What do you think?
Rate this book
The Poverty of Liberalism
The Poverty of Liberalism
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
Paperback
First published September 1, 1969
5 people are currently reading
139 people want to read
About the author
Robert Paul Wolff
61 books44 followersRobert Paul Wolff was an American political philosopher and professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Wolff has written widely on topics in political philosophy, including Marxism, tolerance (against liberalism and in favor of anarchism), political justification, and democracy.
Wolff has written widely on topics in political philosophy, including Marxism, tolerance (against liberalism and in favor of anarchism), political justification, and democracy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 14, 2020
I guess the general idea here is that the old liberal consensus approach to politics is riven through with internal contradictions. On this critical aspect I can agree, but of course the problem is where he intends to go as the alternative. The left of today, the more radical left will find something good in his work I expect. If the truly radical, and anarchic dreams of the left could be realised in a genuinely free community this could indeed be a good thing. The problem is that it never works out that way. It always turns out to be an unrealistic pipe dream that ends up making things worse than they already are, due to its completely ahistorical lack of awareness of in the impact of values and traditions on our sense of identity. It thinks it can place an isolated atomic individual in the here and now, and reason its way to a reasonable social arrangement. But, it just cannot be done. We never have the isolated atomic individual in the first place. And so its the typical alternation between dystopian and utopian thinking of the radical left, informed by a fundamental misunderstanding and lack of awareness of their own human nature. We have to start from real human nature and real human beings, not from isolated atoms. I can't agree with the lefts radical approach to any of these social and political problems, because they always misunderstand their own state of being and confuse what they would like to be with what is, and mire us all in a confusion of well wishing ideologies and moral brow beating in an endless circle of self deception that sucks the life force and human spirit and energy out of us all.
A further point to make is that he very specifically on the notion of liberty restricts himself to criticising Mill's utilitarian defence of it. He seems to be quite keen on a utilitarian style approach to certain things: welfare measures, science telling people to do things because science knows better, etc... yet he sees Mill as wrong and inconsistent in applying this to the defence of liberty. This should give Wolff pause to think of the dangers and encroachments on liberty that a utilitarian approach would lead to, the likes of which we are now seeing more and more. But, he seems to be quite happy about those encroachments somehow, perhaps he is confident his anarchic safe haven will protect him from encroachment? Regardless, it would have been a lot better for him to argue against in more detail other conceptions of liberty also. Given, from my case, that I would never find a utilitarian justification of liberty convincing or even worth considering, for the kind of reasons above, where I know what repercussions that non-commital , non-principled, wishy washy utilitarian approach has in terms of the gradual erosion of liberty and respect for human freedoms in line with totalitarian tiptoe. Given that it promotes a feelings-based politics which will always be subject to the whim of the loudest emotional complainers. And these people will always be fakers, shouting for some cause they don't believe in in any genuine principled way, but purely because of the emotional impact. And each day, week, month and year will have its emotionally impacting whim of the time insisting we kowtow to it that will contort any principles we once had into jagged, messed up pretzels.
A further point to make is that he very specifically on the notion of liberty restricts himself to criticising Mill's utilitarian defence of it. He seems to be quite keen on a utilitarian style approach to certain things: welfare measures, science telling people to do things because science knows better, etc... yet he sees Mill as wrong and inconsistent in applying this to the defence of liberty. This should give Wolff pause to think of the dangers and encroachments on liberty that a utilitarian approach would lead to, the likes of which we are now seeing more and more. But, he seems to be quite happy about those encroachments somehow, perhaps he is confident his anarchic safe haven will protect him from encroachment? Regardless, it would have been a lot better for him to argue against in more detail other conceptions of liberty also. Given, from my case, that I would never find a utilitarian justification of liberty convincing or even worth considering, for the kind of reasons above, where I know what repercussions that non-commital , non-principled, wishy washy utilitarian approach has in terms of the gradual erosion of liberty and respect for human freedoms in line with totalitarian tiptoe. Given that it promotes a feelings-based politics which will always be subject to the whim of the loudest emotional complainers. And these people will always be fakers, shouting for some cause they don't believe in in any genuine principled way, but purely because of the emotional impact. And each day, week, month and year will have its emotionally impacting whim of the time insisting we kowtow to it that will contort any principles we once had into jagged, messed up pretzels.
September 10, 2022
I found Wolff's work when I sought out a summary/critique to read as a companion to A Theory of Justice. It has five chapters, each dedicated to a philosophical concept relevant to liberalism: liberty, loyalty, power, tolerance, and community.
The first chapter is a broadside against John Stuart Mill. He shows that on utilitarian grounds there is a strong empirical case for society regulating certain things, even in the "internal sphere" of ham experience. Mill would not agree, but many welfare state liberals do.
In the second chapter, Wolff argues that there are a variety of conceptions of loyalty, but for most of the conceptions embraced by liberals, the state has no right to demand it of people.
The third chapter is an analysis of the concept of power that relies heavily on The Power Elite by C.
Wright Mills. Wolff argues that there isn't really a power elite in the US. But his main criticism of liberalism here is that it ignores the fact that many matters of social importance are not objects of decision at all, but rather left to the market.
This chapter relies on technical definitions to naively claim that the US is still largely democratic. It underestimates barriers to democracy like media consolidation, gerrymandering, incarceration, etc. But his point about capitalism removing things from democratic deliberation is a good one.
The fourth chapter is nominally about tolerance, but it's a critique of the liberal political idea of "pluralist democracy."
Chapter five argues that there are social values which cannot be reduced to private values experienced on an individual basis. "Social values of community" rely on reciprocity of awareness--sharing an experience together. This chapter is weakened by a particularly confusing example. I found myself arguing against him even though I agree with his broader point.
Wolff's writing has the technical style typical of analytical philosophy, and I appreciate its rigor. He utilizes ideas from both the right and left (the last chapter has Oakeshott and Marx!) to make his points.
The first chapter is a broadside against John Stuart Mill. He shows that on utilitarian grounds there is a strong empirical case for society regulating certain things, even in the "internal sphere" of ham experience. Mill would not agree, but many welfare state liberals do.
In the second chapter, Wolff argues that there are a variety of conceptions of loyalty, but for most of the conceptions embraced by liberals, the state has no right to demand it of people.
The third chapter is an analysis of the concept of power that relies heavily on The Power Elite by C.
Wright Mills. Wolff argues that there isn't really a power elite in the US. But his main criticism of liberalism here is that it ignores the fact that many matters of social importance are not objects of decision at all, but rather left to the market.
This chapter relies on technical definitions to naively claim that the US is still largely democratic. It underestimates barriers to democracy like media consolidation, gerrymandering, incarceration, etc. But his point about capitalism removing things from democratic deliberation is a good one.
The fourth chapter is nominally about tolerance, but it's a critique of the liberal political idea of "pluralist democracy."
Chapter five argues that there are social values which cannot be reduced to private values experienced on an individual basis. "Social values of community" rely on reciprocity of awareness--sharing an experience together. This chapter is weakened by a particularly confusing example. I found myself arguing against him even though I agree with his broader point.
Wolff's writing has the technical style typical of analytical philosophy, and I appreciate its rigor. He utilizes ideas from both the right and left (the last chapter has Oakeshott and Marx!) to make his points.
March 4, 2021
Some fun digs at Mill. Overall very charming but extremely dated, especially w/r/t race.
April 18, 2016
I read the German translation (edition suhrkamp) of this many years ago and it made a huge impression on me. The book is organized into several chapter essays: Liberty, Loyalty, Power, Tolerance, Community. In "Liberty" Wolff takes John Stuart Mill to task for presenting liberty as a utilitarian, individualist value -- thereby avoiding collectivist utility. In "Power" Wolff examines how we often outsource our decision-making to private entities. In "Tolerance" and "Community" he looks at our common values and why it is that we organize ourselves into a society -- though, ultimatel, the community AS A COMMUNITY is never heard from again. Instead of common values, we have ongoing power struggles. And all this is just peachy to Liberals, hence the title of the book.
March 4, 2018
A useful text both from a critical and historical standpoint. Wolff demonstrates tremendous foresight in this text as he essentially predicts the communitarian position whilst also maintaining a commitment to Marxist thought. The early portions of the book take aim at utilitarian versions of liberalism (specifically through the work of Mill) and their potential to work toward "conservative" ends - Wolff is particularly interested in disabusing liberalism of Mill's commitment to non-intervention. Wolff's intention is not to save liberal theory, mind you, but to point to its logical development into welfare liberalism over libertarianism.
The section on loyalty will sound familiar to readers of Sandel or Walzer. Wolff is slightly more categorical than either of those two writers, though his approach leads him to similar conclusions about the impossibly of loyalty oaths and the importance of group identification.
The sections on power and tolerance will likely appeal more toward political scientists and policy oriented thinkers than the more theory-heavy chapters surrounding those sections. The Tolerance section is interesting if one we're interested in comlaring Wolff's work with that of Rawls.
The final section of this book is a unique blend of proto-communitarian thought coupled with Wolff's adherence to Marx with a Rousseau-esque twist. It's quite pretty - Wolff is a very thoughtful and patient writer despite his admittedly critical approach. A wonderful and fun little book for the academic and layman interested in 20th Century political thought.
The section on loyalty will sound familiar to readers of Sandel or Walzer. Wolff is slightly more categorical than either of those two writers, though his approach leads him to similar conclusions about the impossibly of loyalty oaths and the importance of group identification.
The sections on power and tolerance will likely appeal more toward political scientists and policy oriented thinkers than the more theory-heavy chapters surrounding those sections. The Tolerance section is interesting if one we're interested in comlaring Wolff's work with that of Rawls.
The final section of this book is a unique blend of proto-communitarian thought coupled with Wolff's adherence to Marx with a Rousseau-esque twist. It's quite pretty - Wolff is a very thoughtful and patient writer despite his admittedly critical approach. A wonderful and fun little book for the academic and layman interested in 20th Century political thought.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews