We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/09/04/the-threat-from-the-illiberal-left
Truth is, both the left and right in this country is pretty shit.
- R
It is fascinating indeed, because we have seen for a short while till the interwar period, classical/orthodox liberalism - gradual dis-embedding of markets from the normative fabric of society as Polanyi calls it. This was followed in the postwar period by the rise of 'embedded liberalism' (as Ruggie calls it) with a re-embedding of markets in social structures, and a compromise between domestic welfare systems and demands for international free markets (Bretton Woods compromises). Then came neo-lieberalism, and now we see, once again, the calls for re-embedding liberalism within society. One could think of this as a Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis perpetual pendulum that never stops.
Liberalism subsumes within itself all merits and all critique, like the article OP posted, so that is not surprising to me. The only problematic aspect of the article is that it does not appreciate the interest of liberals in maintaining the status quo for it has benefitted them - needless to say any challenge to liberalism (from the right or the left) will be met with vehement opposition. The 'illiberal left' as a concept to criticise is still important (not saying it is good or bad), because it draws back focus to individualism, pointing out that the left wants exactly the same things as the right-wing - only that the norms are to be substituted by their own.
If you think this is irrelevant, good for you; why try to impose your opinions over mine when all I asked for was a discussion on merits? By your metric, we should all just toss the philosophy, political science, jurisprudence, social science books etc. out of the window and only study corporate law because that is relevant.
Also in the fag end of UPA 2 they brought in some really socialist measures like NREGA, Land Acquisition Act and Food Security Act as they were shocked at the resurgence of the Hard Left after the Nandigram movement.