The life and times of liberal democracy

by C. B Macpherson

democracy became embedded in the shifting ideas of social equality

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Political Science, Theory, Academic

128 pages, Hardcover

First published January 5, 1977

Reviews

[Eren Buğlalılar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kanadalı siyaset bilimci, sanki-Marksist Macpherson burjuva demokrasi teorilerini üç model altında incelemiş. Yazara göre 19. yüzyıldan önce bir liberal demokrasi teorisinden söz etmek mümkün değil. Platon'dan Rousseau'ya kadar tüm demokrasi teorileri, ekonomiyi ve siyaseti birbirinden ayırmadan demokrasiyi bir tür komünizm ya da en azından ekonomik sınıf ayrımlarının derinleşmesine izin verilmeyen bir sistem olarak tasarladılar.

Ekonominin siyasetten ayrı düşünülmesi, sınıf ayrımlarının derinleştiği bir toplumda da demokrasinin var olabileceğinin ileri sürülmesi Bentham, Mill ve J.S. Mill ile mümkün oldu diyor Macpherson. Bunu mümkün kılanınsa kitlelerin sanki siyasete katılıyorlarmış yanılgısını yaratan, ancak aslında kapitalistlerin kendi politikalarını uygulamalarını sağlayan siyasi partiler sistemi olduğunu savunuyor. Yazar daha sonra bu kabul üzerine inşa edilmiş olan 3 farklı liberal demokrasi modelini inceliyor.

Kısa ve akıcı bir deneme, ancak önerdiği çözümler eskimiş. Emperyalizm teorisini ihmal ettiği için de, emperyalist merkezlerdeki ile yeni-sömürgelerdeki siyasal sistemlerin birbirleriyle nasıl ilişkili olduğunu gösteremiyor. Emperyalist merkezlerde işçi sınıfına sağlanan yüksek ücretler ve geniş ekonomik, siyasal hakların (liberal demokrasilerin) kaynağı, sömürgelerden çekilen artı-değerde, eşitsiz değişimde değil mi? Emperyalizm aracılığıyla kendi krizini yeni-sömürgelere ihraç eden merkez ülkeler, buralardaki sözde demokratik kıyıcı rejimlerin sorumlusu ve hamisi değil mi?

[Michael Percy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I discovered this work after it was assigned as an alternative textbook in lieu of David Held's "Models of Democracy" (for those who could get their hands on it - as it was out of print at the time) for an undergraduate political science course about 20 years ago. If there was ever a text that inspired me to become a political scientist - this was it. Need I say more?

[Pavol Hardos · Rating 2 out of 5]

Macpherson offers a short, concise, and a half-way useful way of looking at the development of democratic thought through his "models" of democracy.

The first half of the books is fine, the first two models of democracy are very useful for the explication of the history of democratic thought, covering the earliest 'protective' model and the latter, more idealistic, 'developmental' model.

Unfortunately, the book is badly dated and it is the second half that shows it most clearly: the third model is the by-now classical Schumpeterian minimalist model of democracy (lumped together with the subsequent pluralist elaborations and developments), which is badly short-shifted by the author's decision to assume it is not good enough. Why? It makes 'market' assumptions. Market! Boo! And anyway, because it isn't 'democratic'. Why? Well, it just isn't.

You don't even get the breathing room to process the question-begging before the final chapter, dedicated to the 'participatory' model, leaves you LOL-ing or howling (depending on your humors). You don't learn what the participatory model is, but it simply is better, because, hey, it's participatory. The chapter devotes a lot of space to speculation about 'how to achieve' IT, without spelling out what IT is. Then in the final few pages, the author offers some downright bonkers idea of what it could mean in the vaguest terms, but even he is forced to admit it's unrealistic. And I am not necessarily even talking about the worker councils or his conviction that Czechoslovakia was on track to some wonderful socialist participatory regime before the August of '68.

Like I said, the book painfully did not age well. Not worth to read beyond page 76.

[Elia Mantovani · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found this essay too technical for a beginner, at least because it does not provide any clear definition of the theoretical elements the Author frequently uses (e.g democracy, capitalism, class, parliaments, etc.). Moreover the distinction of the models is kind of arbitrary. On the one hand it makes sense to begin with the first utilitarian generation but on the other he excludes plenty of theoreticians basically with no explanation.

[antonia · Rating 4 out of 5]

jürgen 3000

[Ben Todd · Rating 4 out of 5]

In regards to the end of this book, I feel like we’re losing :(

[Mz · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://neoplanodion.gr/2021/04/12/cr...

[John Turlockton · Rating 2 out of 5]

Terrible stuff. He claims that there are three models of democracy (with no evidence that these are or were mainstream views), two of those 'models' were formed by a group of three thinkers who were closely intertwined, two of whom being father and son and the other being a good friend of the other two. So to what extent are they different? The third model he barely explains and just kind of skims over. And of course, he looks only at two periods in two countries histories, rather than the various other democracies in the world.

He then dismisses these models because inequality exists and instead defines (belatedly) his own non-democratic system, after already proposing ways that we might reach this system.

It's riddled with strawmen through out and never actually explains what he's arguing against properly, with quotes. It is also riddled with long since debunked (even in 1970) Marxist ideas and alarmist assumptions that societal collapse was imminent.

The only interesting parts were his criticism of Bentham regarding diminishing returns and that he replaced utility with wealth (though even here, he could easily have cherry picked his quotes), and a discussion on the difficulties inherent in democracy due to inequalities of free time and interest, but even here he only briefly mentions a few and doesn't really get into the topic, preferring to knock on his Marxist hobby horse some more.

[avery gault · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yes, I will be including books I’m reading for my graduate program in my “Read” list because otherwise I see no possible way for me to reach my reading goal. Plus it’s a boon I read so it counts!
The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, what a title. I enjoyed this book much more than I expected to, particularly the fact that it’s a Marxist historical analysis of the evolution of liberal democracy as I hadn’t read something of this sort before — I imagine that being from the United States has seriously limited my consumption of Marxist texts of all colors. It was a tad dry, as I expected, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. A great book for those who don’t know the history of how liberal democracy came to be in the West.

[Chavis Lickvar-armstrong · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was wonderful, and I consider it a must-read for anyone who is truly interested in the history of America's experimental form of democracy -- liberal democracy. Read this to learn about how our nation grapples with the attempt to marry democracy with capitalism; the characteristics of each being inherently at odds with each other. Not only do you see a thorough, but concise history of each model of Liberal Democracy to date, but Macpherson proposes a future, broader concept of liberal democracy that strives to ensure all of its members are equally free.

[Andrea · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a great breakdown of the foundations of liberal democracy, starting with a chilling look at the utilitarianism of James Mill and Jeremy Benthem, and then to the less chilling John Stuart Mills. It's good to remember just what they thought of the poor and the working class, and how they just couldn't get away from the importance of the rich being able to keep everything they have, even when their theories seem to make a good case against that. But written in the 70s, it's an early and not very deep look at the liberal theories we are facing now, and as one of the two principle acknowledged theorists of participatory democracy, there sure isn't a lot here to sink your teeth into!

[Marisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

i only got to read sections of this, but it was really interesting... for political philosophy.

[Xavier Ménard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the ideas that are put forward in this book are flawed but overall a good review of democratic models.