Has Modern Liberalism Abandoned Individualism and Embraced Collectivism Essay Example

government' he put forward a two way social Contract , this involved man giving up a portion of their liberty in order to have their natural rights protected, these were the right to life, liberty and property. In contrast to Hobbes 'Leviathan' view, Locke believed in a minimalist government, a Neutral Arbiter which would up hold a mans right if another man tried to infringe his rights up on him. This was a huge step away from the Divine Right and a massive step towards giving the Individual power over themselves. This type of minimalist government that Locke was suggesting was termed 'Negative freedom', freedom from restriction where the government would merely be a 'night watchman' only getting involved in upholding mans natural rights. Locke was an Orthodox Liberal and argued that sovereignty lay with the individual and not with a monarch and that the state was only there because citizens allowed it to be.

J.S.Mill furthered this idea of the Individuals rights. His views were a much more human philosophy than that of his utilitarian theorist father James Mill who had a distrust of the working classes and contempt for the aristocracy .John. S. Mill (1806-72) wanted the individual to have the widest possible amount of freedoms; he said 'Over himself, over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign.' He felt the government should only intervene in the event of one man doing harm to another.

Mill feared the tyranny of the majority against the non-conformist individual and believed in a society where no interference in personal belief or the expression of belief is tolerated.Herbert Spencer in 'The MAN vs. the State' (1884)

moved Liberalism onto Classical Liberalism, a belief in a minimalist state. Classical Liberals felt that complete freedom from outside help was an inherent right of the individual. Spencer coined the phrase 'Survival of the fittest' to describe what he believed to be the struggle of man where those best suited by nature to survive rose to the top, this was social Darwinism. Spencer and Malthus believed in natural culling and that it was the law of nature that determined whether people were rich or poor and that it was the way it always be this way. By the government taking a Classical Liberalist stance at the time the rich got richer and the poor poorer. As classical Liberals believed that the only way man could be truly individualist was to have no outside help from anyone, even if it meant an unfair and unjust society.

They felt that by getting no state handouts the poorer individual would be inspired to pull them self's up by the bootstraps to be the best that they could possibly be, and form a true meritocracy.Adam Smith was a critic of the protectionism of the mercantilist system, he believed that by pursuing our own individual ends by you that we achieve broader social goals. He championed the laisse faire economy of the late 19th and 20th Century believing that market competition would act as an invisible hand which would sort out the economic life of the individual with no need for government control. Modern Liberals disagreed with this theory, they felt unbridled Capitalism had prevented many poorer individuals from becoming the best that they could be, they felt to make

it a level playing field for all individuals then the government of the day should intervene.T.H Green stated 'The life choices of the many were being sacrificed for the economic liberty of the view.'Modern Liberals felt social reform was needed by the government to enhance the equality of opportunity for the individual. This was termed as 'positive freedoms', freedom from poverty, poor housing, illness and the freedom to achieve.

It could be argued that positive freedom is a step away from Liberalism and a step towards collectivism as it requires the individual to give up a slice of his freedoms for state help, but it could also be argued that by doing so the opportunities of more individuals would be increased. This idea was an interventionist social strategy.J. M. Keynes (1883-1946) in Keynesian economics believed the government should be responsible for the creation of employment as he believed this would be an economic multiplipler.He believed that economic performance was controllable without direct state control of economic decisions, instead governments could leave decisions up to the individual, this theory was used up until 1970 by the government of the time. This theory with the Bevidge report on the five giant evils facing Britain pushed the government into action. In 1945, under a Socialist government, the state took more of a role in housing, health care and education, and as such Britain became a welfare state caring for people from the cradle to the grave.

This was a collectivist model as it helped the whole community, though there was no opposition at the time from Liberals as they believed these policies, even though the government had more

power, enabled every individual every possible opportunity to achieve their potential. The gap between the rich and poor and the opportunities that they had at the time of this Post war consensus was smaller than it had ever been. , so much so that the Conservative leader of the time stated 'You've never had it so good'.Unfortunately though most good things come to an end and as such the welfare state was too much of a drain on the economy, this coupled with the demise of the British Empire, rises in oil prices, emerging nations getting stronger and a huge rise in unemployment caused a change in thinking. The Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher came into power and borrowed heavily from the thinking of Adam Smith and Classical Liberalism , believing that there was no such thing as society and for the individual to succeed he needed to be truly individual which meant a laisse faire economy ,she detested the cradle to the grave theory put forward by the socialists. She wanted a small but powerful state, she extolled the virtues of private enterprise and converted to monetarism in the late 1970s and individual responsibility. This was Neo-liberalism, where she stopped the welfare state culture and de-nationalised the countries major industrial tools such as gas, coal etc.She removed the close links between trade unions and government, challenged the welfare state and established in the minds of the British public that lower tax would allow the individual to determine supply and demand.

When Tony Blair gained power he dropped the socialist values of the past and collectivism and believed in a hand up and not a hand out

, carrying on some of the neo-liberal values of Thatcherthough he chose to call it liberal communitarianism.He stated that the state should become an enabler, he wanted to move forward from Thatcher rather than dismantle her ideas , thus rejecting the Keynesian social democracy of 'old labour'. He stated that a modern welfare state should be 'active, not passive , genuinely providing people with a hand up not a handouT.'So as opposed to Modern Liberalism abandoning Individualism and embracing collectivism it could be argued that other parties such as Conservative and Labour have embraced Liberalism with their views on laisse faire economics and the individual being responsible for themselves and not relying on the state. Liberals views on the role of the state have changed , to the point where they believe some government intervention is needed, so as to provide more opportunities for individuals to achieve their potential , though this is not abandonment of the primacy of individualism just a change in the way they believe it can be achieved. Liberalism is still the left/right model of politics that it has always been , as it still contains the commitment to equality by the left and the approval of human effort and freedom by the right. The way to get individualism by liberals may have changed but the overriding ideology of the need to maintain the rights of the individual to have soverierenty over himself has remained the same.