JR Test Site News for 01-23-2018

Capitalism Is the Cure for Ethiopia’s Problems

COMMENTARY. According to the comprehensive 2001 Index of Economic Freedom, Ethiopia “Remains by far the poorest area in the world.” In Ethiopia, per capita GNP is estimated at $108. By contrast, the per capita GNP in the United States exceeds $30,000. Most people forget that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Ethiopia and had a much lower life expectancy. What does Ethiopia lack that the West has? Capitalism. It is capitalism that enabled the West to rise to great prosperity. The lack of capitalism is responsible for Ethiopia’s crushing poverty. What is capitalism? It is an economic system in which all property is privately owned, a system without government regulation and government handouts. Capitalism is a social system based on individual rights, the right of every individual to his life, his liberty and the pursuit of his own happiness. Creative minds-from Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs-flourish only under freedom. Under the kings, theocracies, military dictatorships and socialist regimes that dominate Ethiopia, such minds are stifled. Ethiopia has the identical natural resource fundamentally responsible for the West’s rise: the human mind. Ethiopia is mired in tribal cultures that stress subordination to the group rather than personal independence and achievement. All over Ethiopia the brutal dictators murder and rob innocent citizens, students and the opposition in order to aggrandize themselves and members of their tribes. What Ethiopia desperately needs is to remove the political and economic shackles and replace them with political and economic freedom. It needs to depose the socialist regime and establish capitalism, with its political/economic freedom, its rule of law and respect for individual rights. The truly humanitarian system is not the Marxism espoused by Western intellectuals but the only system that can establish, as it historically has, the furtherance of life on earth: capitalism.

Keywords: [“Ethiopia”,”Freedom”,”Capitalism”]
Source: http://www.ethiomedia.com/press/capitalism_a_cure.html

History Learning Site

Key Marxist concepts are diametrically the opposite to capitalism and some believe have created a mentality of a society that is very much a ‘them and us’ one. Marxism believes that capitalism can only thrive on the exploitation of the working class. Marxism believes that there was a real contradiction between human nature and the way that we must work in a capitalist society. Marxism believes that capitalism is not only an economic system but is also a political system. Marxism believes that economic conflict produces class and inherently class produces conflict. A Marxist analysis called ‘Polarisation of the Classes’ describes the historical process of the class structure becoming increasingly polarised – pushed to two ends with noting in the middle. Capitalism largely shapes the educational system, without the education system the economy would become a massive failure as without education we are without jobs and employment which is what keeps society moving. Education helps to maintain the bourgeoisie and the proletariat so that there can workers producing goods and services and others benefiting from it. Ruling class project their view of the world which becomes the consensus view. Marxists believe that a key part in the control of the Proletariat is the use of alienation in all aspects of society, including the family, the education system and the media. Marxists believe that deviance is any behavior that differs from the societal norm. Deviance can vary from simply odd behavior to behavior that can harm society or is considered dangerous or disrespectful. Marx believed that economic power led to political power and that this is the key to understanding societies. Neo-Marxists believe the economic system creates a wealthy class of owners and a poor class of workers. They also believe that certain social institutions such as churches, prisons and schools have been created to maintain the division between the powerful and the powerless.

Keywords: [“believe”,”society”,”class”]
Source: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/…/marxist-concepts

Age of Enlightenment

Diderot helped spread the Enlightenment’s ideas by writing the Encyclopédie, the first big encyclopedia that was available to everyone. The Enlightenment grew partly out of the earlier scientific revolution and the ideas of René Descartes. The Enlightenment’s most important idea was that all people can reason and think for themselves. Another important idea was that a society is best when everyone works together to create it. Even people with very little power or money should have the same rights as the rich and powerful to help create the society they live in. Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States believed the Enlightenment’s ideas. The Enlightenment’s ideas were also important to the people who fought in the French Revolution of 1789. In some countries, kings and queens took some of the Enlightenment’s ideas and made changes to their governments. During the Age of Enlightenment, as more and more people began to use reason, some began to disagree with the idea that God created the world. Every government should have a contract which promises that people will have these rights. People should solve problems with rationalism and the scientific method, instead of looking for answers from religion Writers and philosophers should be free to look for the truth, even if they disagreed with the ideas of people in power such as aristocracy. The Enlightenment’s ideas about thinking with reason, having personal freedoms, and not having to follow the Catholic Church were important in creating capitalism and socialism. Important people in the Enlightenment came from many different countries and shared ideas in many different ways. His ideas were very important to Thomas Jefferson and The Founding Fathers when they wrote the United States Declaration of Independence. Locke’s ideas about people’s rights to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” were especially important, and appear in the Declaration of Independence.

Keywords: [“idea”,”people”,”Enlightenment”]
Source: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

JR Test Site News for 01-22-2018

Capitalism Key to Fighting Muslim Extremism

Recent years have seen the tentative emergence of a middle class throughout the Muslim world. For too long, standards of living have been falling in many parts of the Muslim world. In the 1960s, on average no more than a third of the populations of large Muslim countries such as Turkey, Iran, or Pakistan lived in cities, and by most estimates no more than 6 percent of the populations counted as middle class. The signs of this emerging middle class and the capitalist surge it’s helping to drive can be found everywhere in the Muslim world, even war-torn Beirut and fundamentalist Tehran. The problem in the Muslim world until now has been that the tiny middle class has had few ties to free markets and has depended on state salaries and entitlements. Turkey has already arrived at the future; it is a successful Muslim democracy fully integrated into the global economy. The growth of such services is tying the Muslim world more closely to the global economy. Terrorism as a whole will stop resonating with a truly integrated Muslim middle class-a process similar to what occurred in Latin America in the 1990s. It holds the key to changing the hearts and minds of the Muslim world once and for all. It’s too soon to say whether Muslim businessmen in Lahore, Tehran, or Cairo will lead a full-fledged capitalist revolution akin to that spearheaded by Protestant burghers in Holland four centuries ago. European history does suggest that only such actors and the robust breed of capitalism they embrace have a chance of truly modernizing the Muslim world. The agents who will vanquish Muslim extremism will not be secular dictators, enlightened clerics, or liberal reformers but entrepreneurs and businessmen. If moderate, capitalist values have not yet been fully embraced in Muslim lands, that’s not because of the fundamental nature of Islam, but because the commercial class leading the process is still too small. To encourage the middle-class Muslim revolution the West should help free Muslim economies from the clutches of state control. The West, in return, should open its markets to products from the Muslim world and ensure that the money it pours into the region goes to support the right kind of change.

Keywords: [“Muslim”,”middle”,”class”]
Source: http://www.newsweek.com/capitalism-key-fighting-muslim-extremism-81255

enlightenment: Rethinking the Essence of Objectivism

This essay will attempt to understand Rand’s method by analyzing her views on the essence of Objectivism. Although the identification of the essence of Objectivism has been dealt with by Rand, Peikoff, Kelley and others; I believe that further analysis of this subject can yield deeper insights into Rand’s methodology. Although Rand did not leave us a detailed analysis of the concept “Essence” or of Objectivism’s essence, we do have some insightful comments. In summary, Rand wrote only briefly on the essence of Objectivism and identified it either as the fundamentals of her positions in the major branches of philosophy, or as the method of reason. I think that this critique of Rand’s views on essence is warranted because her ideas on essence form the basis for extensions by philosophers David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff, and the general topic of the essence of Objectivism has hardly been discussed in the 1990s. I see at least four types of interrelated arguments that can be brought against Rand’s views on the essence of Objectivism. Objectivity does not appear to permit physics to have a system essence similar to Rand’s essence of Objectivism. We need to clearly distinguish objectivity from reason and logic in order to understand its importance in the essence of Objectivism. Rand’s statement of the essence of Objectivism appears to be a “Wide essence” because it proposes a list of indispensable attributes. A narrow essence of Objectivism could not include politics and economics which are derived from ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. Which type of essence should be important to us? If we want an outline of the system, then the wide essence will certainly serve our purpose. This suggests an answer as to why Rand appears to hold simultaneously that the essence of Objectivism is both a system and a method. Rand’s essence of Objectivism is a problem here because it appears to emphasize system over method. With 30 years of hindsight, and both feet planted firmly on the ground, is it possible to revise Rand’s essence of Objectivism to answer all of the criticisms that I have thrown at it? I think so. Several other nagging problems presented by Rand’s essence of Objectivism are resolved.

Keywords: [“essence”,”Rand”,”system”]
Source: http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/davesaum/essence.html

Adam Smith: an Enlightened Life

Adam Smith’s best-known book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, still exerts an extraordinary influence, well over 200 years after it was first published in 1776. Very few of the documents that form the biographer’s usual raw materials survive in Smith’s case – not least because that was how he wanted it. Smith embarked on his intellectual career at the universities of Glasgow and Oxford with the Jacobite Rebellion and its brutal aftermath still a raw memory. Between them, Smith and his esteemed mentor David Hume made Scotland one of the hubs of an age of intellectual discovery. For all the absence of personal details about Smith himself, it’s a lively story, sketched out cleverly in this book. Smith’s ideas are the heart of the matter for Phillipson. A number of other books published in the past decade have already tried to undo the free-market caricature of Smith’s thought by emphasising his other, less popular masterpiece, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, first published in 1759. Phillipson goes on to show that both books formed just a small part of Smith’s ambitious intellectual project. Like Hume, Smith drew on the scientific discoveries of the Enlightenment, on the new empiricism, and on all the intellectual ferment of the time, exemplified in groups such as Edinburgh’s Philosophical Society. Tantalisingly, Smith wrote in a letter at the age of 62: “The materials of both are in a great measure collected, and some part of both is put in tolerable good order.” But he added that he doubted he would finish, because of the indolence of old age. In setting out the scope of his subject’s intellectual goals, Phillipson has portrayed an Adam Smith for our times. Perhaps every generation gets the Smith it is looking for. Men like Smith and Hume did not regard the study of human visual perception, say, as a field of endeavour separate from and unrelated to the study of the division of labour. In their own time, Smith and Hume were frowned upon for their lack of Christian belief, and few believed that analysing society was a properly scientific endeavour. Human nature hasn’t changed; Smith’s question is still the one to answer.

Keywords: [“Smith”,”book”,”human”]
Source: https://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/08/adam-smith-intellectual

JR Test Site News for 01-21-2018

Communist Manifesto Chapter 1 Summary and Analysis

The Communist Manifesto begins with Marx’s famous generalization that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. These foresighted bourgeoisie, of which Marx is a member, increase class consciousness among the proletariat and hurry their historically ordained victory. As Marx concludes, “What the bourgeoisie produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable”. Like Hegel, Marx believed that human history unfolds according to a distinct series of historical stages, each necessarily following the other. According to Marx, the course of human history takes a very specific form, class struggle. According to Marx’s dialectical account of history, which he adapts from Hegel, every class is unstable, fated for ultimate destruction due to its internal contradictions. If there are no more classes, there cannot be any class antagonism; and if there is no class antagonism, then on account of Marx’s view of history, there will be no more history. Marx viewed the progress of history in decidedly materialistic terms. There seems to be three central questions here which need to be evaluated separately: 1) Is history governed by immutable laws? 2) If so, does history have an end? 3) What is the moral value of this end? Marx clearly thought that the answer to the first question is yes. For Marx Lancanshire was capitalism teetering on the edge of the abyss, on the verge of full proletariat revolt. The revolutions Marx foresaw never happened until the 20th century, in countries, contrary to Marx’s expectation, with capitalist economies in their infancy. In a sense, Marx stacks the deck in favor of an end, declaring that the proletariat, the truly universal class, will abolish all distinctions of class by destroying public property. Marx does stress that the capitalist is not being particularly selfish when he exploits the proletariat, nor is the proletariat particularly altruistic when he and his brethren rebel against their oppressors. Why does Marx welcome the end of history and indeed work to hasten its arrival? From what perspective is Marx’s moral judgment made if not from the perspective of any class? This is an important question, but one which Marx does not address explicitly in The Manifesto. Without an elaboration of these theories, Marx’s willingness to incite violence in favor of the proletariat is without clear justification.

Keywords: [“Marx”,”Proletariat”,”class”]
Source: http://www.gradesaver.com/communist-manifesto/study-guide/summary-chapter-1


Similarly the philosopher Emmannuel Chuckwude Eze, in the introduction to a series of readings on Race and the Enlightenment, claims that ‘Enlightenment philosophy was instrumental in codifying and institutionalizing both the scientific and popular European perceptions of the human race’ and helped articulate ‘Europe’s sense not only of its cultural but also of its racial superiority’. So the question arose: how did humans fit into that order? Natural philosophers had begun classifying all of nature. Blumenbach refined Linnaeus’ classification of humans by rejecting all idea of human monsters. To remove Linaneus’ cultural baggage, he insisted that skull shape and size should be used as the primary means of differentiating between human groups. The starting point for the philosophes, radical and mainstream, was the belief in a common human nature. In his Histoire Naturelle, the French naturalist Buffon described the lives of many human groups and tried to demonstrate the material basis for the differences. What motivated most Enlightenment thinkers, especially the radicals, was not the belief that non-Europeans were innately or irrevocably backward but a desire to understand the material causes of the human variety, including cultural, social and political variety. These two key aspects of Enlightenment thought seemed to pull in different directions in the debate about the nature of human differences. On the one hand was the urge to create a racial taxonomy of humankind, evident in the work of Linnaeus and Blumenbach, on the other the insistence on the plasticity of human varieties and the possibility of a common civilisation. Locke’s argument could be read in different ways in debates about human differences. In the Enlightenment Locke’s argument was taken to mean something very different: that the delineation of human varieties represented not a reflection of natural classes, but a matter of human convention. Nineteenth century thinkers, especially in the second half of the century, took for granted that humans could be divided into a number of essentially distinct groups. Eighteenth century thinkers, on the other hand, took as their starting point the belief in a universal human nature. The Enlightenment belief in the plasticity of human varieties was rooted partly in an attitude: a fervent belief in progress as the mark of humanity. Political attitudes towards progress and human unity left little room for race.

Keywords: [“Human”,”Enlightenment”,”century”]
Source: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/on-the-enlightenments…

FC71: The Black Death and its Impact

The Black Death, also known as Bubonic plague, appears to have arisen in Central Asia in the early 1300’s. Apparently, the Asian black rats, which carry the fleas that carry the plague, burrowed into the caravan’s grain sacks and hitched a free ride across Asia. Rumor became reality for Europe in 1347 when a Genoese ship pulled into the Sicilian port of Messina with half its crew dead or dying from plague. The Plague quickly spread death and terror across Europe, sweeping through Italy in 1347, France in 1348, and the Low Countries, England, and Scandinavia in 1349. All across Europe black flags flew over towns to warn travelers that the plague was there. The Hundred Years War was interrupted by the plague, and construction on the cathedral in Siena, Italy stopped and never resumed, a grim memorial to the plague’s power. People, having no idea then of the existence of microbes, were completely ignorant of the plague’s cause. Seeing a correlation between fleas and plague, killed dogs and cats, just giving the black rats more freedom to spread the disease. The most effective way of avoiding the plague was to avoid people who might carry it, causing those rich enough to flee the towns during the plague’s height in the summer months. The plague hit Europe six more times by 1450, each time with less severity than before, since more survivors were immune to it. Why it receded is also a matter of controversy, with such theories as the European brown rat driving out the Asian black rat, tile roofs replacing thatched ones where rats often lived, and the more deadly plague microbe, which more readily killed off its host and left itself no place to go, being replaced by a less deadly version. The results of the Black DeathAlong with an obsession with death that worked its way into European culture for generations to come, one can see the long term effects of the Black Death following three lines of development: a higher standard of living for those who survived, problems for nobles and clergy who were land owners, and revolts by peasants and urban workers. First of all, the Black Death had raised the standard of living of many survivors who inherited estates from the plague’s victims. Typically, war, plague, high taxes, or a combination of these would spark a sudden uprising. The immediate causes were much the same as those of the Jacquerie: high war taxes, a recent outbreak of plague, and a resulting agricultural crisis.

Keywords: [“Plague”,”peasant”,”Black”]
Source: http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/west/10/FC71

JR Test Site News for 01-20-2018

Age of Enlightenment

The Age of Enlightenment is a term used to describe a phase in Western philosophy and cultural life centered upon the eighteenth century. “Age of Enlightenment” and “The Enlightenment” refer particularly to the intellectual and philosophical developments of that age, in which Reason was advocated as the primary source and basis of authority. There is no consensus on when to date the start of the age of Enlightenment, and some scholars simply use the beginning of the eighteenth century or the middle of the seventeenth century as a default date. Enlightenment ideals were influential in the Balkan independence movements against the Ottoman Empire, and many historians and philosophers credit the Enlightenment with the later rise of classical liberalism, socialism, democracy, and modern capitalism. The Age of Enlightenment receives modern attention as a central model for many movements in the modern period. Prominent Enlightenment philosophers such as Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume questioned and attacked the existing institutions of both Church and State. The ideas of Pascal, Leibniz, Galileo and other natural philosophers of the previous period also contributed to and greatly influenced the Enlightenment. The Age of Enlightenment is also prominent in the history of Judaism, perhaps because of its conjunction with increased social acceptance of Jews in some western European states, especially those who were not orthodox or who converted to the officially sanctioned version of Christianity. Antisemitism continued to remain a visible phenomenon throughout much of Europe during the Enlightenment, and a number of major Enlightenment figures were noted antisemites. The neo-classicizing trend in modernism came to see itself as a period of rationality which overturned established traditions, analogously to the Encyclopaediasts and other Enlightenment philosophers. With the end of the Second World War and the rise of post-modernity, these same features came to be regarded as liabilities – excessive specialization, failure to heed traditional wisdom or provide for unintended consequences, and the romanticization of Enlightenment figures – such as the Founding Fathers of the United States, prompted a backlash against both Science and Enlightenment based dogma in general. In their book, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno wrote a critique of what they perceived as the contradictions of Enlightenment thought: Enlightenment was seen as being at once liberatory and tending towards totalitarianism. Other leading intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky, see a natural evolution, using the term loosely, from early Enlightenment thinking to other forms of social analysis, specifically from The Enlightenment to liberalism, anarchism and socialism. Prescribed a politics of Enlightenment in What is Enlightenment? Baruch Spinoza Dutch, philosopher who is considered to have laid the groundwork for the 18th century Enlightenment.

Keywords: [“Enlightenment”,”philosopher”,”state”]
Source: http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/a/Age_of_Enlightenment.htm

Capitalism,Socialism and the Enlightenment.

Now, unfairly for Islam, this enlightenment is often counterpoised with it. Anyone with an interest in the longue durée of history will find that in many ways, Islamic civilisation formed the roots of the enlightenment. As Marxists, are we simply the inheritors of the enlightenment? And how do these questions look now, after the dawn of modern ecological consciousness? “The Enlightenment has always aimed at liberating men from fear and establishing their sovereignty. Yet the fully enlightened earth radiates disaster triumphant”. Some campaigners are comfortable wearing their late eighteenth century intellectual armour of simple enlightenment universalism. The enlightenment enabled the rising bourgeoisie to challenge the ideological power of feudalism – the Christian Church – and supplant it with its own scientific worldview. All the great science and reason of the enlightenment and after became assembled into these doctrines of ‘scientific racism’. What of the experiences of those being forced to become the first industrial working class in the first mills and factories in these Islands? Was this some cheery process where the masses celebrated the march of the progress of science, reason and industrialisation? Who, then are the mythical figures like Captain Swing and Ned Ludd, whose names rallied the the people in great riots to break the machines?! When we praise the enlightenment, do we not also remember how this was experienced as a loss, rather than as progress for the new working class? How it was an experience of being dragged backwards, deeper into poverty and exploitation, but with added pollution. From todays standpoint, after the holocaust, hiroshima, the nuclear arms race, ecological destruction and climate change – how are we to view the enlightenment? Does capitalist modernity appear anymore progressive to the indigenous peoples of the Amazon, being evicted from the burning forests than it did to the luddite worker, forced into the mills by the enclosures? “The question of the relationship between enlightenment and socialism becomes therefore inseparable from that of :”Is capitalism progress over feudalism’? For Marx, capitalism was only progressive in that it laid the basis for socialism. Enlightenment, rationalisation, modernity all have a double edge. So what does this have to do not only at the level of the capitalist mode of production, but its episteme, its scientific world view of reason and enlightenment? Enlightenment and modernity must be rendered separable from their capitalist makers. So can we can relocate the enlightenment, reclaim it from the bourgeoisie, and declare that the only progressive class today is the global working class? Instead of masking the particularity of bourgeois rule with a false universalism, a pretend view from nowhere, we can turn to what Marx saw as the genuinely universal class. Thus an enlightenment transplanted to a rising working class might be a very transformed and different thing.

Keywords: [“enlightenment”,”class”,”reason”]
Source: https://barrykade.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/capitalism-socialism…

JR Test Site News for 01-20-2018

Aspects of India’s Economy Nos. 44-46

The creation of the working class, the rise of capitalismHowever, the bourgeoisie used the struggle of the masses against the feudal order not to put the masses in power, but in order to seize power for themselves. A limited number of goods were produced for the market by artisans/craftsmen employing, say, two or three men, working with their own tools and raw materials. The worker had the choice of working for the capitalist or starving. The factory system reorganized work, with much greater division of labour, supervision of work and specialization of function. Massive shift of workforce to industryOne might imagine that, since innovations like the spinning-jenny and the powerloom meant that the same amount of production could be carried out with far fewer workers, they would reduce the size of the working class. The growth of capitalist agriculture too was sustained by demand from the growing number of workers absorbed in industry. The differences between the productivity of workers in the two major sectors of the economy, industry and agriculture, tended to narrow in this process. At the time of the Revolution of 1649 or the Revolution of 1789 the proletariat in England and in France was not yet formed as a class, and was not conscious of its existence as a class; workers followed the lead of the bourgeoisie without advancing independent demands. Within a short time after the French Revolution, workers began organising on class demands, both economic and political. The Chartist movement of 1838-48 in Britain was the first political organisation of the working class; in 1864 the first International Working Men’s Association was born; and 1871 witnessed the first, albeit short-lived, state power of the working class, the Paris Commune. The publication of Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto in 1848, followed by Marx’s Capital in 1867, provided what eventually became the dominant ideological basis for working class organisation. Ousting of peasantry, creation of working class and a mass market: A large labour force was ousted from agriculture by agricultural capitalists; the new methods then adopted in agriculture led to an increase in agricultural productivity, generating a surplus to feed the growing industrial workforce, and cheapening the raw materials needed by industry. Creation of a machine-building industry, increased productivity displacing workers, yet growing working class: The Industrial Revolution and the development of factory production led to the development of an industry producing machinery, coal, iron, and railroads. Since these heavy industries, particularly the machine-building industries, developed within the same country as the light industries, the size of the working class as a whole continued to grow despite labour productivity increases in the light industries – i.e., workers displaced by productivity increases in light industry got absorbed in the heavy industries. Commercial interests stood to benefit, as the new State power worked actively to protect the domestic market and seize foreign markets.

Keywords: [“work”,”Class”,”capitalist”]
Source: http://www.rupe-india.org/44/europe.html

Liberalism and Its Origins

Liberalism had its origins in the 18th century ‘enlightenment’ with that movement’s determination to immerse men and women in a new materialistic form of knowledge with its roots entirely in what one might term ‘human knowledge and understanding. In the 17th century, ‘civil society’ was a term which started to be used by philosophers such as John Locke as a way of distinguishing political order from the state of nature. Often thought of as the real ‘founding father’ of liberalism, Locke bequeathed to the liberal tradition the important distinction between the state and society. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy which supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power and private property. Unlike modern social liberals, classical liberals were also almost universally hostile to any concept of a ‘welfare state. In his younger years, he saw English playwright William Shakespeare as an example French writers should look to, though he later revealed his emerging arrogance when stating that he himself was a superior writer to Shakespeare! After three years in English exile, Voltaire returned to Paris and published his ideas in a fictional document about the English government entitled the Lettres philosophiques sur les Anglais. In the 19th century, the philosopher G. W. F. Hegel inherited the liberal distinction between the state and society, which he referred to as civil society. In contrast, the state has its foundation in universal principles to which all owe allegiance regardless of their particular interests, religion, or station. For Hegel, the state is not built on selfishness and mutual advantage, but on selfless devotion to principles and a willingness to lay down one’s life for these ideals. In contrast to the state, civil society seemed to him like a selfish affair. Despite his deprecation of civil society in comparison to the state, Hegel upheld the liberal idea that the state should leave society alone and not interfere in its affairs. His romanticization of the state opened the way to the totalitarian state that regards itself as sovereign, the state that subordinates everything in civil society to itself, the state that turns civil society into a means for its own ends, the state that interferes in every aspect of life; the state that totally strangles civil society and its spontaneous order. The totalitarian state was the enemy of the market, the churches, and the synagogues; it controlled education, communication, the media and all cultural activities. The totalitarian regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, and Stalin subverted the liberal spirit of Hegel’s philosophy and focused only on his praise and eulogy to the state. Karl Marx was critical of Hegel’s distinction between the state and civil society and rejected his liberal view of civil society as a domain of freedom that must remain independent of state interference.

Keywords: [“state”,”Liberalism”,”liberal”]
Source: http://www.ukapologetics.net/2liberalismsroots.htm