Modern WisdomSocialism & Postmodernism For Dummies | Stephen Hicks | Modern Wisdom Podcast 171
EVERY SPOKEN WORD
95 min read · 18,691 words- 0:00 – 2:19
Defining postmodernism by contrast with “modernity”
- SHStephen Hicks
Now, what the post-moderns are going to be arguing is that we understand there has been a revolution in all of these areas over the course of the last several centuries. We think all of that has come to an end, and we need to go beyond that, uh, and then more normatively, uh, most of them will say, "We think the modern world has been a mistake."
- CWChris Williamson
(wind blows) I'm joined by Stephen Hicks. Stephen, welcome to the show.
- SHStephen Hicks
I appreciate the invitation. Thanks.
- CWChris Williamson
Very, very glad to have you on. So, postmodernism and socialism, right? They're words that are thrown around a lot.
- SHStephen Hicks
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
And yet I can't define them myself. I don't... if you asked me to tell you what are... what do these words mean, I couldn't-
- SHStephen Hicks
Right.
- CWChris Williamson
... give you a definitive answer, and I don't think many other people could either. So, can you?
- SHStephen Hicks
Well, fair enough. Yes, uh, all of those are high-level abstractions, and, uh, we're, we're a smart species. We take huge amounts of information in about the complicated world, uh, and so it is a process to go through to, to, uh, to define any high level of abstraction. Now, those two are, are not unique. If you try to define liberalism or conservatism-
- CWChris Williamson
Right.
- SHStephen Hicks
... or even Christianity or religion or Islam, ag- again, there are going to be lots of variations and, uh, uh, lots of things that are being included in those concepts. So, you should expect that it has to be some work, right, before, uh, a definition arises. Now, to take, uh, postmodernism first, the, the labeling is well-chosen. I didn't originate the term, but if you just break it down, post-modern, right? So that means we understand what post is. It comes after or it's a replacement, right, of, and then modernism. So, what do we take modernism to be? Then we start to break that one down. Well, different areas of inquiry, literature, history, philosophy, they often use labels like that differently. So I'm a philosopher by training, and I do history of philosophy. So, I am using it the way, uh, philosophers and historians will use
- 2:19 – 3:50
What the modern world is: the last 500 years of Western revolutions
- SHStephen Hicks
modernism. And basically, that means the last 500 years or so of history, especially in the, uh, the m- uh, the Western world. And that makes sense because if you look at what was going on in the world 500 years ago, well, it's within a generation of Columbus crossing the ocean, and that's a game changer, right? (laughs) Uh, on all sorts of dimensions. It is the generation of the High Renaissance. So, we have Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, uh, uh, uh, Raphael, uh, Titian, and other, uh, revolutionary artists who are functioning. So, the art world is changing dramatically. It's going to be the century in which, uh, Vesalius is publishing his anatomical work. So, we have a first study of how the human body actually works. It's Copernicus coming up with the idea of the sun being at the center of the system instead of the Earth. So, modern physics and astronomy are being revolutionized. It's, uh, uh, the, the century of... actually in the 15-teens, Martin Luther and the beginnings of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. So, it, it makes sense that historians and philosophers were saying, "You know, there's a huge amount going on in all
- 3:50 – 4:51
Postmodernism’s critique: modernity ended—and was a mistake
- SHStephen Hicks
of these sectors. The world is being upended and so forth." So, we're into the modern world. Uh, we are global. We're doing religion differently. We're doing science differently. Uh, we are going to be starting to think about, uh, politics and economics differently, and, and art is changing. So, that's what we mean by the modern world. Now, what the post-moderns are going to be arguing- (smacks lips) and, is that we understand there has been a revolution in all of these areas over the course of the last several centuries. We think all of that has come to an end, and we need to go beyond that. Uh, and then more normatively, uh, most of them will say, "We think the modern world has been a mistake, or that all of those revolutions that have occurred have led to negative, disastrous, pathological results, and so we need to transform society
- 4:51 – 7:59
What postmodernists reject: markets, liberal democracy, science, and individualism
- SHStephen Hicks
in, in another direction." Now, um, to try to, uh, summarize even more quickly, what they will typically then say is the modern world is marked by, uh, capitalism in economics that replaced feudalism. It's been marked by, uh, an effort to have Democratic, Republican politics, again replacing feudalism. Uh, and they're going to argue that we think both of those are fundamentally flawed and/or mistaken. So, all of the leading post-modernists will be, uh, anti-Democratic, Republican, and that's why we see a lot of authoritarianism and the, the worst versions of political correctness. And rather than solving our differences socially and politically through voluntary methods, you see a, a dramatic increase among post-modern friendly people in adversarial, in-your-face, uh, outright authoritarian types of tactics. They're also, uh, to a man and woman, anti-capitalist, anti-free market. So, you will see all of those criticisms that the modern economic world is a disaster. It exploits the poor. It, uh, has, uh, dr- dramatic inequalities, all of which are, are, are sickly and so forth.... you know, the post-moderns will argue that the modern world has also been marked by high science and high technology, but they will, uh, mount an argument that, uh, science and technology, the results are negative. The dangers outweigh, or they will be making arguments that, uh, science is just a, a, a male way of thinking, or a White way of thinking, so you'll get racial and gender attacks on the scientific and technological project. But also you'll find that the modern world has been, uh, marked by a strong amount of individualism, you know, the individual rights to life, liberty, a pursuit of happiness, pursue your own dream, become an entrepreneur, high levels of tolerance for other people of different political persuasions, different religious persuasions as well. But that individualism that underlies much of modernity, the post-moderns, they disagree with that as well. That's why you find the rise of identity politics and, uh, and, and, and the post-moderns want to organise and see people as members of groups. You're primarily a member of your racial group, or your ethnic group, or your gender group, and it's your group identities that make you who you are. It's not individual choices, and so on. So, uh, modern world individualism, science, technology, freedom in markets, uh, liberal democratic politics, the post-moderns reject all of them and want to replace them with something else. So that's, uh, a few minutes on post-modernism. Uh, how's that?
- CWChris Williamson
Fantastic. It doesn't sound like post-modernists agree with much. There was a big list of things that post-modernists (laughs) -
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
... disagree with.
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah. Well, right. Yeah-
- 7:59 – 8:37
Key figures and the ‘big picture’ subversion of Western modernity
- CWChris Williamson
Um-
- SHStephen Hicks
... the modern world is this big compli- uh, complicated, you know, set of revolutions on a number of dimensions, and the, and the post-moderns are very well-educated individuals, particularly in the first generation, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, and they are taking a big picture perspective on what's happened in the, in, in the world over the course of the last 400 years, philosophically, historically, and subverting and rejecting all of it in fundamentals.
- CWChris Williamson
Yeah, absolutely. So where's socialism? Where's the, the differences and the, and the similarities here?
- 8:37 – 12:08
Socialism as prioritizing the social over the individual (beyond economics)
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah. Well, let's start socialism differently. We can make connections to post-modernism later. Socialism is a, a, an, an ancient, uh, philosophical slash ethical slash political slash economic idea. As the name suggests, uh, we prioritise the social over the individual. So, uh, you know, if we ask, "What's the purpose of having social organisations, family, teams, businesses, political units and so forth?" Right, one basic political answer to that is to say, uh, "Well, it's, it's, it's for the purposes of the individuals involved." So we formulate family groups primarily to nurture individuals so that, uh, children can grow up to pursue their own individual dreams. Or we form business associations where we work together, uh, socially, but each of us is pursuing our own individual careers, uh, and so forth. Uh, we join in sporting teams and there's a lot of value to, uh, to following a, a sporting team as, as part of a group, but primarily we're individuals coming together and, uh, uh, uh, and we're enjoying sports as, as individuals, as participants, and so forth. So what socialism wants to do is to say that we should always prioritise the social over the individual. The group is more important than the individual. And if there's a tension between what's good for the group and what's good for the individual, the individual should sacrifice or be subordinated for the sake of the group. By contrast, individuals will say, "Look, if the group is not just working out, then we will just go our own ways soc- or go, go our own ways as, uh, as individuals." So, you know, uh, you know, an interesting example might be religion. Uh, if you're familiar with, say, within Christianity, the big split between Catholics and Protestants. So, uh, the, the, uh, suppose, you know, we're, we're, we're Catholics, uh, and we're having some arguments about what Christianity really means. And ultimately it seems, you know, you and I just can't agree on what proper interpretation of some religious doctrine it could be. The Catholic position is that you as I... uh, you and I as individuals, we should be willing to set aside our individual judgment for the good of Catholicism as an institutional religion, and that, uh, the... that, that, that the tradition as a whole should take precedence over my judgment or your judgment. Whereas the Protestants would be more likely to say, all right, suppose you and I are Protestants and we're a member of the same church and we're having some arguments about how should we appro- uh, properly interpret Christianity, and we've been back and forth a lot and we just don't agree on this. So what should we do about that? Well, Protestants are more likely to say, "Well, you really need to do your thing because the state of your soul is your primarily individual responsibility, and I need to look after my soul, so what we should do is just go our separate way, right? You'll go and start your own church, and I'll go and start my own church, and we'll pursue our individualistic path and associate only with individuals who, in their heart of hearts, agree with what we have there." So that individualism versus socialism is not only a political economic thing, it's, uh, it's a deeper understanding
- 12:08 – 13:50
Economic implications: markets as emergent order vs centralized allocation
- SHStephen Hicks
about whether individuals or the social takes precedence. Now, when we turn to economic matters...... uh, the individualists are more likely to end up being free market capitalists. You'll decide for yourself what your career is going to be, what you're going to make, you'll offer it on the market, uh, customers may be interested, you'll negotiate as an individual, particular individual deals. And then the same thing for me as a consumer, I'm going to take responsibility for making my own decisions about what I'm going to buy, what prices I'm willing to pay, how much I'm going to save, and so forth. So we're all autonomous free agents entering into the market as buyers and sellers, and so markets are going to be an, an emergent phenomenon. What socialists are going to argue is that we should not be functioning as individuals when it comes to economic matters, we should have, uh, society as a whole, and there should be institutions that will decide for society as a whole what's going to be made, who's going to get what and how much. And, uh, each of us as individuals, producers, and consumers should not be making our own decisions, we should be following the decisions that are made at the society as a whole level. So how's that for two or three minutes?
- CWChris Williamson
Absolutely, yeah. It's, um... it's so interesting, as someone who doesn't delve massively into politics other than when it's-
- SHStephen Hicks
Mm.
- CWChris Williamson
... other than when it's forced upon me, so for instance, the recent, uh, British general election, it's only, uh, been a few months since that happened, and you have this big surgence of patriotism for one side or the other, uh, in the UK-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- 13:50 – 16:28
Why ‘socialism’ carries baggage in politics: history, slurs, and education gaps
- CWChris Williamson
... although I guess there's a little bit more of an even split, at least there's numerous parties that you can vote for in the UK, whereas in America it, it really kind of is just one or the other. Um, and words like postmodernism and socialism get thrown around as slurs. You know, you accuse someone of being a socialist-
- SHStephen Hicks
(laughs)
- CWChris Williamson
... or you accuse someone-
- SHStephen Hicks
Right.
- CWChris Williamson
... of being a... the, the, the term in the UK is a Tory, which is a conservative. And, um-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
... e- e- each side's mudslinging at the other, with terms which... well, I, I'm not actually too sure what the, w- where Tory comes from, what the etymology of that is, but, yeah, the, the, the, socialism, you know, it sounds like a, a perfectly well-thought-out system which is not just about, as you say, not just about economics, not just about political theory, but o- on a much broader scale, it's a s- sort of a philosophical position. Uh, a- and yet you can take pretty much any word, like call- calling someone a carrot or, you know, calling someone (laughs) -
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
... calling someone, like, a tire or something like that, you could take any word and, and start to throw it around like a slur. It's, I, I wonder-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes.
- CWChris Williamson
... what your thoughts are or why it's come about that you're socialist. W- why does it have baggage attached to it?
- SHStephen Hicks
Right. Well, yes, so you're, you're absolutely right about how political debate goes, and, uh, by the time it gets to politics and election cycles, you know, that, a- in a, in a parliamentary system like Britain's or like Canada's, where I come from, you know, the election cycle is just a few months, and nobody has time for careful or nuanced positions in the give and take-
- CWChris Williamson
(laughs)
- SHStephen Hicks
... and emotions running high. So where all of this should be happening better is in schools, in universities, in newspaper columns, and, uh, and so forth, in the years leading up to elections where people are discussing these issues in a, in a more leisurely, and hopefully less emotionalist, uh, emotionalist context. But yes, uh, you're right, though also that, uh, all of these labels have baggage attached to them a- and that's, uh, that makes perfect sense because all of them have a historical track record, and the history matters absolutely. So in our generation, anybody who's thinking seriously about being a socialist or being an anti-socialist, they should recognize that there have been, in the modern world, two centuries now of theory and practice in socialism. And before you make up your mind whether you're pro or anti-socialist, you should know something about that, that history. Now, why I think, uh, in, in, uh, Western nations
- 16:28 – 18:56
20th-century socialist experiments: authoritarianism, repression, and poverty
- SHStephen Hicks
and increasingly around the world, uh, socialism has a bad aura is that for centuries in the modern world now we've been committed much more to individualism, free markets, liberal democracy, and so forth, and, uh, socialism is opposed to all of those things. And then if you look at the history of the 20th century, the major experiments in socialism were in the soc- uh, in the Soviet Union, uh, and that's the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR, and that was a 70-year experiment from 1979 to about 1990 in trying to have a very authoritarian form of socialism. And the end result of that was quite brutal, millions of people killed, uh, and, and an, an additional hundreds of millions of people over the course of generations' lives impoverished. So the human rights track record and the economic track record of the Soviet Union was a disaster, and, uh, people who know something about the history then get worked up about it and say, "Look, (laughs) if in the con- current generation you want to reinstate socialism, um, that's a bad thing." The other major experiments in socialism in the 20th century were in China. Uh, communism is a type of socialism, and so again under Mao Zedong, a m- major experiment in socialism, and again it was a disaster with millions of people dying of starvation and millions more killed for, uh, political repression reasons as well. Uh, Cuba in the Western Hemisphere, some of the South American nations, African nations, other Southeast Asian nations, there's a long history. And I think quite rightly, people who are anti-socialist are insisting that socialists now need to confront that history and be articulate in what they say in response to that history before just in any casual way saying, "Hey, let's try socialism again."
- CWChris Williamson
(laughs) Yeah, that sounds... it sounds like quite a commitment. You know, if that was-
- SHStephen Hicks
Oh, yeah-
- CWChris Williamson
... if someone, if someone said, "Hey..."... this is the, this is the track record of, of what we're in for. Do you, do you fancy a go at this? Uh, you know, the, the, it doesn't s- it doesn't sound fantastic.
- 18:56 – 25:28
Why socialism appeals anyway: idealism, naivety, and the promise of a wise state
- SHStephen Hicks
Right, yes. So, what, what, what then is interesting though about socialism and the, the way it typically has an appeal is for people who don't know very much about the history, don't know a bunch about the political theory, haven't yet taken some economics, and they're, they're younger people, and younger people are idealistic. And what socialism says to them is, "We will give a lot of power to the government, but the government will look after all of society's resources." And we're, say, in Britain, we're in a quite prosperous country, so there's enough to go around, and the government will just make sure that everyone is looked after, and it will have smart people in power, and they will make sure that the ar- the, the economy runs in, in a proper direction. And for, for naive people, I can understand, you know, that that sounds nice, you know. Who doesn't want everybody to be, to be looked after and to have wise people making the kinds of decisions? But that's just as far as you've gone in your political thinking that I would say, um, "Don't yet vote, please."
- CWChris Williamson
(laughs)
- SHStephen Hicks
"Study some history, study some politics, study some economics, and, uh, and, and, and make sure you understand how your (laughs) -
- CWChris Williamson
But Steven, that's, that's a lot effort.
- SHStephen Hicks
... initial nice-hearted intuitions aren't necessarily going to work out in practice."
- CWChris Williamson
That's a lot of effort, you know-
- SHStephen Hicks
It is.
- CWChris Williamson
... having to go and read, having to go and do research, and learn about economics. It's, it's much easier for me to just pick a side and start mudslinging, right?
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah. Oh, well, for sure. So yeah, but then what we, I, I would then say if you recognize that you're looking for shortcuts and you're just emotionally, emotionally interested in, uh, attacking people on the internet, well, you're not a serious person yet. And, and again, please don't vote.
- CWChris Williamson
(laughs)
- SHStephen Hicks
But you're right. Uh, it is a lot of work, but that's, uh, you know, what this huge investment we have in education, where basically in the rich countries, what we say to young people is, "You know, for 18 years, we're going to give you relatively an easy life. We just want you to go to school, you know, clean up your room once in a while, play sports, and take music lessons. But in that 18 years, uh, pay attention in your history class, pay attention in your literature class, and do some reading, so that by the time you are an adult, you, uh, you actually know something about the world, so that when you have the vote, you can, uh, exercise that vote responsibly."
- CWChris Williamson
The problem, and this is the same in every election, is that the vote of a stupid or purely passionate person is worth the same as the vote of a person who is well-informed and has a concrete, grounded position.
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes. So, uh, one immediate response then is to say that, you know, hopefully the vote of one stupid informed person voting Labour is canceled out by the vote of one stupid uninformed person voting Tory.
- CWChris Williamson
(laughs) Okay. Yeah.
- SHStephen Hicks
Right? So that-
- CWChris Williamson
Unless it skews, unless it skews-
- SHStephen Hicks
Right.
- CWChris Williamson
... stupidity one way or the other. Yeah, I get you.
- SHStephen Hicks
Right. And, and it does, depending on, uh, you know, the passions of the moment, and, and so forth.
- CWChris Williamson
Mm-hmm.
- SHStephen Hicks
Uh, and then also, we do know that there are a large number of people who are just apathetic about politics, uh, and they don't vote, and those tend to be the more uninformed people. Um, so, you know, they, they self-select out of the process. So, uh, my view though is that, yeah, electoral politics matters, but it is, uh, more the vote of people who care about politics and who are active. And those people tend to be more informed than the average. So, uh, you know, democratic politics, for all of its weaknesses, uh, is, is not that bad, and it certainly is better than the alternatives historically.
- CWChris Williamson
Yeah. It, it sounds to me like postmodernism is quite a luxury position. And given the fact that we're currently in the middle of a global pandemic, what, what does that mean for postmodernism? Does it mean that we're gonna see postmodernism receding? Is it a luxury that can only be indulged when times are good?
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes. Now, that's a very interesting question, because it is the case that postmodernism has been, uh, initially a high intellectual project coming out of philosophy departments in the middle part of the century, and then extending through higher education. And much of higher education now is a, a luxury good, uh, consumed by, you know, relatively well-off people in well-off countries. Uh, so, and a large amount of it is, uh, is subsidized. So, uh, that does seem to be borne out that when you go to the poorer nations of the world, they tend to be much more reality-focused. They're aware of poverty. They want their lives to be improved. And so, uh, when they look around, they're more likely to say, uh, "You know, what are the policies economically and the political systems that have succeeded at putting food on the table?" And, uh, the track record there, again, is that it's been the individualistic, free market-friendly, liberal democratic nations around the world that have been successful, so those models are much more attractive. Postmodernism is less attractive. Uh, when I was a visiting professor in Eastern Europe, uh, in Poland in particular, they had the experience of socialism. They knew what, uh, political brutality is like. They know what p- socialism in practice means. They're looking at Western Europe, they're looking at North America, where again, individualism, liberal democracy, being pro-scientific have worked. They're much more attracted to that. Postmodernism has much less...... traction there. So, I think your hypothesis has a lot to it.
- CWChris Williamson
Yeah, I get that. So, looping back now to socialism and its, its, um, less than rosy track record. I know this is a, uh, complex question that would require a lot of different iterations to m- make it to, uh, give an answer. Uh, can socialism work full stop? Because it doesn't sound to me, based on the examples that you've given, that a fully socialist society has a tremendously long shelf life.
- 25:28 – 30:37
Can socialism work at any scale? Freedom, bureaucracy, and moral agency
- SHStephen Hicks
Right. So yeah, the- the evidence... If you want to have a- a particularly a medium or large-sized society, the only way to do that is, uh, through giving individuals lots of freedom, and then we're pretty good at, uh, working out voluntary networks. You know, large-scale businesses, large-scale market, stock markets, bond markets to move capital around and make investment decisions and so on. So those are very effective at harnessing the intelligence and the efforts of hundreds, thousands, or- or millions of people. And just at an organizational level, concentrating power in the hands of the government and leaving it up to a few dozen decisions to m- uh, uh, people to make the decisions for all of an economy, that ends up always being very bureaucratic, very cumbersome, and it, uh, it just sets itself up for an abuse of power, uh, and you end up in a dictatorship type of- of society. But over and beyond all of that, just on moral grounds, there is something offensive about telling young people that you cannot pursue your own dream. You can't make your own choices about what your career is going to be, that we don't trust you enough to take self-responsibility for your own economic lives, uh, to be your own entrepreneur. Uh, so on moral grounds, I think the- the liberal capitalist nations are far superior, because what they're saying to individuals is, "Look, your life is yours. You should, uh, take responsibility for your own life. You're not a child anymore. We have confidence in you that you can make an- a go of your own life, uh, uh, uh, and be your own entrepreneur. If you want to be an artist, you wanna go and make beautiful cars, you want to be a- a- a- an actor, you want to start whatever business it is, go for it." That strikes me as a much more moral approach to human living than saying, "You know, we all have to band together in a group. We don't think, uh, people can make it on their own. Uh, uh, we need to have wise people make decisions for you and make sure that you're looked after." It's very condescending, uh, as well. Now, all of that said, um, I do- I don't want to say that socialism can't work, because there are small scale experiments in socialism that, uh, have proved to be quite long-lived. So for example, if you think about, uh, religious communities, there are lots of monasteries and convents, uh, where you have a small group of like-minded religious people who all have the same goal. They all want to worship in the same way, and they will all live very socialistically. Everybody, you know, sleeping in communal halls, eating and praying at the same time, and working together on all projects. And it seems to be the case that if your community is no longer- no larger than say, 100 people or so where everybody can keep track of everybody, that you can have a pretty long-lived socialistic community. There are also examples now, multi-generational, of, uh, non-religious communities. There are lots of, uh, uh, hippie communes or communalists, you know, people in California or Oregon who say, "You know, we want to drop out of larger American society. You know, somebody's got a couple of hundred acres, we're all going to live on the farm, we're all going to work together on the farm, and live and eat, uh, and share families communally." Uh, and again, as long as the commune doesn't get too large, those do seem to be able to, uh, to, uh... and everybody's committed to the same goals, those do seem to be workable. My only question then is, you know, and you know, as a- as someone who's liberal libertarian the way I am, I have no problem with people dropping out of society and starting their own communes, as- as, you know, if they want to. Uh, but, you know, is that really, uh, your moral ideal for how human beings want to live? And if you are a communalist, uh, you want to start your religious commune or your hippie commune, are you respecting other people's freedom not to have to join your commune? And if people do co- join your commune and it's not working out for them, do you give them the right to opt out and go back and, uh, and pursue their own dream in some other form? So-
- CWChris Williamson
Yeah. Uh-
- SHStephen Hicks
... that's what I would say to that.
- CWChris Williamson
Yeah, it's, um... People need to be liberal a- liberal enough to allow individuals and groups to go and do that, but also liberal enough to accept the opinions of the dissenters and/or the people who want to exit and then leave or never even enter in the first place. Um-
- SHStephen Hicks
Right.
- CWChris Williamson
... there's- there's a lot of moving parts.
- SHStephen Hicks
And that's precisely what strong socialists will say. They will... And that's why they often want to go the political route. Rather than starting a voluntary commune, they want to enact socialism politically-
- CWChris Williamson
Mandate it.
- SHStephen Hicks
... but once it's enacted politically, then you've got the power of the police on your side, and you can make people follow your vision.
- 30:37 – 39:12
The ‘slippage’ from commune to nation-state: scale, enforcement, and minority rights
- CWChris Williamson
So, what happens? Where does the slippage occur from going from... 'Cause that sounds... You know, the- I might not do it for the rest of my life, but if- if you said, "Hey Chris, there's 99 other people on this- on this farm. Do you fancy, you know, a couple of years just chilling out and hoeing some ground and eating some vegetables?" I'm like, "All right. You know, that doesn't sound too bad." But at some point-
- SHStephen Hicks
Mm-hmm.
- CWChris Williamson
... between that... and a nation state, there is, there's a, there's a, a problem. Is it that the total cumulative amount of power, um, is too easy to wield in a way which is militarized or, um, sort of dictatorial? What- what's the-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
... what's happening there?
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah. Yeah, one of the problems is the problem of scale. So, uh, the small sales com- communes don't, uh, seem to max out at about 150, 'cause then there's the question of the enforcement mechanism. You get, say, 100. Let's keep the numbers simple. Suppose you have 100 people and you might then say, you know, "I'm, I'm, I'm a, I'm a voluntary person. I'm wanting people to opt in and out." Eh, but you're still going to have the issue, what happens if you, you know, you talk about the issues, you get together in your local council, and 92 of people agree, uh, but eight people disagree?
- CWChris Williamson
Mmm.
- SHStephen Hicks
What are you going to do about the minority who disagree in that case? And in those cases, what seems to happen is most of the time, the eight people will, with some, you know, mild, uh, uh, pressure put on them say, "Okay, I will go along with it, uh, uh, in this case." But, uh, once you get beyond 150, it's, becomes unwieldy to be having councils, "Let's get everybody together and talk over this decision and that decision." So, you start to have delegated groups, delegated committees who are then authorised to make decisions in certain areas, and they then are a minority that has power over the majority. And then once they have the min- power of the minority over the majority, they will start passing legislation that will, uh, uh, protect their power, increase their power, and the majority is increasingly, um, uh, not able to, to respond. So, once you then start to say, "Okay, now we have 10,000 people," you know, that might be a, a relatively small town-
- CWChris Williamson
Mm-hmm.
- SHStephen Hicks
... but there's no way you can get 10,000 people together on a regular basis to discuss policy. So, necessarily, you have a town council of 10 or 20 people and they have a lot of power, uh, and eve- and eventually that power is necessarily abused. Then when you start talking about organisations that involve a million people or 10 million people, uh, it slips into dictatorship pretty quickly.
- CWChris Williamson
Mm. It does seem like a very slippery slope. The, um-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
... the distribution of resources requires a concentration of power in order-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes.
- CWChris Williamson
... to determine how to distribute those resources. And because the distribution of resources appears to be mostly frictionless, that-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes.
- CWChris Williamson
... the people who are in power therefore have even fewer barriers in order to be able to take advantage of the situation. Is that right?
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes. That's exactly right.
- CWChris Williamson
I've got it.
- SHStephen Hicks
And even-
- CWChris Williamson
I've got it. I understand. Yes.
- SHStephen Hicks
(laughs) .
- CWChris Williamson
Steven, you've done it.
- SHStephen Hicks
And even if... Yeah, even if it's not the me- minority grabbing the power and then turning it to their own purposes, uh, even to the extent that you have a majority, uh, you might say, "Okay, now we're still going to do it democratically. We have this small group. They're just going to be able to make proposals, but every time it's a major proposal, we have to put it to the electorate." Uh, you're still going to have the majority of people voting for something, and, uh, if you're in the minority, your, your rights and your individual prerogatives can be suppressed. So, you know, uh, you know, what happens if we say, you know, uh, uh, uh, a majority of people, um, are of one ethnic group, uh, and they want to vote to suppress the rights of a minority, or the majority happens to be women or males, or they're a racial group or they're a religious group, you still have the suppression of minority interests. That's a, that's a, that's a chronic problem. So, that's why the seriously liberal individualistic societies have had severe checks on the power of, of, uh, of, uh, of society. They said, you know, "We're, we're going to separate the legislative branch from the executive branch, from the judicial branch so that no one part of the government has too much power, or we will have explicitly constitutional provisions, things that we're just not going to vote on. We can't vote on whether you are allowed to believe in this god or not to believe in, in, in gods at all. Religion is off limits. Individuals can do their, their own things. If you decide that you're going to be, uh, married with a woman or with a man yet we're not going to vote on who gets to have sex with your husband or your wife, right?"
- CWChris Williamson
(laughs)
- SHStephen Hicks
"That's your voluntary choice, right? The democracy and the government has no say in those sorts of things. So, we explicitly take things off the table, uh, to protect the individual's freedoms in all those areas." But socialist, uh, uh, principles in, uh, uh, uh, the socialist approaches and principles can't do that because to the extent they say that you as an individual belong to society, or you as an individual have to be subordinated to social decisions and all major decisions about the economy, about politics, about religion, about science, about sexuality should be social, well, uh, there are no protections for individual freedom in the long run.
- CWChris Williamson
It seems like there's been an awful lot of work over the last, let's say, half millennia on creating freedoms, r- removing barriers-
- SHStephen Hicks
Mm-hmm.
- CWChris Williamson
... allowing people to have sovereignty and creating a meritocracy where people can vote with their actions, uh, specifically obviously their money, um, and their votes l- literally. Um-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes.
- 39:12 – 45:14
Postmodernism after socialism’s failures: a strategy for true believers—and beyond the left
- CWChris Williamson
... I've got a quote from, so your, your book Explaining Postmodernism. You said that the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary. So, that-
- SHStephen Hicks
Mm-hmm.
- CWChris Williamson
That suggests that if socialism were to succeed, postmodernism would no longer be necessary. We've got a, a-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes.
- CWChris Williamson
... an economy that's all over the place at the moment. There's a populist yearning for some form of socialism right now. So, as-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes.
- CWChris Williamson
... socialism becomes more prominent, will postmodernism lose its appeal? And also, I guess, h- h- how do you see the current, uh, global environment relating to people's, uh, socialist, uh, desires?
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah. Yeah, so that's a, uh, connecting postmodernism to socialism, uh, to loop back to where we began, and, and thanks for the plug of my book. (laughs) I appreciate that.
- CWChris Williamson
Linked in, linked in show notes below. Available at Amazon and all good book suppliers, of course.
- SHStephen Hicks
Nice. Yes, good. So yeah, that is a, a thesis about how postmodernism arose. Uh, um, so what is interesting about the first generation of all of the major postmodernists is that they all were far left in their political orientation, some form of, of, of socialism. And the problem was, from that perspective, was that socialism was becoming a disaster in all of its major experiments and also in terms of the, just the academic and intellectual arguments for and against socialism. So, the, the issue then is, uh, you know, what happens if you are a true believer in a political ideology, but just, uh, all of the data and all of the arguments seem to be going against you? Uh, well, we do know that some people will be open-minded, and they will be intellectually honest, and they will say, "Okay, you know, I had this hypothesis. I had this theory, and the arguments are against it, and the data are against it. I just have to reject my theory and change my mind and try some other kind of politics." But we do know that there are lots of people who will double down on a theory that they know is failing and try some intellectual machinations in order to save the theory in various ways. So, if I can, you know, an, an a- an analogy I like to use, uh, in this is if you think about religion, you know, there are lots of people when they are young, they're raised in a given religious tradition, and they think it's beautiful, and it's true, and it's noble, and a big part of their identity is tied up in believing that that religion is true. But then you, uh, become older, and you are aware that there are lots of criticisms of your religion, and they seem like they're pretty good criticisms, and you study the history of your religion, and you see that people who are members of your religion did all sorts of nasty things and, and so forth. Well, what do you do? Well, a lot of people will change their mind about their religion. They will, uh, they will, uh, you know, not be, uh, be religious anymore, or they will leave that religion and go looking for, for a better religion. But we know there are lots of people who will double down on their religion and reaffirm their commitment to religion, and they will resort to all sorts of, you know, transparent sometimes, but other kinds of more sophisticated, but nonetheless dishonest strategies to try to, uh, deflect any criticisms of their religion, or they just close their mind and, and double down on their faith. The same thing happens in politics and for some sub-movements of socialism t- in the latter part of the 20th century, a generation or so ago, that's what happened. Uh, and the postmodern connection is, is, is quite clear. Lots of people were attracted to socialism, but at the same time, they recognized the bad track record of socialism and that the, the, the prevailing strategies, intellectual strategies for socialism were not working, and postmodernism was an attractive new strategy for them to, to adopt.... now, that's the first half of your question. The second half of your question was, um, about the, the current global climate.
- CWChris Williamson
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
- SHStephen Hicks
And there are people who are not left, politically, or not socialist, politically, who are also now adopting some post-modern strategies, so you can see some people on the far right, also now, uh, catching up and using some post-modern strategies, so they will argue, "You know, this liberal individualism, the idea that everybody should be scientific and rational, and that we should have maybe one open, global economy, we're opposed to that." And instead, they will argue that, "We're not socialists, but we do believe in our ethnicity," for example. "I'm Hungarian," or, "I'm German," or, "I..." A- and you can find these people in Britain as well and, as well as in America.
- CWChris Williamson
Mm-hmm.
- SHStephen Hicks
But what they will, uh, do is they will say, "It's my national identity and my ethnic in- identity that makes me what I am. So yeah, it's not me as an individual pursuing my dream, but rather, I'm born into an ethnic group or, uh, uh, uh, a, a, a national group, and that has made me who I am, and my first loyalty should be to that national group. And, uh, if you were born in a different ethnic group or a different national group, there's no way that you and I can rationally discuss our differences. Uh, ultimately, it's your group versus my group." And so they're arguing for kind of a, a nationalistic or an ethnic collectivism, and they're opposed to, you know, this modern, individualistic, free market, globalist society, as they put it, as well, but at the same time, they're not socialist. So, post-modernism is, uh, having its inroads in other sectors as well.
- CWChris Williamson
That's so interesting. It's a little bit like a hydra, isn't it? (laughs)
- SHStephen Hicks
It is, yeah, for sure.
- 45:14 – 53:35
Ego, intellectual honesty, and publicly admitting error (a practical antidote)
- CWChris Williamson
Um, so I- one of the things, again, my particular interest is more in, uh, the way that individuals operate, and as you're talking and explaining, I'm genuinely just learning along here, as I'm sure that a lot of the audience are as well, kind of, uh, treading on fresh ground here, and learning about these new areas and different ways of political thought, philosophical thought. I'm relating this to the way that I understand people to operate, right? So, I know-
- SHStephen Hicks
Mm-hmm.
- CWChris Williamson
... e- everyone that's listening has had a discussion with someone, it might be their partner, it might be their, their friend, might just be a person on the street, but probably definitely someone on the internet where you know they're wrong.
- SHStephen Hicks
(laughs)
- CWChris Williamson
They might actually kind of know that they're wrong as well.
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes.
- CWChris Williamson
And you say, "Hey, you're wrong. Steven, you're, r- you, you don't know what you're talking about." Or, "You do know what you're talking about, but you're r- you're still wrong." And-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
... those people decide to double down. They dig their heels in further. They decide to push their position even harder, and it i- it increases how militantly they believe in what they're doing. Now-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes.
- CWChris Williamson
... you know, when, when we're talking about I think Iron Man's better than the Hulk, and you actually think that the Hulk's better than Iron Man, or Thor is better, or Wonder Woman, or whatever, um, that's fine. I, I feel like when people are talking w- this vehemently and allowing cognitive biases that really you should have overcome with a, uh, a bit of, a bit of life experience, some learning, and a couple of hundred hours of mindfulness practice, when you have people who are able to create entire intellectual and political arenas of thought which i- have effects for generations thereafter, that, can there not be, c- is there not a way that we can protect ourselves? That we shouldn't be allow- (laughs) people shouldn't be able to have, wield so much power. It's like, it's like giving a child a nuclear bomb. You know?
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes.
- CWChris Williamson
It's like this, th- this, the individual that is wielding this incredibly powerful weapon actually doesn't have a clue what they're doing, and is completely at the mercy of all of the same idiotic primal responses that me and you have, and everyone that's listening.
- SHStephen Hicks
Mm. Mm-hmm. No, I think that's, uh, that's right. That's perceptive and it's well-stated about a fundamental problem that we have. Uh, now I, I'm somewhat optimistic. I think we're doing better in the early 21st century than people did in previous centuries, but it still is, uh, easy to be dismayed when we're on the internet and we realize still how widespread the problems are, and it really does come down to a, an individual moral choice that each of us has to make for ourselves, you know? Am I, no matter what I want to believe, am I really paying attention to the evidence? Doing my best to follow trains of logic, particularly on things that I know are complicated and that I've not necessarily studied for a great deal of time? Am I willing, uh, to say, "I made a mistake?" And that's, that's hard for everybody to do. But if you're intellectually honest, you know some things you've not thought a lot about, you know some things are complicated, you know that along the way when you were younger, you probably picked up lots of beliefs semi-consciously. Are you willing to re-examine those beliefs and say, "I made a mistake. Yes or no? Uh, am I willing to change my mind?" And then even more difficultly, "Am I, uh, willing to do that publicly?" So, uh, uh, uh, you know, it-... if I go on the internet and I'm having a discussion, I really would urge many people, uh, uh, to try this as an actual experiment. Get into a discussion about something and make a point to say, "Uh, you are right and I am wrong about something." You know, get in- get to it, into an issue where you know, uh, uh, someone is smart and knows more than you do, and open yourself up to that. It can be very cathartic, uh, to publicly admit that you have made a mistake, you know, on, on some issue. And if you're not willing to go that, uh, that route, then you do need to do some, some self-examination.
- CWChris Williamson
(laughs) Steven, I absolutely love that as an experiment.
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
So, I had, I had, uh, Dave Rubin from Rubin Report on last night talking about v- very similar, very, very, uh, similar topics, and I said exactly the same. Eckhart Tolle says in, in one of his books that, um, the reason that we fear being proved wrong in an argument is because it is tantamount to the destruction of our ego, and that sense-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
... that dread, it's like standing on the edge of a, of a cliff, you know?
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
And you're looking over and you can feel it-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
... rises inside of you. You feel it in, sort of moves up from your stomach up into your chest, and it get, you get all hot-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
... and you, your shoulders start to come up, and you start to hear that slight tinnitus sound in your ears.
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
All, you know-
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
Everyone that's listening has experienced this. Oh, it's, it's anger and it's rage, and yet you, like, just, it's fine.
- SHStephen Hicks
Yeah.
- 53:35 – 56:46
Closing: Hicks’ ‘Liberalism, Pro and Con’ as a primer for political literacy
- CWChris Williamson
Hey, if Bertrand Russell can do it, there's, there's, you know, the rest, the rest of us can as well. Look, Steven, I've, uh, I've genuinely learned an absolute ton this evening, so thank you so much for coming on. Your book's Liberalism, Pro and Con. That's the new one, you got a couple of minutes.
- SHStephen Hicks
That's the new one, yeah.
- CWChris Williamson
Tell us, tell us, tell us what Liberalism... And why is it Pro and Con, and not Pros and Cons?
- SHStephen Hicks
Yes. Yes. Well, it's a little bit generic. The book is a, is a primer. That then is to say, I don't take a position in that book except for a methodological position, and that is then to say if we're going to think about liberalism, socialism, conservatism, libertarianism, or whatever, the first thing we need to do is to recognize these are complex issues, and there's lots of smart and well-meaning people who develop lots of really good arguments. So, what I've done is identified 15 most prominent powerful arguments for liberalism and presented them in the book, but then at the same time, uh, 15 powerful anti-liberal arguments in the book, and given lots of quotations from the major protagonists, uh, from historical times and contemporary times. So, my marketing pitch for the book is, before you make up your mind about anything in politics, these are the 30 arguments, pro and con, that you need to know. Uh, and if you don't know those arguments yet, you still have some, some homework to do. So, hopefully it should be some fun homework, but nonetheless, this is what you need to, to study to get up to speed. And by reading those 30 arguments, then you know Marx, you know Aristotle, you know Nietzsche, you know Heidegger, you know all of the big names and the arguments. Then you're in a position to make up your own mind where your political views stand, whether you're more pro-liberal or anti-liberal.
- CWChris Williamson
I love that. I think that's really, uh, uh, really, uh, good. And what did we say? You know, looping it right back to the very beginning, people need to be educated. This is the sort of thing that people should be learning in school. So, maybe you're the, the surrogate teacher that we never had, Steven. Speaker 1: Absolutely.
- SHStephen Hicks
Well, thanks for that. Yeah, I am a philosophy professor, so I think a lot about my students and how to get them up the learning curve, and yeah, this book is, uh, is part of that project. It's directed primarily to, you know, thoughtful, thinking people of any age, but especially for, uh, university-level students who are, uh, taking their, uh, first serious steps into thinking about politics, economics and philosophy.
- CWChris Williamson
Amazing. Well, it will be linked in the show notes below along with Explaining Postmodernism and Steven's fantastic Twitter. Steven, man, I, I, I'm gonna have to find another reason to get you back on. Hopefully not a global pandemic-
- SHStephen Hicks
(laughs)
- CWChris Williamson
... but, uh-
- SHStephen Hicks
We will work it out, yes, for sure, Chris. Great questions. Enjoyed, uh, enjoyed your, your tone of voice, your, your benevolent spirit-
- CWChris Williamson
(laughs)
- SHStephen Hicks
... and thanks for having me on.
- CWChris Williamson
Thank you so much, Steven. I'll catch you later on.
- SHStephen Hicks
All right. Bye for now.
- NANarrator
(instrumental music)
Episode duration: 56:47
Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript
Transcript of episode QBr_jnbMY5w
