CMV: Liberalism is inherently self-defeating
Liberalism is prone to self-destruction and capitulation. This is often a direct consequence of its fundamental principles.
To understand why, it is necessary to analyze the difference between liberalism and non-liberal ideologies. Liberalism differs from other ideologies by the principles of individual autonomy and value neutrality.
Human rights, as well as the principle of self-identification and individualism, are derived from the autonomy of the individual (his/her self-ownership). Value neutrality is the formal absence of imposed norms. Except of the state language, complete neutrality is declared. The individual doesn’t develop according to tradition, but self-determines for himself/herself.
Individualism, the principle of self-identification, and human rights as such follow from the autonomy of the individual. Without the autonomy of the individual, social progress and the emancipation of minorities are impossible.
Flexibility and the absence of established frameworks are both the strength and the weakness of the liberal system. It allows creative and individual development, but at the same time creates conditions for undermining the system from within.
When liberals encounter the bearers of rigid value systems (religious fundamentalists or fascists), they’re in a stupor. If a tolerant society tolerates and doesn’t hinder the intolerant, it acts consistently, then the intolerant will soon or late tear it apart. Or tolerant acts hypocritically and suppress the illiberals by force. Here the question of the paradox of tolerance arises, first formulated by Popper. It is mistakenly interpreted as "it is necessary to suppress all the intolerant, otherwise there will be an end to tolerance."Of course, Popper put forward a more complex construction.
His proposal for solving the paradox: to use force only against violent elements who directly refuse to engage in dialogue, while maintaining tolerance for those who agree to participate in discussions. It is based on the idea that an illiberal extremist can be convinced in the course of rational debate. This is a fallacy and it is absolutely wrong. After all, every ideology has its own axiology, axiomatics, anthropology (understanding of what a "human" is).
For a liberal, every person is a full-fledged individual from birth. A person can’t be persecuted just because he/her doesn’t fit into certain traditions and cultural norms. No religious and cultural traditions are worth anything to a liberal if they oppress the individual.
For Nazis, representatives of other races are representatives of other species, mixing with which destroys civilizations and poisons the blood. One white is worth more than a hundred non-whites. Liberals with human rights are seen by them as gravediggers of an entire species (aryan race).
For religious fundamentalists, the forced standardization of society corresponds to extremist ideas from the so-called "Holy Books". A true Christian (fundamentalist) denies human rights in favor of "God's laws". If an individual doesn't fit in, that is individual problem. Anything that contradicts cult is "degeneration" (favorite word of the far right).
Popper proceeded from the premise that rational arguments can lead to change and rejection of an "intolerant" position. It’s true in the case of everyman without a solid value system. However, you can’t convince an illiberal extremist to abandon his hateful beliefs, because this undermines his entire system of views. Dialogue and mutual compromise are impossible without one side abandoning its axiomatics, that is, betraying ideology as such, emasculating it and turning it into a simulacrum (cosplay without any essence). The widespread "erroneous" interpretation of Popper is more in line with reality than his proposal and is the end result of any political interaction between equal tolerant and intolerant forces.
When taking the paradox of tolerance to its logical limits: any bearer of consistent non-liberal thinking is already a subversive element and a saboteur by the fact of his views. The division of these hostile elements into violent/non-violent in this context seems absurd. Refusal of “non-violent” to use violence is a tactical move to achieve strategic goals of cleansing society of "non-normative" groups.
However, the above logical conclusion of the paradox of tolerance directly contradicts the basic liberal principles. Can't an individual be anyone and define himself as he/she pleases, being committed to any views and values?
Liberals simply don’t want to admit that value neutrality and tolerance create a system of values that simply excludes "traditional" and many others. Liberalism still declares itself a neutral, non-ideological platform where there is nothing valuable.
Liberalism is open system that doesn’t provide the presence of an antivirus program. Therefore, the system regularly picks up Trojan horses. At the same time, the basic principles of ideology prohibit preventive maintenance and cleasing of Trojan horses, because the "open society" risks to be transformed into a "closed" one. This is the fundamental weakness of liberals, stemming from basic ideological principles. Liberalism prohibits the final decision in a discussion, because no obligatory values are provided. An open society is a walk-through yard for everyone.
The paradox of tolerance can be supplemented: if liberalism begins to seriously defend itself when threatened, it itself subtly balances on the verge of turning into post-liberalism, into a new tradition with strictly defined norms and values (no neutrality).
Liberalism prohibits to be strong, weakness is elevated to virtue (moral superiority). After all, the rejection of weakness is the rejection of liberalism. This is the paradox that can't be overcome without overcoming liberalism itself. The only question is whether this will happen through destruction by traditional illiberal enemies or through internal transformation to post-liberalism.