The final chapter presents the authors with the challenge of persuading readers that their vision of a humane society is related in some way to Aristotle\u2019s views.<\/p>\n

At an early point in the chapter Bissell and Kolhatkar discuss Aristotle\u2019s views of the various forms of government known in his time, and the dangers associated with them. They go on to claim that if Aristotle had lived in the eighteenth century, he would have been delighted to see the American Declaration of Independence endorse the natural rights of individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They suggest that the Declaration\u2019s endorsement of the natural right to liberty aligns well with Aristotle\u2019s notion that a man is free \u201cif he exists for his own sake and not for another\u2019s\u201d (p. 220).<\/p>\n

I agree. Aristotle\u2019s view of freedom entails self-direction.<\/p>\n

I agree. Aristotle\u2019s view of freedom entails self-direction. Aristotle would endorse the authors\u2019 view that we need a government \u201cto actually prevent initiation of violence and fraud, when possible, and to deliver justice when such acts have already taken place.\u201d I hope he would also endorse their view that \u201cthat is\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0we need a government for\u201d (p. 221). Some communitarians and collectivists claim to draw inspiration from Aristotle, but they would find it difficult to argue that their views are consistent with self-directed individual flourishing.<\/p>\n

The authors draw upon Aristotle\u2019s views about the risks associated with aristocracies to warn that the \u201cgood intentions\u201d of \u201cneo-Marxist aristocrats\u201d pose \u201cthe gravest threat to human liberty\u201d in the U.S. and other Western democracies (p. 241). At first sight that might seem excessively polemical, but it is backed by solid reasoning.<\/p>\n

Aristotle argued that aristocracies\u2014states ruled by the noble, or the highly gifted\u2014tend to become oligarchies, ruled by the few. The authors claim that the major Western democracies are all now aristocracies in which an elite class of politicians and bureaucrats influence \u201cevery important human endeavor and interaction in the polity and the economy\u201d (p. 242). They cite examples associated with the recent Covid epidemic in support of that claim. They suggest that an intellectual orthodoxy has permeated academe, the arts, education, the media, Big Tech, major corporations, etc., and that this orthodoxy is philosophically neo-Marxist. What they mean by neo-Marxist is that the new intellectual orthodoxy advocates extensive government regulation, is pre-occupied with power struggles, maintains that an uncontrolled society perpetuates oppression based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., and favors affirmative action to reduce inequality of outcomes, irrespective of merit.<\/p>\n

How did this neo-Marxist orthodoxy come about? The authors trace the origins to the 1930s when Marxist intellectuals associated with \u201cthe Frankfurt School\u201d became dissatisfied with Soviet-style communism. Some of the Frankfurt School intellectuals were influenced by Antonio Gramsci who argued for a gradual takeover of the institutions that were foundations of Western Civilization. The \u201clong march through the institutions\u201d has occurred as members of the neo-Marxist elite have taken up powerful positions in universities, media, trade unions, schools, churches, etc. (p. 249).<\/p>\n

If Aristotle visited the modern world, I think he would be particularly concerned about postmodernism, a threat to liberty that I would have liked the authors to have emphasized more strongly.<\/p>\n