On Postliberalism

By Claudius Mollokwu

Postliberalism discusses the liberal agenda and how liberalism has destroyed many of country’s institutions and has left the country morally vacuous and morally barren. Postliberalsim is a call to advance beyond a liberal account of affairs and to once again realise a conservative account of society that is grounded and rooted in family, locality, community and solidarity.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse UK
• Release date: Sep 27, 2023
• ISBN: 9798823080767

Book preview

© 2023 Claudius Mollokwu. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 09/27/2023

ISBN: 979-8-8230-8077-4 (sc)

ISBN: 979-8-8230-8076-7 (e)

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Preface

Chapter 1     Trouble in Utopia

Chapter 2     Liberalism and its Discontents

Chapter 3     Socialism and Planning

Chapter 4     Politics and Law

Chapter 5     Conditions and Ideal Goals

Chapter 6     The Moral Market

Chapter 7     The Civic Square

Concluding Thoughts

Bibliography

Preface

I decided to write a book on politics because I wish to make a small contribution to political theory and political thought. This work is broadly in line and seeks to support the likes of post-liberals such as the political theorists, Dr Adrian Pabst and the Red Tory, Phillip Blond as well as the blue conservative socialist, Professor John Milbank. Together all have offered cogent and powerful critiques of liberalism- in its social and economic guises. Together, all have sought to counter liberalism’s account of unbridled human freedom, human emancipation and human liberation with a more conservative account of society that has its roots in family, community and locality.

This book is about fraternity and its account of free human association where people form groups with one another and freely associate with one another. In a sense, it is a defence of a deeply romantic and deeply conservative account of society that is built on ‘fraternity’, ‘solidarity’ and the ‘common good’ that seeks to improve the conditions of all in society especially the weak and the vulnerable. In that sense I draw from a mixture of conservative traditions to inform my expositions such as the one nation tradition of Disraeli, the traditionalist conservative defence of Burke, John Ruskin and more recently the likes of Ted Honderich and Simon Heffer who wish to enact a society built on stable and conventional partnerships. Finally the book is a defence of modern day progressive conservativism first identified by David Cameron who accepts that we all need to associate with one another and collaborate with one another in order to realise the common and public good in a bid to flourish commutatively and independently. For the most I accept some of the tenets of liberalism such as its wish to engender human freedom and human liberation but I deny liberalism’s way of doing things. For me an account of conservative policies is still relevant in today’s modern day world- an account of a small state, unfettered free markets, low taxes, an account of civil and civic society allied to an account of hierarchy, tradition, custom and convention really can deliver the prosperity and success that all desire and all wish to be enacted in society.

Left and right and the centre in Europe and the west have adopted liberalism’s account of social and economic liberalism to the detriment of the wellbeing of society. The working classes and the poor in particular have been damaged by liberalism’s account of human sexual emancipation and human liberation. No longer are men bound by ethos, code and norms- they have been consigned to liberalism’s account of human sexual desire unmediated by any obligations, duties and deferred gratification.

This book seeks to offer an alternative account of society to liberalism- one that is grounded in community, reciprocity, mutuality and locality. I argue for a society that is grounded on platonic agape, Aristotelian virtue and an account of the economy that is free, open and transparent and is underpinned by an account of morality.

The first chapter seeks to detail and narrate what has gone wrong with society. The second and third chapter offer extended reflections on liberalism and socialism. The fourth chapter comes from my work ‘A Sense of justice’ in modified form and deals with the intersection and meeting points between politics and law. The fifth chapter deals with the conditions and ideals of society. The sixth chapter also comes from ‘A Sense of Justice’ and deals with free markets and their place and function in society. The final chapter is a modified chapter from my work, ‘The Tower The Square and the Peppercorn’.

The book contains the most recent of my views concerning politics and the economy. I hope you enjoy it.

38314.png

CHAPTER

One

Trouble in Utopia

Once upon a time Europe and the west was free, fraternal, associative, communal and free market based. People owned land, worked on the land and sold items’ produce and services from said land to others, in a bid to self-sustain themselves. As the Red Tory Phillip Blond notes, people did not make much as such- but they made enough to live on and sustain themselves on. Even before the Austrian and Chicago school of economics, there was a vibrant free and dynamic market where people competed and associated with one another in order to sell high quality goods. Continuing the Aristotelian tradition, the likes of the Roman stoic philosopher, lawyer and orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero in his work ‘De Officis’ defended the right of people to own private property. Both Aristotle and Cicero were to influence the political and economic model that Europe and the west adopted and which it has largely, broadly and for the most part has enjoyed its political and economic freedom that free markets have provided.

Europe and the west for the most part of its history, supported and adopted Aristotle’s model, supported by Cicero of incorporating private property and trading links into their accounts of how its inhabitants and general populace could lead a successful and flourishing life. According to the Marxist historian, Robert Brenner, there was a broadly catholic economy where all worked on the land, made produce from the land, and sold said produce from the land for profit. As Dr Samuel Gregg notes, the medieval ages signaled the birth a free market economy where markets functioned and distributed wealth fairly amongst the general populace. There was a distributist economy where wealth was spread around the general populace. There was a broadly agrarian economy, where most economic growth and profit was gained by exploiting land and produce resulting from said land.

The Medieval agents of the guilds, which derived their origins from the Catholic church, were associations of artisans who grouped together in a bid to further and realise their commutative and distributive goals. Workers in the guilds owned shares in their places of work, plus there were flatter structures between capital and labor. The guilds anticipated the likes of the present John Lewis model, which allows its employees to have shares in company. The working classes and the poor functioned accordingly and had agency to economically succeed and function accordingly. As Ferdinand Mount, in the industrial revolution of the Victorian ages, notes, the working classes and the poor devised the model of insurance which they used to pay for private sector services. The working classes and the poor took charge and responsibility of their own welfare and paid for their own welfare services. As Mount, notes, the rich and the middle classes soon adopted and appropriated the insurance model from the working classes and the poor, who forgot about the model and consequently as a result of forgetting fell behind the rich and the middle classes- till this present day, they have not yet fully recovered from the trauma of losing the insurance model.

There were also friendly societies where the working classes and the poor funded a common pot which they could dip into at any time in order to pay for educational and healthcare services. The working classes and the poor had agency- even power- they functioned well for the best part of the medieval and early nineteenth century. According to Blond, the working classes and the poor were not that happy with Clement Atlee and the Labour government’s policy of providing a welfare state- according to Blond, the working classes wanted something more relational, more associative and more empowering than what the welfare state itself offered.

The once free, associative and corporate world was threatened at several points in the life of European and western society and the world.

The first threat to a democratic and entrepreneurial society came from the Greek philosopher, Plato, and his work ‘Republic’. According to Plato, the state should abolish private property and its assets transferred to ownership of the state. He also noted that families should be controlled by the state. Plato’s ‘Republic’ is disturbing- even dangerous. In essence, the ‘Republic’ is a manifesto for totalitarianism and dictatorship. The ‘Republic’ was an early day manifesto for communism. Plato sought to abolish the once free, associative and communal nature of society rejecting group formation in a bid to realise a stale vertical relationship between the agent and the state crowding out horizontal and network relationships. Instead of the agent associating with his colleagues, in a bid to realise the common and public good, Plato abolished networks and horizontal relationships in order to realise a one-way relationship between the individual and the state, causing the agent to be atomistic and lonely, bereft of assistance from others to help the agent in the quest to lead a flourishing life. In short, Plato sought to abolish private property and civil society ushering in the process a dominant state sector with little account of the market and civil society. Though critiqued by Henry’s collaborator, Thomas More in ‘Utopia’ in the renaissance period, Plato’s ideas were to find favour with the german