these groups as oppressor vs. oppressed. They then present these groups as engaged in an
unavoidable zero-sum conflict. That means the groups share no common interests and there’s
no way for the conditions of all groups to improve at the same time. One group’s gain is
another group’s loss.
This way of thinking – a zero-sum conflict between oppressor and oppressed social groups – is
the most lasting legacy of Marx and Engels. Even though their economic predictions were
wrong, Marx and Engels showed later thinkers how to provoke revolution. Key was to “awaken”
members of society to be deeply suspicious of each other, to view each other as belonging to
opposing groups with no common interests – a zero-sum conflict. The more members of society
view each other this way – as adversaries with nothing in common – the easier it is to
pigeonhole, scapegoat, and blame one another when problems, crises, or tragedies occur. The
process of suspicion and scapegoating is the kindling that lights revolution.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism – 1
Modern Ideologies – Modern Liberalism
No Natural Rights
In this lecture we continue our discussion of modern ideologies. We examine Modern
Liberalism, which is distinct from Classical Liberalism. As part of our discussion, we’ll compare
these two ideologies.
As we’ve seen, Classical Liberalism began in the 1700s and developed in the centuries that
followed. Modern Liberalism began in the 1800s and also developed in the following centuries.
Modern Liberal ideas influenced the authors below from the 1800s, 1900s, and 2000s. Their
books highlight that Modern Liberal ideas developed over time and remain with us today as a
living intellectual tradition.
In reading the list, recall how we ended last lecture. We distinguished a government which
governs society in the Classical Liberal sense from a State which leads and directs society in a
Modern Liberal sense. Notice how many of the titles below include the word “State” – as well
as words like “new” and “democracy.”
• Johann Bluntschli, The Theory of the State (1875)
• John Bates Clark, The New Economics (1886)
• Woodrow Wilson, The State (1889)
• Franklin Giddings, Democracy and Social Organization (1898)
• Leonard Hobhouse, Liberalism (1911)
• Walter Weyl, The New Democracy (1912)
• Mary Parker Follett, The New State (1918)
• John Dewey, The Democratic State (1927)
• Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State (1982)
• Edward Steiner, Shaping Modern Liberalism (1993)
• Neil Jumonville and Kevin Mattson, Liberalism for a New Century (2007)
The fact that Modern Liberals often use of words like “state,” “new,” and “democracy” tells us
something about their thinking. We noted in the last lecture that a State cannot be based on
the Classical Liberal idea of individual natural rights. So the first thing we realize is that Modern
Liberals disagree with Classical Liberals about natural rights.
• Classical Liberals emphasize natural rights which protect the individual from powers in
society like social norms, public opinion, and government.
• Modern Liberals reject the idea of natural rights.
Here are a few quotes from Modern Liberals rejecting natural rights.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism – 2
• Mary Parker Follett rejected the idea of natural rights protecting the individual from
society. She wrote, “Democracy has meant to many ‘natural rights,’” but individuals “can
have no rights apart from society or independent of society or against society.”
• John Dewey agreed that individuals do not have rights which protect them from society. He
said that “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological
social zoology.” There is, of course, no such kingdom. Dewey was being sarcastic. He was
making fun of the idea of natural rights.
• Woodrow Wilson also made fun of natural rights. He called such rights nonsense: “a great
deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual.”
To understand why Modern Liberals reject natural rights, we have to explore the idea of
democracy and the idea of human nature.
What is Democracy?
What is Human Nature?
Classical Liberals and Modern Liberals both believe in democracy. But they think of democracy
differently.
Classical Liberals think of democracy as democratic politics. For them, democratic politics
means peaceful conflict, the peaceful competition for power – political parties and candidates
compete against each other for power. The majority is crucial. The majority of votes determines
elections. The majority of representatives in government passes laws. But there are two key
points here for Classical Liberals:
1. The power of the majority is limited by the natural rights of individuals. A majority in
government cannot simply pass laws violating these natural rights – free speech, press,
religion, assembly, private property, etc. Natural rights limit the power of the majority and
thus limit the power of government.
2. Classical Liberals view democratic politics as peaceful conflict because they see conflict as
rooted in human nature. Human beings are naturally diverse. They naturally have different
opinions, divide into different groups, and develop different interests. These opinions,
groups, and interests often lead to conflict – what one Classical Liberal called “mutual
animosities.” These conflicts exist because they are rooted in human nature. They cannot
be eliminated – “the causes of faction cannot be removed,” as one author put it. Here’s a
key point: the conflicts will inevitably be expressed. The only question is whether the
conflicts are expressed violently or non-violently. Classical Liberals see democratic politics
as a non-violent way to express these conflicts through parties, campaigns and elections –
with the power of those who win elections limited by the natural rights of individuals.
Modern Liberals think of democracy differently. They think of democracy as a way of
overcoming divisions, a way to create an all-inclusive community, a kind of complete
togetherness. John Dewey expressed this hope for democratic consensus when he said that
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism – 3
democratic “society is an organic union.” The Modern Liberal Richard Rorty similarly described
democracy as a “consensus among human beings” – a “cooperative commonwealth.”
Modern Liberals think of democracy as a unified community which overcomes divisions
because Modern Liberals have a different view of human nature than Classical Liberals.
• Classical Liberals do not think it is possible to overcome divisions because of human nature.
They say that conflict is rooted in human nature – “sown in the nature of man,” as one
Classical Liberal put it. In fact, Classical Liberals say that attempts to overcome divisions may
lead to tyranny because divisions are inevitable and “overcoming” them really means
violating the rights of those with different views. “Removing the causes of faction,” one
Classical Liberal said, means “destroying the liberty” of individuals. Democracy is thus not
about overcoming conflict, but peacefully expressing it. The conflict is expressed in
campaigns and elections, and continues to exist after elections as the losing party prepares
for the next election. Meanwhile, the power of the winning party is limited by the natural
rights of individuals.
• Modern Liberals acknowledge divisions and conflicts in history. But they think human
nature has evolved and improved and can now overcome divisions. They believe in “man’s
condition as a progressive being,” as one Modern Liberal put it. Woodrow Wilson explained
improvements in human nature this way: “man has grown more and more human with
each step” of history, we have become “men upon a new scale and with added qualities.”
Richard Rorty made the same point. He said that Modern Liberalism is “making a new sort
of individual possible” – “a new conception of what it is to be human.”
Modern Liberals thus believe that the human condition can evolve to overcome divisions, and
create a sense of unity and shared purpose in society. Modern Liberals reason like this:
• Divisions are not rooted in human nature, but simply reflect an earlier human condition –
the time of the “older theories of democracy,” as one Modern Liberal explained.
• But that time is over and Modern Liberals propose “our new theory of democracy.”
• This new democracy promises to overcome divisions and create an all-inclusive community,
a democracy which speaks with one voice. This one voice does not express competing
interests, but expresses the unified will of the community.
• The new democracy, in John Dewey’s words, is “possessed of one will” – “the unified will of
the community.”
Modern Liberals sometimes describe this unified will in religious terms, like it’s the will of a
spiritual entity. Dewey called democratic society a “spiritual organism.” Another Modern Liberal
called it “spiritual democracy.” Follett put it this way in 1918: “The enthusiasts of democracy
today are those who have caught sight of a great spiritual unity.” In 2012, the Modern Liberal
Eldon Eisenach made the same point in promoting a “future for liberalism that includes
religious spirit and moral purpose.”
Other times, Modern Liberals use language like “social consciousness.” Either way, it means the
same thing – a society in which human nature has evolved into a new condition which can
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism – 4
overcome divisions and expresses a unified will – a society which can speak with one voice and
share the same “social consciousness.”
Let’s pause here and summarize: By now, you should understand that a Modern Liberal view of
human nature (it can evolve and improve) leads to a Modern Liberal view of democracy (create
a spiritual unity or shared consciousness). With this understanding, we can now see more
clearly why Modern Liberals reject the Classical Liberal idea of natural rights.
• Remember, natural rights protect the individual from powers external to him/herself –
powers in society like social norms, political majorities, or government – because these
powers often interfere with the individual’s right to free speech, religion, assembly, private
property, etc.
• But Modern Liberals want individuals to participate in, not be protected from, the spiritual
unity or shared consciousness of society. The goal, Dewey explained, is “the participation of
the individual in the social consciousness.”
o Rather than protecting individuals from powers in society, Dewey wants those powers to
form the minds of individuals, so they conform to the same social consciousness:
“individuals can achieve unity only as the dominant energies of community life are
incorporated to form their minds.”
o Wilson explained it this way: “to bring the individual with his special interests, personal to
himself, into complete harmony with society with its general interest.”
Bringing the individual into harmony with society strikes a Classical Liberal as coercing the
individual, forcing the individual to conform to society and thus interfering with his/her
individual rights. This is why one Classical Liberal said that “giving to every citizen the same
opinions, the same passions, and the same interests” requires coercion, requires “destroying
the liberty” of individuals. For the Classical Liberal,
• human nature has not improved
• divisions have not been overcome
• and there is no “spiritual unity,” “shared consciousness,” or “unified will” in society. These
phrases are just ways that particular groups try to present themselves and their interests as
representing all of society. These groups may be the majority or they may not. They may
win the next election or they may not. Either way, the Classical Liberal argues, they cannot
force individuals into harmony with society. They cannot interfere with the natural rights of
individuals.
Modern Liberals see things differently. They see freedom not as rights protecting the individual
from powers in society, but as individuals participating in the powers of society – participating
in creating society’s shared consciousness, participating in building society’s spiritual unity or
democratic consensus. Freedom, Follett said, “is everyone building the single life.” It is
everyone joining “the process of coming to share in the social consciousness.” This requires,
another author explained, the development of one’s personality “in harmony with all others.”
Dewey put it this way. He described freedom as “the realization of personality through the
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism – 5
formation of a higher and more complete unity among men.” Follett made the same point
more simply: “my true self is the group-self.”
We have now come to a point where we can see why Modern Liberals use words like “State”
and “new” in the title of their books – The State, The New State, The New Democracy, The
Democratic State, The New Economics.
The Modern Liberal views freedom not as the freedom of individual rights but as the freedom
of the people collectively to direct the power of the State. Freedom is the expression of the
people’s collective will, the expression of their spiritual unity. The logic goes like this:
• If individuals participate in creating spiritual unity in society – “the unified will of the
community” – then true freedom is the expression of this spiritual will through the State.
True freedom for the individual is being part of the collective will – part of expressing the
people’s organic will through a new kind of Democratic State.
Let’s explore this Modern Liberal idea of freedom. Let’s explore it in practical terms by asking,
What is this Modern Liberal State? What exactly does it do?
The Modern Liberal State
When we think about the Modern Liberal idea of freedom – the people’s collective will
expressed through the State – we have to consider what the State is and what exactly it does.
The Modern Liberal State can, and has, developed in different ways. We’ll explore some of
those ways below. Let’s start with this point:
• Classical Liberals emphasize principled limits on the authority of government.
• Modern Liberals do not emphasize principled limits on the authority of the State.
No principled limits on the State – “public authority” – is what Woodrow Wilson meant when
he recommended that “all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out
of view.” Notice that Wilson identified what could be a principled limit on the State – individual
rights. But he said individual rights should be “put out of view.” Mary Parker Follett made the
same point. “The old idea of natural rights,” she said, “is ruled out.”
This does not mean Modern Liberals think the State can do anything. Wilson recommended
that “the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise.” So the State should not do
what is “unwise.” But what is considered “unwise” is debatable and can change. The social
consciousness or will of the people might think that something is unwise today, but then think
that same thing is wise next week, next month, or next year. “Unwise” does not provide
principled limits on State authority the way “natural rights” do. But, as Follett said, natural
rights are ruled out for Modern Liberals.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism – 6
Without clear principled limits on its authority, the State can perform many functions. Wilson
called these many functions the State’s “universal superintendence alike of individual and of
public interests.” Depending on what functions it performs, the Modern Liberal State can
develop in different ways. Let’s look at two of those ways. They are
1. a Welfare State
2. a Welfare State with some socialist policies
Let’s look at a Welfare State. We’ll look at two functions a Welfare State performs:
redistributing money and managing the economy.
Let’s start with redistributing money. Modern Liberals, Herbert Croly said, promote the idea of
the State “making itself responsible” for the “distribution of wealth” in society.
The redistribution of wealth often means putting higher taxes on those with higher incomes
and redistributing some of that tax money to those with lower incomes. The American State
redistributes between 1 and 2 trillion dollars every year this way. One example is Medicaid –
government health insurance for low-income Americans. Over half a trillion dollars is
redistributed through Medicaid to low-income Americans each year. Other State programs
redistribute another trillion dollars or so. But the redistribution sometimes works the other
way. It sometimes transfers money from those with less wealth on average to those with more
wealth on average. An example is Social Security – government pension for retirees. Social
Security taxes employee wages and redistributes that money to retirees. Yet retirees on
average have more wealth than employees on average, though there are exceptions.
A second function of a Welfare State is managing the economy. To understand this, recall what
we said in the last lecture. We said that Classical Liberals favor a free market economy.
• The more an economy is a free market, the more privately owned companies and
consumers – not the State – decide what to produce, what prices to pay, and how much to
consume.
• This means a free market is decentralized. It is based on millions of individuals making
independent decisions about production, prices, and consumption. It is not planned or
managed by a State.
But Modern Liberals think the economy needs to be managed by the State. They do not think
the production of goods and services can simply be based on the voluntary decisions of millions
of companies and consumers. Though Modern Liberals do not necessarily promote State
ownership of the economy, which is Socialism, they believe the State needs to manage
important parts of the economy. This usually means the State regulates the production and
prices of goods and services.
Let’s consider health care services like hospitals and MRI machines. The State often regulates
these services by limiting their production – i.e., limiting the amount of hospitals and MRI
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism – 7
machines. Limiting supply of these health care services keeps prices up (limited supply means
higher prices).
For example, New York State’s regulation of health care services includes what it calls the
Certificate of Need process. Below is a quote from the New York State Department of Public
Health. It explains that the State regulates the production of health care services – ‘governs
establishment, construction, renovation, acquisitions of health care facilities.’
• “New York’s Certificate of Need (CON) process governs establishment, construction,
renovation and major medical equipment acquisitions of health care facilities.”
The purpose of the State regulating the production of health care services is to limit the supply
of those services. As the Department of Public Health explains, it limits supply by “limiting
investment”:
• “CON provides the Department of Health oversight in limiting investment in duplicate beds,
services and medical equipment.”
The State says it is limiting supply – “limiting investment” – to prevent “duplicate” beds,
services, and equipment. Duplicate means limiting what the State decides is too many
hospitals, services, and equipment. But what does “too many” mean? To think this through,
one might consider whether we had too many – “duplicate” – hospital beds and protective
equipment during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
The Modern Liberal State also regulates the production and prices of other goods and services.
• Through much of the 20th century, the American State regulated airline and telephone
services – significantly limiting airline flights, for example – though these regulations were
reduced in late 20th century.
• The American State also regulates the most important price of all – the price of money – by
controlling interest rates. Interest rates are the cost to borrow money. Controlling interest
rates affects virtually all prices in the economy.
• An important issue our society debates today is how much the Modern Liberal State should
regulate the production and prices of energy. This too will affect virtually all prices in the
economy since energy is required for the production of all goods and services. If the State
reduces the production of energy – which increases its price – it increases the price of all
other goods and services.
We could mention other examples of the Modern Liberal Welfare State redistributing money
and managing the economy (production and prices), but let’s now consider a second way the
Modern Liberal State can develop – a Welfare State with some socialist policies.
To explore this version of a Modern Liberal State, let’s return to our example of health care
services. As you read below, keep this point in mind: when a Modern State creates some kind of
socialized system of health insurance or health care, it often funds that system with higher
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism – 8
taxes paid by everyone at the same rate regardless of their income. These are called broad-
based taxes because the taxes are broad – paid by everyone.
The American State includes socialized health insurance. An example is Medicare – government
health insurance for senior citizens. This health insurance is largely paid for by a broad-based
tax – a tax on the wages of all employees. All employees pay the same tax rate regardless of
their income. The American State spends about two-thirds of a trillion dollars each year on
Medicare. As we think this through, consider the difference between health insurance and
health care:
• Medicare is government or socialized health insurance. It is not government or socialized
health care. The insurance helps pay for the health care, but the actual care – the health
care services – is often provided by private hospitals and doctors. The American State does
not own and operate the entire health care system.
• But the American State does own and operate Medicare. And because Medicare is the
largest health insurance system in the country, the rate of its payments to hospitals and
doctors for the health care of seniors has a huge impact on health care prices overall. When
you combine this fact with the State’s regulation of the production of health care through
Certificate of Need laws, you can see the American State plays a large role in the production
and prices of health care – i.e., health care is one of the most highly regulated industries in
the nation.
Other Welfare States with some socialist policies include socialized health care. An example is
the United Kingdom (Great Britain) whose system is called the National Health System (NHS).
The NHS is socialized, but not all aspects of British health care are socialized – i.e., owned and
operated by the State. Though many hospitals are owned by the State, there are some privately
owned hospitals too, so it’s not a completely State owned and operated system. Other
countries with different versions of socialized health care include Sweden and Canada. These
health care systems are not operated by the central State in the nation’s capital. Rather, each
region of the country operates a regional health care system.
In all these cases, the health care systems are funded by broad-based taxes, meaning taxes paid
by everyone at the same rate regardless of their income. And in each case, the system limits the
production of health care service in order to control costs. One way to limit the production of
services is to have longer wait times to see a specialist, or longer wait times to have tests
performed (like an MRI), or to have a surgery.
To summarize: Modern Liberal ideas about democracy, human nature, and freedom lead to
Modern Liberal ideas about the State. Modern Liberal States are Welfare States which
redistribute money and manage the economy. And these Welfare States often have some
socialist policies.
But Modern Liberal States do not own and operate most of the economy, which is Socialism.
Rather, Modern Liberal States depend on most of the economy being privately owned –
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism – 9
capitalism – because private ownership generates the wealth which the State uses to
redistribute and to fund its socialist policies.
• But If you think this through, you can see that the line between Modern Liberalism and
Socialism can potentially blur.
• The more a Modern Liberal State with some socialist policies adds more socialist policies,
the closer it gets to Socialism. Or the more a Modern Liberal State regulates the production
and prices of private companies, the more the State acts as if it owns the companies.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Classical Liberalism – 1
Modern Ideologies – Classical Liberalism
In this lecture we begin our discussion of modern ideologies. The word “ideology” means
political philosophy or a set of political ideas. We will examine four modern ideologies:
• Classical Liberalism
• Modern Liberalism
• Communism
• Socialism
We examine these ideologies to understand their historical origins and development over time.
Their development continues to this day, meaning these ideologies are living traditions. They
are not just old ideas from the past, but are ways of thinking which continue to influence how
many people interpret society and politics today. By exploring these ideologies historically, you
can better understand the origins and development of certain words, phrases, and concepts
you might hear in today’s politics. You can think more historically about your own political
experiences.
We start by examining Classical Liberalism.
We already discussed the beginnings of Classical Liberalism in the first part of the course, when
we examined the Enlightenment. We further develop that discussion here.
We already learned about some foundational writings of Classical Liberalism. These include
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689), Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws
(1748), and James Madison’s Federalist #10 (1787). We call these writings “foundational”
because they began the Classical Liberal way of thinking.
But Classical Liberalism continued well after the Enlightenment of the 1700s. Classical Liberal
ideas influenced the authors below from the 1800s, 1900s, and 2000s. Their books highlight
that Classical Liberal ideas developed over time and remain with us today as a living intellectual
tradition.
• William Leggett, A Collection of Political Writings (1840)
• Frédéric Bastiat, Economic Harmonies (1850)
• Thomas Mackay, A Plea for Liberty: An Argument against Socialism (1890)
• Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition (1927)
• Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (1960)
• Tibor Machan, Human Rights and Human Liberties (1975)
• Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (1982)
• David Schmidtz and Jason Brennan, A Brief History of Liberty (2010)
The list gives us a glimpse of Classical Liberalism’s intellectual development. Now let’s explore
Classical Liberal ideas.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Classical Liberalism – 2
Natural Rights
Classical Liberalism begins with individual natural rights. The meaning of “natural rights” might
seem obvious, but it is not. The word “rights” has different meanings. Consider the phrase
“human rights.” Two people can have a heated debate about politics even as both defend
human rights. They use the same phrase – human rights – but they clearly disagree. That’s
because the phrase human rights can have different meanings. For one, human rights might
mean “natural rights.” For the other it might mean something different like “social rights.”
Below we will explore these different understanding of rights. We will mostly focus on Classical
Liberal natural rights, but will introduce social rights as a point of comparison.
The American Founders emphasized natural rights in the Declaration of Independence (1776).
They said that natural rights come from the way God made human nature. Humans “are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” the Declaration states. This means
that the origin of natural rights is human nature. Natural rights do not come from society or
government.
Classical liberalism thus views the individual, first and foremost, as an individual whose rights
are grounded in human nature. This might seem abstract, but let’s use an example – the
example of free speech. Classical Liberals argue free speech is a natural right because the right
is grounded in human nature. The Classical Liberal logic is this:
• Human beings are born with the natural capacity for language. The human brain naturally
learns language and the ability to speak over time simply by hearing others speak.
• Since humans are born with a natural capacity for language, humans have a natural right to
use language – a natural right of free speech.
Here’s a key point: Natural rights protect the individual from powers outside of him/herself –
powers in society like social norms, political majorities, public opinion, or the authority of
government. All of these powers exist outside the individual. Natural rights do not encourage
the individual to conform to these external powers – do not require the individual to conform
to social norms or the dominant public opinion. Rather, natural rights protect the individual
from these powers in society; natural rights limit the control these external powers have over
the individual.
Let’s think through what this means. We’ll again use the example of free speech. Someone who
does not think free speech is a natural right might reason like this:
• Many people think it is wrong to mock or ridicule the beliefs of others. They think such
mocking is offensive. They may be the majority in society or they may simply have influence
in media, education, or government. Either way, they establish a social norm – “public
opinion” – that it is wrong to mock or ridicule the beliefs of others.
• They thus argue that free speech does not include the right to mock and ridicule. Free
speech does not include the right to violate the social norm. It does not include the right to
go against the dominant public opinion. Offensive speech, therefore, is not free speech.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Classical Liberalism – 3
• They may still say they believe in the right of free speech, but they view speech as a social
right, not a natural right. A social right comes from society, not human nature. It is based on
social norms and public opinion. Because such a right is based on social norms, the right
encourages individuals to adapt to those norms – like the norm against mocking the beliefs
of others – rather than protecting the individual from the power of those norms. As one
defender of social rights explained, “my only rights are those which membership in a group
[society] gives me.”
Now let’s return to the Classical Liberal argument about free speech as a natural right.
• We said above that natural rights protect the individual from the power of social norms,
dominant opinions, and government – the powers external to the individual.
• The social norm against offensive speech is a power external to the individual.
• The natural right of free speech thus protects the individual from this social norm, protects
the individual from having to conform to public opinion against offensive speech. Offensive
speech may not be wise, but it is free speech.
• In fact, the purpose of the natural right of free speech is to protect, not to silence,
unpopular forms of expression. The natural right is grounded in human nature. It does not
come from society, social norms, public opinion, or government. It does not have to
conform to those norms because natural rights protect the individual from those kinds of
external powers.
An example of how natural rights protect the individual is the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791), which is
the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution (1787). Click here to view the Bill of Rights.
• The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law” interfering with five
individual rights – freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petition.
• Notice the words – “Congress shall make no law….”
• Congress is the legislative branch of government, the branch that makes laws. The First
Amendment protects the individual from government by saying “NO” to Congress. It states
what Congress – the political majority – cannot do. It cannot make laws interfering with the
five listed rights. Those rights belong to the individual, not to society, the majority, or
government.
To summarize this section: Classical Liberal natural rights protect individual freedoms from
powers in society like social norms, public opinion, and government. Let’s now continue our
discussion by exploring the Classical Liberal view of the right to private property.
Private Property & Taxes
Along with free speech, Classical Liberalism also views the individual’s right to private property
as a natural right.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Classical Liberalism – 4
• Consider this quote from John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1689): The purpose
of individuals “uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is
the Preservation of their Property.”
• Or this quote from the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights (1776): Individuals “have certain
natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life
and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property.”
Let’s think through why Classical Liberals view private property as a natural right. We said that
natural rights are grounded in human nature, in the natural capacities of the human mind. The
Classical Liberal says that the human mind has natural capacities to reason, to will, and to feel.
To reason is to think. To will is to desire and to act. To feel is to experience love and affection,
frustration and anger, and all the emotions in between. These capacities or mental powers are
called “faculties.” Classical Liberals argue like this:
• Faculties are private property – each of us owns our own mind and its mental powers.
• The faculties of the mind are creative. Humans use their faculties in creative ways. One
creative way is to produce goods and services – food, energy, medicine, technology,
housing, education, transportation, etc.
• When we use our faculties to produce goods and services – when we create – we add value
to those goods and services. For example, my faculties add value to this educational service;
a chef’s faculties add value to food; a doctor’s faculties add value to a physical exam.
Imagine a chef and I each prepare a meal using the same ingredients. The chef’s meal costs
$12. My meal costs $10. Whose would you buy? Would you pay the extra $2 for the chef’s
meal or save the $2 and eat the meal prepared by a history professor? Many would spend
the extra $2 because the chef’s faculties add value to the food – it tastes much better. The
same is true of a doctor’s faculties adding value to a physical exam or a biochemists’
faculties adding value to chemical compounds.
• Each of us gets rewarded for using our faculties to add value – we get property (often
money).
• So the Classical Liberal logic of private property being an individual natural right is this:
1) our faculties are our private property
2) we use our faculties to add value to the goods and services we create
3) in return we get some of the value we added – other property (usually money). This
property is our natural right to possess because it comes from the natural powers of
our minds. It comes from the value we added by using our faculties.
Now let’s think through taxes. When government taxes, it takes private property – it takes
property an individual has earned (money) in order to fund government.
Classical Liberals understand that government has to tax – take some private property – to
provide government services. But Classical Liberal also want to protect the individual from
external powers like government – that’s what natural rights do, they protect the individual.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Classical Liberalism – 5
Thus Classical Liberals seek to limit the government’s power to tax. Classical Liberals argue that
government can tax – take private property – only to provide a “public good.”
A “public good” is not anything good for the public. Rather, something is a “public good” – a
legitimate reason for government to tax – only if it fits both of the following 2 criteria:
1. My use of part of the “good” does not leave you with less of the good to use.
o Food is not a public good because my use of part of the food (I eat part) leaves you with
less of the food to use (eat). So Classical Liberals argue government should not tax to
provide food because food is not a “public good.”
o But national defense is a public good. Government taxes – takes some private property –
to spend on a military to protect the nation. My use of the good, the protection of me,
does not lessen the protection of you.
2. A “good” is distributed in a way that cannot exclude some people based on payment.
o A streaming service is not a public good because the way it is distributed excludes people
based on payment. If you do not pay for the service, you are excluded from getting it.
Thus government should not tax to provide streaming services because such services are
not a public good.
o Law enforcement is a public good. Government taxes – takes some private property – to
spend on police to enforce the law. I am not excluded from law enforcement if I do not
pay my taxes – i.e., police do not enforce the law in a way that excludes based on
payment.
A Classical Liberal says government can tax – take some private property – in order to provide
for “public goods” such as national defense and law enforcement. They also include courts of
law and judges, as well as infrastructure like roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. These would fit both of
the 2 criteria above and are thus “public goods.”
But Classical Liberals argue that other things like food and clothing are not “public goods.”
Neither food nor clothing fits both criteria #1 and #2 above. The Classical Liberal says
individuals and society can make, distribute, and sell clothes and food themselves. Thus
individuals should not pay taxes to government to provide these goods.
To summarize this section: Classical Liberals view private property as a natural right. The
property comes from individuals using their own faculties to add value to the goods and
services they create. Classical Liberals thus want to protect the individual’s private property.
• Classical Liberals understand that government needs to tax – take some private property –
to provide certain services.
• But Classical Liberals want to limit government’s power to tax – limit the amount of private
property government can take.
• Classical Liberals thus say government can tax only to provide “public goods” – things that
fit both criteria #1 and #2 above. Public goods include national defense, law enforcement,
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Classical Liberalism – 6
and courts of law, but do not include many goods and services which members of society
can produce and sell on their own.
A Free Market – Capitalism
Because Classical Liberals want to protect private property and limit government, they are
associated with a “free market” economy, which is usually called capitalism. Capitalism means
private ownership of the economy – businesses, companies, corporations, etc. are private
property.
Let’s explore further to make sure we understand. Think of all the goods and services you
consume. By reading this lecture, you consume a service – education. When you go to the
doctor, you consume health care services. By drinking coffee or eating lunch, you consume
goods – food and drink.
In a free market economy, decisions about the production, prices, and consumption of goods
and services are private and voluntary decisions. The more a society has a free market, the
more privately owned companies and consumers – not government – decide what to produce,
what prices to pay, and how much to consume. In a free market, in other words,
• Government does not decide how much education, health care, or food is produced, how
much these goods and services cost, or how they are consumed.
• These goods and services are not “public goods” – they don’t fit both criteria #1 and #2
above.
• Instead, decisions about the production, prices, and consumption of most goods and
services would be voluntary decisions made by companies and consumers.
• Notice what this means: because a free market is based on voluntary decisions, it is not led
or directed by anyone in particular. It is based on millions of individuals making millions of
independent decisions on what to produce and what to consume. These decisions are
decentralized – spread throughout society. They are not the result of planning or
organization by a State.
• Classical Liberals view a free market like a language. Think of the language you speak. It is a
complex system of communication. Now think of how it developed over time. The
language’s development was not led or directed by anyone in particular. It was not the
result of planning or organization by a State. Rather, the language developed based on
millions of individuals making decisions across time on how to communicate with one
another. Classical liberals view a free market like a language – a decentralized process of
millions of individuals making independent decisions about how to use their faculties to add
value in producing goods and services, and then deciding what value-added goods and
services to consume.
We’ll end this section by noting the following: Classical Liberals do not want government,
especially a national government, trying to organize and plan the economy. They do not want a
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Classical Liberalism – 7
national government developing economic plans like a food production plan or running
economic systems like a health care system. This does not prevent government – especially
local government – from working with private organizations to provide help to those in need to
get privately produced health care or food. Consider health care. A Classical Liberal does not
think society benefits by government running a large economic system like a national health
care system. They think it is best to focus on those in need and provide them with assistance so
they can access privately produced health care services. Assistance might include a voucher to
buy a doctor’s services. In this way, the production, distribution, and consumption of most
goods and services remains private and voluntary.
Skepticism of Government Power
Classical Liberals are clearly skeptical of government power. They think government plays an
important role in providing “public goods,” but they grow more skeptical of government the
more it accumulates authority to do an increasing number of things, which usually requires
increasing taxes.
Let’s return to the U.S. Bill of Rights to highlight this Classical Liberal skepticism of government
power. We previously saw how the First Amendment limits the power of the legislative branch.
Let’s now consider how the Fourth Amendment limits the power of the executive branch.
The Fourth Amendment is about searches and seizures – the police searching for and seizing
evidence in a criminal investigation.
• The amendment requires in many instances the police (executive branch) to present
“probable cause” to a judge (judicial branch) to obtain a warrant in order to search private
property for evidence of a crime.
• This process of one branch of government applying to another branch for a warrant slows
down the investigation. It slows down the executive branch.
• If the warrant is not granted, then the executive branch is stopped altogether, at least in
searching what it wanted to search.
• If the warrant is granted, the warrant restricts the executive branch on what it can search
and what evidence it can seize.
No amendment or law can guarantee government will never abuse its power. The point of the
Fourth Amendment is to make it less likely government will abuse its power, or harder for it to
do so.
Which brings us to this point: Classical Liberals emphasize individual natural rights to limit
government because they think government is the thing in society most likely to abuse its
power.
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Classical Liberalism – 8
Classical Liberals understand that all kinds of people in all kinds of situations can misuse their
authority. They just think government has the most coercive authority to begin with, and
therefore its misuse becomes most abusive.
To make it harder for government to abuse its power, Classical Liberals seek to separate the
powers of government into three branches – the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
This is called the separation of powers. The legislative branch makes law, the executive branch
enforces law, and the judicial branch applies law to particular cases.
What is key about the separation of powers is the relationship between the three branches.
• Classical Liberals envision the three branches as mostly competing with each other for
power.
• We might think that the three branches should mostly cooperate with each other.
• But Classical Liberals want the three branches to compete with each other. Their logic is
this: the competition for power between the three branches of government limits the
power of each branch.
• And that is the point, to limit the power of government by limiting the power of each
branch.
• Limiting government makes it less likely government will abuse its power and violate
individual natural rights.
Let’s conclude this lecture with this point: You may have noticed that this lecture mostly used
the word “government,” but then used the word “State” near the end of the last section. We
said that a free market is “not the result of planning or organization by a State.”
But what’s the difference between a government and a State?
Classical Liberals argue that a government governs society. Governing society means passing
laws to protect the natural rights of individuals, laws which identify certain activities as illegal
because they violate natural rights. Governing society also includes an executive branch to
enforce these laws and a judicial branch to decide cases in which people are accused of
breaking the laws. The key here is thinking about how society develops over time.
• For Classical Liberals, a government does not play a significant role in how a society
develops.
• Governing society does not mean leading and directing society. It does not mean defining
future goals for society to achieve and then using the power of government to achieve
those goals.
• For Classical Liberals, governing society means leaving how society develops in the hands of
millions of individuals exercising their natural rights. Society’s development is a
decentralized process. Millions of individuals independently exercising their rights of
speech, religion, assembly, and private property determine how society develops rather
This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Classical Liberalism – 9
than a centralized authority determining how society develops. Government steps in when
those natural rights are violated, but does not to lead or direct society toward other goals.
A “State” does not simply govern society in the Classical Liberal sense. It does not leave how a
society develops in the hands of individuals exercising natural rights. Rather, a State leads and
directs society. It organizes and manages an economy. A State defines goals for society and
then uses its power to move society and its people toward those goals.
Consider the example of the environment. We noted in an earlier discussion that CO₂ emissions
have decreased in the U.S. since the beginning of the 21st century because of an energy
transition to natural gas. In this case, private companies and consumers have played a large role
in society’s development – lower CO₂ emissions.
In the United States today, our federal government has become more of a State than a
government. So we might ask this question: Should the State play a more active role in using its
power to move society toward environmental goals other than those achieved by private
companies and consumers?
Our point here is not to answer the question, but to see how the question helps distinguish
between a government which governs society in the Classical Liberal sense and a State which
leads and directs society. A State will obviously have more power than a government. A State
cannot be based on the idea of individual natural rights. At the beginning of the next lecture,
notice how several of the books about Modern Liberalism include the word “State” in their title.
