The critique of liberalism is all important but at the same time the world of the Economist doesn’t really define or exhaust the category. If liberalism defined and liberalism in practice diverge then we must study the history there with care and not confuse the two, even if the ‘liberals in practice’ do confuse the two.
Lenin hated liberalism, not far behind Marx, but that was another trap. In any case the left has to move to both critique and transcend liberalism. But do they have any prospect of doing so?
This is a fascinating article but the larger history of liberalism, and simple democracy is needed. The left will move to create something worse with the incomplete models of marxism.
Just a caution near an interesting idea for a book on liberalism…
Liberalism is often presented as a loose set of principles like reason, freedom, and the rule of law. But over almost two centuries, the Economist has provided a window into the dominant strand of liberalism in action — with imperial conquest and undemocratic regimes defended in the name of upholding “free trade.”