The Individualism of Early Liberal Thinkers

Early liberal thought, especially as it has been argued through Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have identified human nature as inherently individualistic and self-motivated. Each liberal thinker in their stead has offered some interpretation of this individual and how that relates to the natural condition of humans outside of society. This essay will explore the main features of those varying conceptions but, due to the broad nature of the essay, it will not examine all the related arguments about human nature. It should be additionally noted that in the discussion of John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor, their individual works will be treated as representative of both of them (except where explicitly stated) as they largely held the same philosophical views and co-authored many of their works together (Miller). Finally, it will be explicitly mentioned here that all of the discussed philosophers, with the exception of Karl Marx, emphasize human nature as individualistic. This can be noted implicitly by the features of their human nature. Ultimately, liberal thinkers have conceived of humans as naturally individualistic, equal to one another, and selfish, with later feminist thinkers (such as Wollstonecraft, Mill, and Taylor) focusing on including women as equals in human nature and one socialist thinker, Karl Marx, rejecting this individualism and selfishness entirely.

An Evaluation of “”Democratic Socialism,” a Euphemism for Slavery”

In his essay, “”Democratic Socialism,” a Euphemism for Slavery,” Amir Kamrani attempts to establish that democratic socialism is really just a form of slavery. Kamrani unfortunately, in conflating democratic socialism with social democracy, spends his time attacking social democracy rather than democratic socialism. While the author is able to establish that unjust circumstances like slavery are at least possible under democratic institutions,  he is unable to establish his core contention that social democracy is really just slavery. To support his position, Kamrani argues for private property by falsely equivocating property with bodies (and arguing that bodily autonomy should apply to property) and he blankly asserts that socialism is slavery, failing to evidence how and possibly confusing socialism for authoritarianism. Ultimately, his essay does not meet its goals because he does not argue against democratic socialism and even his arguments against social democracy are unsound or incomplete.