The poles and continuum in modern-day industrialised societies can be described as a continuous loop of:

• Totalitarian State control (in concert with Corporation leaders) – sometimes called Fascistic government
• Plutocracy (government by the wealthy)
• Libertarianism (small State; free market with few barriers to entry into industries through low/no regulation of standards; externality adjustments; non-coercion between individuals or companies)
• Classical Liberalism (individual conscience and freedom under the Rule of Law applied equally to all; science and scientific method; reason; Enlightenment principles; corrected free markets)
• Applied Critical Theory (Critical Social Justice; Critical Race Theory; Black Lives Matter policies, some Climate Activism etc. Post-Modernism with neo-Marxist principles; subjectivity,  
• Totalitarian State control (Socialist with an intent to lead to (as yet unachieved) Communist).
• Totalitarian State control (in concert with Corporation leaders) – sometimes called Fascistic government.

Other societies (including First Nation) societies of current day and of history have had unique cultures with varying success (considering both collective and individual utility).

The current ‘Culture Wars’ are more prevalent in Western predominantly English-speaking Democracies and seem to be between the new Applied Critical Theory and defences by Classical Liberalism. Plutocrats seem to be split between these camps (several modern large USA organisations supporting Applied Critical Theory; some supporting Classical Liberalism or Plutocracy).

While these two (Classical Liberalism and Applied Critical Theory) are placed in the centre of the continuum above, I am only too aware of how easily and quickly totalitarian government can arise if the populous is not vigilant against extensions of collectivist philosophies to become authoritarian and enforce (third party) control over individuals’ lives.

Why is Classical Liberalism wrong? In short, not because it leads to totalitarianism (it may in fact be the best practical defence against it) but because adherents celebrate its ‘sovereignty of the individual’ over Monarch and State control, delivered through one-person-one-vote forms of Parliamentary democracy. However it does not fully take into account that a majority-led democracy can always ‘shout down’ the good ideas and legitimate needs of minorities, and/or just not bother to listen. The principles of science and scientific method, reason, the flourishing of free ideas through free association etc are insufficient, through retained power or through conscious/unconscious bias in the majority populous, to create fairness for many people in minority groups. This opens the door to Critical Theory.

Why is Applied Critical Theory wrong?

Firstly I would say that Critical Theory can bring some great insights to our awareness. Good people can pick these up and run with them in Classical Liberal societies through voluntary means with this new awareness. This, unsurprisingly, is not sufficient for many Critical Theorists. The problem seems to be when in its Applied form and meets real-world impacts:

• It is a theory, based on and relying upon subjectivity, and is arguable – but wants to be applied as fact.
• It is based on Power, and assumes all parties are focused on and motivated by Power. It underplays the role and value of goodwill, good faith, sacrifice, service to/from others, hope for equality by voluntary means – from traditional majorities.
• It also underplays the extent to which individuals vary more within identity groups, than between them. This can turn Identity Groups into unrealistic monoliths.
• It is full of process and language contradictions: achieve equality by discrimination (Ibram X Kendi, How to be an Anti-Racist); achieve Inclusion by Excluding those who behave in ways counter to the ideology (cancel culture); Diversity meaning not only the inclusion of minorities and intersectional minorities, but also a dictate to ‘relate to minorities in authentic’ ways, not in diverse ways, etc.
• It is totalising by nature. It is an infinite game where fairness can never be achieved due to historical structural issues and so the oppressed can now oppress the (supposed) oppressor ad infinitum. This goes beyond Marxism’s desired Communism of equals to an underclass of ex-oppressors.
• A concern is about the destruction of criticism towards an arguable ideology. It has happened many times in the last 100 years in Germany (Nazism), Russia (Bolshevism, Trotskyism, Stalinism), PR China (Maoism), Cambodia (Pol Poht), and arguably in other places. It is disarmingly easy for totalitarian authoritarian collectivism to take hold in a nation without constant vigilance and actions to restore individual rights.

“If you want to make your thing really, really ugly…make it immune to criticism”. Ricky Gervais (Supernature, 2022).

So in my view we need to find a ‘new individual freedom’ that retains the good parts of Classical Liberalism while listening to the appeals of Critical Theory and more fully accounting for, engaging and (yes!) ‘including’ in society those minorities (and especially intersectional minorities) whose freedoms have been unfairly restricted by society’s conscious and unconscious invisible cords. And all this while retaining the sovereignty and agency of the individual as far as possible.

It’s about balancing ‘Freedom to’…with ‘Freedom From…’.

Having trained in Welfare Economics, we are working on new formulae that can quantify, measure and maximise the Social Welfare Function (economics term) based on a new liberal ethics. We hope it will have real-world applications that can better unify society. Wish us luck!