Will liberal society collapse?

[aelf]

Liberal society is under assault from both sides - by conservatives on one side and extremists on the other, who oppose each other but share a common goal: Civilisational conflict. Meanwhile, so-called moderates sit on the sidelines and mostly do nothing but take potshots at anyone who dares to do anything but talk politely about things.

With the wide news coverage of recent terrorist incidents, I noticed that more and more people are voicing out who have either been emboldened or been converted to the ranks of those who think that co-existence is impossible. I see such a shift in this forum as well among a certain group.

How long can liberal society stand firm against these pressures? Already, one might argue that it's teetering, as shown by the electoral successes of Trump and Brexit. When will those who have abandoned co-existence become a slight majority and accede to or push for the creation of high-security states? Mind you, I come from a region where detention without trial is a common feature of the security apparatus, and local denizens extol such a measure as being effective at preventing incidents that Western societies cannot. This side of the conversation already has a large following, and I think there's a good chance it will prevail everywhere in the near future.

Thoughts?


PS: On the other hand, I'm heartened that it's becoming more widely recognised that conservatives are the biggest snowflakes who need safe spaces like Fox News and Breitbart to protect them from evil liberal and Marxist ideas.

EDIT: I'm not giving a definition of liberalism because I don't want to encourage the thread to immediately become a debate about the term. If it comes down to such a debate, that's fine, but I prefer to read your thoughts on the topic based on your own understanding of the concepts involved first. This isn't meant to be an academic debate, but something more free-flowing and interesting than a collection of semantic arguments. Thanks.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

First, define "liberal society." It means different things to different people, in different regions.

 

[aelf]

You can define it on your own terms, if you like. I care not.

Feel free to question the premise of the thread if you have an intelligent argument.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I asked for your definition, the characteristics you consider to be part of a "liberal society." Otherwise the thread will just be spent arguing what is meant by "liberal society" and never get to the actual question you're asking.

 

[aelf]

I believe there are enough posters who share in my meaning of liberalism for the discussion to get right into the actual questions, so I don't think it's necessary for me to spell it out.

Besides, concepts tend to be fuzzy categories so semantic arguments are often unavoidable. That being the case, I think I shouldn't help them come about by insisting on one inevitably non-universal definition right at the outset.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I believe there are enough posters who share in my meaning of liberalism for the discussion to get right into the actual questions, so I don't think it's necessary for me to spell it out.

Besides, concepts tend to be fuzzy categories so semantic arguments are often unavoidable. That being the case, I think I shouldn't help them come about by insisting on one inevitably non-universal definition right at the outset.

Oh, lovely. Yet another thread where the OP just waves his hand and says, "no need to explain, everyone knows what I mean."

Except we don't. I didn't ask you for a definition you "insist" on. I asked you for your definition. We might agree. Maybe we don't. But it's a starting place.

Liberals (the political party, not small-l liberals) and Conservatives in Canada can't even agree on which end of the spectrum each other is on, and there is added confusion because far too many people still confuse the Conservative Party of Canada with the old Progressive Conservative party it hijacked back in 2003. They're not remotely the same.

 

[Cutlass]

It's only under assault by one side. But it is possible for that one side to win.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I don't think liberal society will collapse, but that could easily just be that I've been at least somewhat duped by the end of history narrative

 

[metatron]

Liberal society

Which one?

No, really, stop generalising.
This happened to Anglospherian Liberals. And not by chance. You screwed up. Bigly.

Take responsibility!
Stop generalising your mess.

 

[Traitorfish]

The narrative of "assault" suggests that the biggest threats to Western liberalism are external. They're not. Trump is a property magnate from one of America's most liberal cities, not a barbarian warlord come down from the mountains.

Liberalism is a set of legal, political and cultural norms. Which norms are dominant within a society changes over time, for better or worse, but they are not the society itself. What we're seeing is another in an endless series of conflicts over which norms should be dominant; what's different at the moment is only that liberalism seems to lack any convincing champions, and that's only "different" if our baseline for comparison is, like, the nineties.

 

[Ryika]

what's different at the moment is only that liberalism seems to lack any convincing champions, and that's only "different" if our baseline for comparison is, like, the nineties.

I think the problem goes a bit deeper, because the left is divided about what a "convincing champion" would be. There are currently two lefts, the "social justice"-left, and the "liberal"-left, and both are at odds with each other so harshly, that many of the "liberals" are flirting with the right. From my perspective, for american liberalism to work out properly, the left will have to find common ground first, and once that has been achieved - and once Hillary has been put into a spaceship that's heading towards the sun - overcoming the rise of the right should be an easy task.

Of course I'm not an American and only following that stuff through news and social media, so who knows how accurate it is and how much of a thing the "European Lens" is.

_________

In terms of Central Europe, I believe the biggest danger to liberalism is... well, the fear of naming problems. That's especially true here in Germany, where people would rather lie to themselves and everybody around about problems because people think for some reason that being honest about these problems would strengthen the right - but then not talking about these problems honestly, actually strengthens the right. That seems to be a class divide. If we really want to simplify it, then there's the middle class that thinks of anybody who isn't pro immigration as bigots, and then there's the lower class that just sees the problems that they face - after all, it's them who have to compete with the additional labor, and their parts of the cities where refugee camps are built - see that people are not tackling these problems in any way, and then actually move to the right because of that, because the people there are the only ones even talking about these problems.

I think once you get that under control, and figure out what to do with the EU, liberalism is pretty much the default position for Europe.

 

[Tahuti]

Every society will collapse at one point. So will the current liberal world order. The question is more how and by what. The centralisation of state apparata during the transition from feudalism to modern capitalism is slowly being undone by transnational institutions, both by entities below nation-state level (like corporations) and above (like the UN). The new world order (no conspiracy reference intended) will echo feudalism to some degree, with corporations taking over the role of guilds and transnational entities taking the role of the Pope and the Ummah. What Trump, Wilders and Le Pen and the like want, is nothing less but a restoration of the early 19th century world order, with its neat centralised states not beholden to pressures from above or below. In that sense, they are very liberal. Just not the kind of liberals many are accustomed to or would like to see for that matter.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think the problem goes a bit deeper, because the left is divided about what a "convincing champion" would be. There are currently two lefts, the "social justice"-left, and the "liberal"-left, and both are at odds with each other so harshly, that many of the "liberals" are flirting with the right. From my perspective, for american liberalism to work out properly, the left will have to find common ground first, and once that has been achieved - and once Hillary has been put into a spaceship that's heading towards the sun - overcoming the rise of the right should be an easy task.

How are you using "social justice", here? That can mean a lot of very different things, depending on who is saying it and about whom.

That seems to be a class divide. If we really want to simplify it, then there's the middle class that thinks of anybody who isn't pro immigration as bigots, and then there's the lower class that just sees the problems that they face - after all, it's them who have to compete with the additional labor, and their parts of the cities where refugee camps are built - see that people are not tackling these problems in any way, and then actually move to the right because of that, because the people there are the only ones even talking about these problems.

EDIT: Originally posted this, but removed it because I realised it was missing the point of what Ryika was saying, but it was quoted by Gary so I've restored it (more or less, Gary didn't quote the whole thing) in the interests of honesty./EDIT

I don't think that's true. The populist right is a cross-class formation, "working class" only in that it acknowledges working class voices, and that isn't out of any egalitarian or democratic impulse but simply because an emphasis on ethnic or national identity means temporarily overlooking everyday socioeconomic distinctions. Most working class people aren't racist, certainly no more so than the middle class, and are in practice more likely to behave in concretely anti-racist ways than those out in the near-monoethnic suburbs or busily gentrifying minority neighborhoods. If that isn't obvious, it's only because the middle class have turned anti-racism into an elaborate game of etiquette and symbolism, which like everything the middle class do serves and is perhaps even intended to exclude the working class.

 

[Akka]

I think the problem goes a bit deeper, because the left is divided about what a "convincing champion" would be. There are currently two lefts, the "social justice"-left, and the "liberal"-left, and both are at odds with each other so harshly, that many of the "liberals" are flirting with the right.

[...]

In terms of Central Europe, I believe the biggest danger to liberalism is... well, the fear of naming problems. That's especially true here in Germany, where people would rather lie to themselves and everybody around about problems because people think for some reason that being honest about these problems would strengthen the right - but then not talking about these problems honestly, actually strengthens the right. That seems to be a class divide. If we really want to simplify it, then there's the middle class that thinks of anybody who isn't pro immigration as bigots, and then there's the lower class that just sees the problems that they face - after all, it's them who have to compete with the additional labor, and their parts of the cities where refugee camps are built - see that people are not tackling these problems in any way, and then actually move to the right because of that, because the people there are the only ones even talking about these problems.

I think once you get that under control, and figure out what to do with the EU, liberalism is pretty much the default position for Europe.

Stole the words right from my mouth.

 

[Gary Childress]

Most working class people aren't racist, certainly no more so than the middle class, and are in practice more likely to behave in concretely anti-racist ways than those out in the near-monoethnic suburbs or busily gentrifying minority neighborhoods. If that isn't obvious, it's only because the middle class have turned anti-racism into an elaborate game of etiquette and symbolism, which like everything the middle class do serves and is perhaps even intended to exclude the working class.

I haven't surveyed or delved into the private thoughts of (what is in relative terms) a great many poor working class people so I'm not sure if they tend to be more racist or not, however, when they exert power at the ballot box, it seems like many use it toward what seem to be overtly racist ends as much as anyone else (if not more so). It also seems like overt bigotry is more tolerated among the poor working class and less acceptable in middle class society. It doesn't seem like a necessarily bad thing to me that there is "etiquette" against bigotry and/or racism in middle class society. I mean it seems like it would be much worse if there were no "etiquette" against such things.

 

[metatron]

In terms of Central Europe, I believe the biggest danger to liberalism is... well, the fear of naming problems. That's especially true here in Germany, where people would rather lie to themselves and everybody around about problems because people think for some reason that being honest about these problems would strengthen the right - but then not talking about these problems honestly, actually strengthens the right. That seems to be a class divide. If we really want to simplify it, then there's the middle class that thinks of anybody who isn't pro immigration as bigots, and then there's the lower class that just sees the problems that they face - after all, it's them who have to compete with the additional labor, and their parts of the cities where refugee camps are built - see that people are not tackling these problems in any way, and then actually move to the right because of that, because the people there are the only ones even talking about these problems.

Let me partially disagree here:
Plenty of people on the left, both in the SPD and the actual Left have increased their efforts to talk honestly about things, and some (like Ms. Wagenknecht) have engaged in outright "populism".
And they reap the rewards, while applying the worldview of a middle-aged nose-in-the-sky german teacher (looking at you, Greens) is increasingly failing with the electorate.
They are still unlikely to win (because of the unrelated wounds they still have in the foot or because Mutti too stronk or whatever).
But they are doing it, and the electorate reflects it appropriately.
And these things should be talked about honestly and earlier there was too little of that.
Things like... that people are different and that in terms of culture (and it's desirability) there's a heck of a difference between middle class Syria and working class Algeria, things like... that with 18 year old Afghan boys who basically have never seen anything but dysfunctional governance and civil war there might just be the tiniest issues.
But... explaining the AfD (or Pegida for that matter) as a working class phenomenon is largely faulty. There's lots of things to be said about certain middle class milieus and about regional culture (hello Saxony).
Anyway, point being, there are perfectly viable, intellectually honest and electorally convincing positions to be had for liberals once ideology is replaced with principle (very different things).
And that's increasingly happening.

 

[Ryika]

I don't think that's actually true. The populist right is a cross-class formation, it appears "working class" only in that it actually acknowledges working class voices, and it does this not out of democratic or egalitarian impulse (naturally!) but because a heightened emphasis on national or ethnic identity requires socioeconomic divisions to be temporarily overlooked.

Well yeah, for the political parties that's true. The AfD for example is indeed a mixed-class party, but that's ignoring that most of the people who do not vote come from the lower class, and that being in agreement with some parts of a party's program does not mean that you vote only based on those. This is a personal anecdote, but I live and work in a lower class environment, and tons of people here say that the AfD is right about immigration, yet wouldn't think to vote for them, instead continue to mostly vote for the SPD - which has the image of the classical worker party around here, but didn't really act on it in recent times - or the CDU, the party of Mama Merkel. Both of which, to be fair, have altered their strategies in the last year or two, but until then were very much in "If you're against immigration in any way, you're a bigot!"-mode.

Studies that are done always find much lower agreement with immigration in the groups with lower income and lower education. Kind of a random example because I had just read through it yesterday, but the yearly study done by the Bertelsmann Stiftung is a good read overall, if your German is good enough, or Google Translate does a decent-enough job.

The TL : DR on income/education is that the lower your income, and the less educated you are, the more likely you are to be against immigration, and the more likely you are to name potential problems that come with it, but also that it is non-conclusive whether that stems from a place of bigotry, or because being in a place of low income makes you more likely to have to deal with the problems that come with large-scale immigration.

Most working class people aren't racist, certainly no more so than the middle class, and are in practice more likely to behave in concretely anti-racist ways than those out in the near-monoethnic suburbs or busily gentrifying minority neighborhoods. If that isn't obvious, it's only because the middle class have turned anti-racism into an elaborate game of etiquette and symbolism, which like everything the middle class do serves and is perhaps even intended to exclude the working class.

I'm not sure how racism even entered the picture here. Being against mostly unregulated immigration on a large scale is not "racist", it's purely self-preservatory. And being aware that the large surplus of refugees will cause problems, is just being realistic. The problem is again that no real dialog has taken place, the people in power have for the longest time simply ignored talking about the problems and how they plan to avoid them, so of course that has pushed them further into the anti-immigration camp.

Overall, your post is a bit baffling to me. You seem to have this angel-like view on the lower class as if they are pure people who can do no wrong, but the reality is, they, like everyone else, have self-preservation as the most important thing in their lives. The real difference here is that the middle class does not have to fear for their livelihood and can afford to be moralizing do-gooders, while the people at the lower end of society simply don't have that privilege.

 

[Akka]

This is a personal anecdote, but I live and work in a lower class environment, and tons of people here say that the AfD is right about immigration, yet wouldn't think to vote for them, instead continue to mostly vote for the SPD

Eerily reminiscent about my personal experience with the recent presidential elections : a bunch of people I know basically held the FN's position on immigration, but were horrified at the idea of voting for it. Hence my take that if a party managed to get the same agenda with a "clean" party, it would get a big amount of votes (notice : it was more of a higher education background here).

but until then were very much in "If you're against immigration in any way, you're a bigot!"-mode.

And it's still going to be the go-to reaction for a while I think.

 

[aelf]

Oh, lovely. Yet another thread where the OP just waves his hand and says, "no need to explain, everyone knows what I mean."

Except we don't. I didn't ask you for a definition you "insist" on. I asked you for your definition. We might agree. Maybe we don't. But it's a starting place.

You don't have to participate if you don't like the terms. As it is, we already have a discussion going on, so I was pretty much right. I think the discussion is even livelier because I allowed people to interpret "liberal society" in the way they want. That creates points of conversation.

Which one ?
There isn't a liberal society, there are liberal societies.

Which one?

No, really, stop generalising.
This happened to Anglospherian Liberals. And not by chance. You screwed up. Bigly.

Take responsibility!
Stop generalising your mess.

I'm not in the Anglosphere, so I don't have an inherent bias towards that point of view.

Yes, I certainly was generalising when I said "liberal society", but I don't believe the finer point is all that much different from the general point: That there are different liberal societies means it's possible that their norms are dying at different rates and to different extents.

On that note, it's unfair or inaccurate to paint this as uniquely a problem of the Anglosphere. For example, Le Pen might have lost, but support for her cause is greater than ever - among the young demographic, at that. This suggests to me that while France's problems are not as bigly as the USA's, they exist and are significant enough not to be ignored.

I'll concede that there are different things that fall under 'liberal' umbrella, and some of them have seen progress in recent years even as others have been eroded. But I'll say that I believe what underpins the liberal rule (whether it's social trust, openness, willingness to explore new frontiers, or something along those lines - the implications aren't going to differ much) is itself possibly being eroded. I don't see this issue as a matter of summing up progress or lack thereof in all the different things and seeing whether a particular society is in the black. I see it as something that will ultimately come down to the social currency or fuel that liberalism needs in order to keep it from being pushed aside by some other overarching trend for the foreseeable future.

The narrative of "assault" suggests that the biggest threats to Western liberalism are external. They're not. Trump is a property magnate from one of America's most liberal cities, not a barbarian warlord come down from the mountains.

Not at all. The elements I mentioned (i.e. conservatives and extremists) can and do certainly come from within.

Liberalism is a set of legal, political and cultural norms. Which norms are dominant within a society changes over time, for better or worse, but they are not the society itself. What we're seeing is another in an endless series of conflicts over which norms should be dominant; what's different at the moment is only that liberalism seems to lack any convincing champions, and that's only "different" if our baseline for comparison is, like, the nineties.

Well, you could certainly argue that liberal society has remained even as its norms have changed, but there can be a point at which its norms have changed so much and so radically that it's difficult to continue labelling it as 'liberal'.

And that matter is quite apart from the question of what constitutes society. A society can cease being a liberal one without itself necessary changing dramatically.

In terms of Central Europe, I believe the biggest danger to liberalism is... well, the fear of naming problems. That's especially true here in Germany, where people would rather lie to themselves and everybody around about problems because people think for some reason that being honest about these problems would strengthen the right - but then not talking about these problems honestly, actually strengthens the right. That seems to be a class divide. If we really want to simplify it, then there's the middle class that thinks of anybody who isn't pro immigration as bigots, and then there's the lower class that just sees the problems that they face - after all, it's them who have to compete with the additional labor, and their parts of the cities where refugee camps are built - see that people are not tackling these problems in any way, and then actually move to the right because of that, because the people there are the only ones even talking about these problems.

I think once you get that under control, and figure out what to do with the EU, liberalism is pretty much the default position for Europe.

It's convenient to see the middle class as the PC side and the working class as the non-PC, enlightened one, but that just smacks of trying to exploit a populist stance to bolster your own worldview.

The authoritarian, conflict-seeking perspective crosses the class divide. At the top, the capitalist class will still win, of course. The collapse of liberal society would mean no change of masters, but life could certainly get worse for a lot of people below.

 

[civver_764]

Of course it will, life is just a constant state of flux. All societies are doomed for collapse. I think many times it the people trying to "save society" who do the most damage to it.