Book Argues Liberalism Can Improve by Embracing Its Critics

Liberal societies hold a moral advantage over socialism, primarily because they champion freedom and individual choice, according to a new book. While socialist regimes demand obedience, liberal societies offer liberty, provided that others' freedoms are also respected. This principle allows even staunch critics of liberalism, such as Marxists, to thrive within these societies, engaging in various professions and academic pursuits without fear of persecution.

This inherent tolerance and openness are central to the argument presented in Catarina Starfelt's "Liberalism after the Return of History." The book, published by Timbro, examines the challenges and blind spots that have emerged since the fall of communism and Francis Fukuyama's declaration of the "end of history." Starfelt respectfully engages with contemporary post-liberal thinkers, including Patrick Deneen, who argues that liberalism's emphasis on human malleability is flawed.

“

Socialists can, in other words, become anything they want in liberal societies, except executioners and oppressors.

Starfelt meticulously refutes Deneen's claims, using references to liberal thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith to demonstrate that liberalism does not assume humans are inherently good or infinitely malleable. However, she also acknowledges valid points within Deneen's critique. The book further explores dialogues with the fictional characters of French author Michel Houellebecq, particularly middle-aged men who have lost their zest for life and express bitterness and hatred towards society.

Through these dialogues, Starfelt aims to understand the sources of disillusionment and discontent that fuel anti-liberal sentiments, which have emerged not only from the left but also from the right. The book posits that liberal societies can attract these critics, or at least foster peaceful tolerance, by demonstrating their capacity to accommodate diverse viewpoints and even benefit from constructive criticism. The core message is not to condemn freedom but to improve it, suggesting that a robust liberalism can withstand and integrate critiques, thereby strengthening itself.

“

Liberal societies accommodate, and can often be enriched by, their critics. That is a crucial reason why they are better.