A British prime minister elevated to her role on the basis of 81,000 votes from Conservative Party members; the imposition of a regressive “mini-budget”; a policy that a majority of people oppose, but the real challenge to which has come through the actions of a handful of speculators and financiers.
The mini-crisis that has followed the UK’s mini-budget has symbolized many people’s sense of a world in which bad things happen but over which they have little control. It is a perception that has underpinned the critique of liberal globalism that shapes politics from the left to the far right, and sown confusions about how to distinguish between progressive and reactionary critiques.
The success of the Brothers of Italy party in Italy’s general election last month, following that of the far-right Sweden Democrats two weeks before, was the latest expression of public disenchantment with mainstream parties. In her post-election speech, Brothers of Italy leader Giorgia Meloni excoriated liberalism and globalism, condemned belief in universal rights and denounced the reduction of people to the status of “consumer slaves.”
Illustration: Yusha
It caught the imagination of many mainstream figures, left and right, who embraced Meloni as “saying what we all think,” or suggested that she presents a “communitarian challenge to the Kantian universalism of the EU.”
Meloni’s themes have long been embedded in the history of the reactionary right and are rooted in a regressive hostility to migrants, Muslims and equal rights.
However, her condemnation of contemporary capitalism also resonates much more widely, echoing many left-wing critiques.
In his new book Blue Labour, British Labour peer in the House of Lords Maurice Glasman attacks liberal globalization in similar terms, arguing for the importance of communal bonds and mutual obligations in a world that emphasizes individual rights and autonomy. Capitalism, he writes, “treats human beings and nature as commodities,” leading to “degradation, powerlessness and inequality.”
Glasman views the British labor movement as rooted in many sources, from Aristotelian virtue ethics to the ancient “freeborn Englishman” tradition.
He argues that from these different traditions, the labor movement can derive an ideal of the “common good,” helping create a barrier to the depredations of capital.
It is an argument echoed by many communitarian and “post-liberal” thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic; figures such as Michael Sandel, Thomas Frank, David Goodhart and Matthew Goodwin. Repelled by the excessive individualism of liberalism, many of these thinkers take their cue from the “faith, flag and family” conservatism of Edmund Burke. Glasman calls the Blue Labour movement a form of “Burkean socialism.”
However, the idea of the “common good” can obscure as much as it illuminates, and is wielded as often to exclude and divide as to include and bind. When Aristotle wrote of the common good, he excluded the concerns of women, manual laborers, slaves and others deemed not to be citizens. In early modern England, Catholics were seen as outside the moral community, Jews even more so. Today, migrants and Muslims often play a similar role as the people against whom the moral community is defined.
“The real price of community,” the late British philosopher Roger Scruton argued, is “intolerance, exclusion” and “vigilance against the enemy.”
Scruton was no Blue Labourite or post-liberal, but an authentic High Tory conservative. His Burkean views on culture and nationhood have profoundly influenced post-liberal thinkers. In imagining the “common good,” many have come to see the “good” as defined through a restricted notion of the “common.”
This circumscribed notion of the common good can be seen in many contemporary claims, such as the distinction often drawn between “hardworking families” and “welfare scroungers.”
Most clearly it can be seen in attitudes to immigration from the support that many have given to the UK’s unconscionable Rwandan deportation scheme, and Goodhart’s view that former British prime minister Theresa May’s “hostile environment” policy, which led to the Windrush scandal, was “obviously” right, the “only thing wrong” being “its awful name.”
The irony is that the appropriation of Burkean notions of community cuts against the grain of the Blue Labour stress on class. Much Blue Labour analysis observes how the embrace of globalization and free market policies has led to the marginalization of class politics and of working class needs.
However, in asserting an exclusive moral community, the same voices obscure class interests in the name of community or nation.
Rather than seeing low wages or a lack of housing as the products of public policy that marginalize the needs of the working class, they come to be seen as the result of immigrants stealing jobs and housing. It is an approach that only gives legitimacy to the real reactionaries, allowing the likes of Meloni to assert with Scruton that “the real price of community” is “intolerance, exclusion” and “vigilance against the enemy.”
Thinkers such as Glasman are right in insisting that any immigration policy, liberal or restrictive, requires a democratic mandate.
However, there is no requirement that you must therefore argue for unconscionable policies. There is no iron law that the public has to be hostile to immigration. During the past decade, the British public has become more relaxed about immigration even as numbers have stayed high, a development that seems to have confused many Blue Labour and post-liberal figures.
Burkean conservatism is not the only critique of liberal individualism, nor the only way of thinking of “communities.” For much of the past two centuries there has existed a more radical challenge to liberalism and a radical notion of community, envisioned as a collective movement for social transformation.
It was a radicalism embodied in figures as diverse as British Chartist Ernest Jones, African American leader Frederick Douglass, British suffragette Sylvia Pankhurst, and Caribbean Marxist philosopher and historian C.L.R. James. They rejected liberal individualism and Burkean conservatism, embraced the significance of collective action, were hostile to market philosophy and to capitalism. That radical universalism has today largely disappeared as a social force, leaving many clinging to narrower, more Burkean concepts of identity and community.
The critique of liberal individualism and of globalization is vital. How we critique them and what aspects we critique are equally important.
Otherwise we simply normalize the reactionary politics of figures like Meloni, even coming to believe that she is “saying what we all think.”
Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS