David McDonagh on Sean Gabb

This is a response to: http://takimag.com/article/in_defense_of_english_civilization_sean_gabb?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+takimag+%28Taki%E2%80%99s+Magazine%29#axzz2AmmMLu1W

Sean, you speak and write rather like a traditional one nation Tory than a pristine liberal. Nowadays you like Marx. I think that Marx was more in the tradition of being a one nation Tory than he realised, given the fact that his most important ideas, like the labour theory of value and the material conception of history, were mere delusions, lacking all existential import completely. Many feel Marx read a lot of Hegel but he read more of the economists, though Hegel also read the economists, and the then liberal journal, or newspaper [as it now  calls itself] The Economist but maybe he read most of all the state bluebooks, mainly written by moralising one nation Tories.

I think your talk is largely a Romantic one, by which I mean it is unrealistic as well as in reaction to the idea of Enlightenment. You will not be too surprised to see that I think the main bogus meme, or idea, in your speech/account is that of class. There is a ruling class, of course, but do they have class interests? The class interests related to the factors of production, of land labour and capital, that Marx imagined were in reality always exactly null set, as not for even one moment did such economic class interests ever exist. Marx thought, or he said he thought, that the landed interests and those of capital merged, so we only had two classes as a result, but in fact there was nothing even remotely like the classes that Marx wrote about in the external world to his text.

England is under attack from Political Correctness [PC], as is also the common sense outlook of the 1950s. You choose to go back to 1914 but I think it is the 1950s that the PC propagandists seem to hate. I loved the 1950s myself. Did it ever rain back then? I suppose it must have, but I recall many fine days.

I think the PCers attack the nation, as it is a factor in the cause of war. They also attack the British Empire as that is clearly against their crass ideal of equality, as is any form of the dreaded discrimination; especially on race or sex. Discrimination is also vital to almost any thought at all. Here the PC crew are attempting to overlook what the old eighteenth century Tory, Dr Johnson, rightly saw was a prerequisite of any society: subordination. But, oddly, the hated market gives them not only a fluid institution that breaks down big barriers to entry over time, if not at once, but also organises subordination anarchically. So a job sweeping the floor at Tescos does not rule one out from taking an Open University degree [that is now run
by the state,  but as you say the BBC might survive privatisation, so might the  OU] and getting to be in the administration of Tescos, or of some other shop, before too long.

The crass ideal of equality is basically intolerant, unrealistic and very illiberal. It is an unmitigated evil. But this crass ideal is traditional, as you say. There has never been any shortage of fools who feel that it is right, especially in the colleges. Kant wrote that as well as the categoral imperative [i.e. that uses the criterion that if it is right for me then it  would be right  for anyone else in my position, on the idea that we can usually  spot moral  faults in others clearer than we can in ourselves] we need also the hypothetical imperative: that ought implies can; if we cannot do a thing then it is silly to say that we should do it. This is a Christian own goal, as it flattens many things that the Catholics call sin as many of them are impossible to dodge; especially the rather daft idea of St Paul that the thought was often as bad as the deed. If we embrace the hypothetical imperative of Kant, then equality is immediately seen to be faulty ethically; simply because it is impractical.

I think that the Enlightenment outlook, as opposed to the Romantic reaction to it, holds that we have no enemies. The very idea of enemies is imagined only by daft Romantics, whom, like the Romantic Marx, thinks class struggle is most realistic and the lack of such false ideas in the outlook of the likes of Robert Owen was intrinsically Utopian.

We only have a state and a ruling class as current common sense thinks that politics and government are needed in society. The basic fact here is that politics and the state are dysfunctional. Romance is intrinsically a political paradigm, as it loves the idea of enemies. That idea is political for it is one of cold war or actual war towards others; as is any vote. The Enlightenment paradigm, by contrast, holds that all can gain from greater liberty.

On the state, the liberal massage is that politics is wasteful to one and all, that it is against the interests of all to ever have a government.

Your message is that England is under attack from the ruling class that has a tradition of its own. You are not too clear on what this tradition is but it seems to be a use of the meme of divide and rule but that Communist Party idea was unrealistic in the assumption that division was needed for any state to rule. The state exists as most think it is needed. Division does not aid it.

You say the rulers were basically all right prior to 1914. But since then they make their income out of state control rather than ownership and that makes them less responsible to the masses. Democracy was not needed when they were more responsible but you feel it is needed now. But you seem to need to master the book Political Parties (1011) Robert Michels that rightly reports that democracy has exactly no change of ever existing,

You seem not to notice that self-government is quite absurd. Hence I do admit that there is a ruling class. But the idea of class is, nevertheless, basically a silly idea.

The ideology of PC reflects the common silly idealism of the schoolteachers and college lecturers that are mainly based on crass ignorance as well as the daft dogma of equality. Similarly, the EU is down to idealism on the part of a few like Norman Angell, who fell for the silly idea that it might aid peace as well as being, ironically, a warmongering superstate that can become top state in the world, as the likes of Edward Heath and Michael Heseltine rather hoped. NATO was set up to oppose the Warsaw Pact but looked around for excuses not to dismantle when its aim faded in the 1990s. The WTO is ironically in favour of free trade but sees free trade [as do socialists] as being, somehow, a political aim when it is the very opposite, an aim to get rid of politics.

Mass immigration has broken Britain. It would break any traditional nation. It works a bit better in the USA, as the USA is largely a land of immigrants, but note that the pristine natives of America are broken. Those are facts any nationalist can put against free immigration. I set out to admit to some of them in an earlier LA talk. Unlike the rather silly idea of class, the nation is real.

But the mess of all against all that you seem to think is deliberate seems to be simply the unintended consequences of the rather stupid ideals that many hold, the top stupidity is indeed PC. It is intolerance pretending to be tolerant. Political rule is from one centre for all and it is a bit like one size fits all but the market, by contrast, allows polycentricity, which allows differences to truly flourish. The state is oppressive in imposing things it earlier banned but the market allows all to live and to let live.

What is called the public sector is a public menace and it does need to go but the way it needs to go is by privatisation. It is true that the BBC might survive but if it does then why not let it survive? It began, as did the bank of England, in private hands but no doubt both got way too much aid from the state so were not truly market phenomena but the BBC can now become so. You write of it as if it was totally PC, like sociology and psychology textbooks are today, Sean.

You do not explain why you think that the impoverishment of the masses will aid the ruling class. Indeed, you seem to lose sight of your aim at the beginning as you go on.

Your eulogy of Marx makes little sense. It is merely false to say that the aims of Marx were evil. Not many people have wittingly evil aims.

A transfer of power to the people is an incoherent idea. Liberalism seeks to dissolve not transfer crass dysfunctional power. Power is an unnecessary evil.

Critical opposition from the BBC is harmless, if not beneficial.

The Foreign Office has no merit and it never should have ever existed. Ditto the various PC laws and enforcing commissions that aim to force people to respect the stupid ideal of equality that is PC.

The whole state needs to eventually go, but the sooner some of it vanishes the better.

I can agree with you when you say:

“If at the end of your first month in power, we have not shut down half of the state, we are failing. If we have shut down half the state, we have made a step in the right direction and are ready for still further cuts.”

But if we get there by popular vote then there should be no trouble in doing that but that looks a long way off. It is the winning over of the general public; beginning with the section most interested who are the extraverts or intellectuals that the LA was set up to do. When that has been accomplished then there is little problem in rolling back the state. In any case, this will not be done in time to see either Mandelson or Kinnock work at a supermarket. They will never need to do that.

You are not clear on what you think this inexplicit ruling class project is, Sean. Nor is it clear what you mean by the economic wing of the ruling class.

Limited liability is no privilege. It shares risk with others, that is all.

Indeed, you do not even seem to be clear on what a privilege is. It is a special favour by the state to aid a few by taxing others. But if it is open to one and all then it is no privilege. The Marxist notion of class privilege is quite absurd; it needs to be caste privilege. But Marx wanted to go on about class, not caste. So he fell into incoherence.

Then you say that want to leave the welfare state alone, Sean. It is a perfect one nation Tory institution, after all. But why would any pristine liberal want to leave it alone? One of the best things Mrs T did was sell off the council houses. The underclass needs to be removed by getting rid of their institutional base. You say that you think it should be left alone as many people like it. Well, they will no longer like it by the time they are ready to vote a pristine liberal agenda into operation, will they? What you write looks very weak, Sean.

In fact, welfare is unpopular today. If people move towards liberalism the welfare state can only get ever more unpopular.

However, I would never dream of calling liberalisation by the daft Romance myth of revolution. Creating new structures of power rather than dissolving it will hardly what liberalism results in, either. Liberalism is against power rather than in favour of it.

2 responses to “David McDonagh on Sean Gabb

  1. “Many feel Marx read a lot of Hegel but he read more of the economists, though Hegel also read the economists, and the then liberal journal, or newspaper [as it now calls itself] The Economist but maybe he read most of all the state bluebooks…….”
    Maybe if Marx had done a bit less reading and actually tried to run a business he might have had a better idea of how the world works.

  2. It was not a good article by Sean Gabb – but I think this account is too harsh.

    I do not remember the article “In Defence of English Civilisation” in either of its appearances here, being pro Karl Marx. Sean says that some Marxist tactics should be used in politics – not (as far as I remember) that Karl Marx was not an evil man (which he clearly was – both in his conduct and his objectives) or that he, Sean Gabb, agrees with Marxist economics.

    As for the economics of Karl Marx – this is basically a twisted version of David Ricardo (which Karl used to try and justify collectivist egalitarian conclusions that he had already reached philosophically – see the early manuscripts).

    The fact that Ricardian economics had already been refuted in Britain (by Sam Bailey, Richard Whately and others) and had been rejected in France by the Say family (and others) and in Italy by Ferrara and even in Marx’s own Germany by Gossen and Rau may have been known to Karl Marx – but he did not let it bother him.

    Of course in “Principles of Political Economy” John Stuart Mill also wrote as if Ricardo’s doctrines had not been refuted (for example on the theory of value) – sadly it was the common practice of Mill to pretend that “everyone agrees” with various things he wanted to make everyone agree to (ignoring opposition arguments).

    This led to the ideas of Ricardo having to be refuted all over again – in the marginal revolution of the 1870s (Carl Menger and so on). And Ricardian views on land were still common place in writing on the subject in the United States till the work of Frank Fetter (1863-1949).

    Indeed I have come upon Ricardian views on land on this very site – written in blissful ignorance of the fact that the principles on which they are based are false.

    As for the “One Nation Toryism” being like Karl Marx.

    Well Dizzy and co were intellectually confused (to put it mildly) but this is rather cruel to say they were like Karl Marx.