[Marxism-Thaxis] The Nature and Paradoxes of Freedom
farmelantj at juno.com farmelantj at juno.com Concerning the concepts of negative freedom that were embraced by both Hayek and Isaiah Berlin, Dogan is quite correct that for both men, the embracing of negative liberty (and the rejection of positive liberty) was very much motivated by their desire to defend capitalism. Where the two men differed, is that Berlin's embrace of negative liberty was in the context of his pluralism. By pluralism, Berlin meant a value pluralism or a pluralism of values (not unlike Max Weber's conception) in which there are a plurality of ideals, which may all be equally valid, but which are not entirely compatible with one another. For Berlin, while negative liberty was a valid social ideal, it was not the only one. Berlin recognized as valid, the social ideals of equality and solidarity. Therefore, for Berlin, unlike Hayek, the good society while embracing negative liberty also might embrace other ideals like equality or solidarity. Therefore, Berlin was able to rationalize the emergence of the welfare state in the UK and the New Deal in the US. In this way, as Dogan suggests, Berlin's pluralism of values was closely tied to the pluralism of classes under capitalism, and so Berlin like a good social democratic liberal attempted to mediate between the interests of capitalists and workers under capitalism. Jim F. CB: Berlin seems to be espousing ye olde liberal creed of e pluribus unum. It is on US money as a sort of official American motto or something ... E Pluribus Unum included in the Seal of the United States, being one of the nation's mottos at the time of the seal's creation ... ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Nature and Paradoxes of Freedom
Dear All, a draft paper of mine and İsmail Şiriner is available now. Comments are always welcome... The Nature and Paradoxes of Freedom Freedom is a powerful Idea. As a concept, combined with equality and fraternity, it was the forceful ideal drive for a series of revolutions in Europe and throughout the world since the middle of the 17th century. As well as ruling and oppressed and subordinated classes, imperialist states and colonised and suppressed people referred and refer to it either to defend their socioeconomic and political domination or justify their fight for emancipation and self determination. Therefore, it is not surprising that it is a hot-combated concept. It includes the freedom of conscience, thought and speech, will and action of individuals and collective agents. This whole scope of the concept may be summed up by subsuming them under the terms of external and internal freedom. These two aspects of freedom must be taken in their dialectical unity as inseparable and accomplishing aspects of one and the same concept. In contemporary debates, it still continues to be a core concept and is pointed to as the main motivation by Marxist scholars for fundamental social and political changes as explored within the framework of the concept of (human) emancipation. By contrast, paradoxical enough, neo-liberals and conservatives, too, use the concept of freedom to justify their social- Darwinist socio-political proposals. This is a paradox as well as an intriguing commonness and provokes for further tho ught, investigation and qualification. The aim of the paper is to address this paradox. Read more at: http://dogangocmen.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/freedom_nature_and_paradoxes.pdf D.Göçmen http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
