Liberalism: A Counter-History

Chapter 1: What Is Liberalism?

In this chapter, Losurdo sets the stage for his counter-history of liberalism by challenging the mainstream definition of the ideology. He argues that the conventional understanding of liberalism—as a political philosophy centered on individual freedom, the rule of law, and limited government—ignores its deep historical contradictions, particularly its entanglement with slavery, colonialism, and exclusionary practices.

1.1 The Contradictions of Liberalism

• Losurdo highlights a fundamental paradox: many of the most celebrated liberal thinkers and political leaders were simultaneously defenders of liberty and proponents of oppressive systems.
• He uses the example of John C. Calhoun, a 19th-century U.S. statesman who passionately defended individual liberty, constitutional government, and minority rights—while also being an ardent supporter of slavery, which he described as a “positive good.”
• Similarly, figures like John Locke, often hailed as the “father of liberalism,” not only justified slavery in his writings but also played a direct role in drafting pro-slavery laws for Carolina.
• This contradiction raises an uncomfortable question: Can a political tradition that has systematically justified racial oppression truly be considered the ideology of universal liberty?

1.2 Liberalism as an Exclusive Freedom

• The chapter argues that liberalism historically defined freedom in a selective and exclusive manner.
• It was not liberty for all but liberty for a specific community—primarily white, property-owning men—who considered themselves the “community of the free.”
• The exclusionary logic of liberalism meant that many groups—slaves, indigenous peoples, women, and the working class—were deliberately kept outside its promises of rights and liberties.

1.3 The American and French Revolutions: Who Was Included?

• Losurdo examines how the founding of modern liberal states often involved both the expansion of political freedoms and the deepening of exclusions.
• The American Revolution (1776) is often seen as a struggle for liberty, but the U.S. Constitution enshrined slavery, and many of the Founding Fathers were themselves slaveholders.
• The French Revolution (1789) initially promoted the Rights of Man but was followed by violent suppression of slave revolts in the colonies, especially in Haiti, where enslaved people fought for their freedom in the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804).
• These contradictions reveal that liberalism was not merely about liberty in the abstract but rather about the liberty of a specific ruling class.

1.4 The Spatial and Racial Boundaries of Liberalism

• Losurdo introduces the concept of “sacred space” vs. “profane space”:
  • In Europe and white settler societies, liberal freedoms were protected.
  • In the colonies, despotism, slavery, and racial hierarchies were maintained.
• Even as liberals in Britain condemned political “slavery” in the form of monarchy and tyranny, they justified real slavery in the colonies.
• In the U.S., liberty was tied to racial exclusion—free white men could enjoy democratic rights, while black people were systematically enslaved and indigenous peoples displaced.

1.5 False Consciousness and the Myth of Liberalism

• Losurdo critiques the mythology of liberalism, which presents itself as a continuous march toward universal liberty.
• He argues that this false consciousness allows modern liberals to ignore the darker aspects of their history.
• The mainstream narrative paints figures like Locke, Jefferson, and Mill as heroes of freedom, while ignoring their complicity in colonial and racial oppression.

1.6 Conclusion: Rethinking Liberalism

• Losurdo closes the chapter by stating that if we truly want to understand liberalism, we must study it in practice rather than in abstract theory.
• Instead of taking liberalism’s claim to be the ideology of liberty at face value, we must investigate who was included and who was excluded at different points in history.
• This counter-history is necessary to uncover how liberalism operated both as a force for emancipation and as a system that legitimized oppression.

Chapter 2: Liberalism and Racial Slavery: A Unique Twin Birth

In this chapter, Domenico Losurdo expands on his argument that liberalism and racial slavery developed together, rather than in opposition. While liberalism is traditionally associated with individual liberty, constitutional government, and human rights, it paradoxically flourished alongside the most systematic expansion of racial chattel slavery in history. This chapter explores how liberal societies—especially Britain and the United States—institutionalized slavery at an unprecedented scale while promoting liberty for a select group.

2.1 The Expansion of Slavery in the Age of Liberalism

Losurdo begins by pointing out a striking historical fact: slavery reached its peak not in the Middle Ages or under absolute monarchies, but in the very era when liberal revolutions were spreading.

• In 1700, there were 330,000 enslaved people in the Americas.
• By 1800, this number had increased to 3 million.
• In the 1850s, just before the U.S. Civil War, the number of enslaved people in the Americas peaked at over 6 million.

This expansion of slavery was particularly intense in Britain and the United States, the two countries that also positioned themselves as the leading champions of liberal thought.

Britain: The Liberal Empire of Slavery

• Britain was the world’s leading slave-owning power in the 18th century.
• By 1750, Britain had more enslaved people in its colonies than Spain or Portugal.
• The Royal African Company, which organized the slave trade, was chartered by the British Crown and supported by leading liberal thinkers.
• British liberalism—especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1688—was deeply intertwined with colonial expansion and the slave trade.

The United States: Freedom for Some, Slavery for Others

• The American Revolution (1776), celebrated as a victory for liberty, paradoxically led to the constitutional protection of slavery.
• Many of the Founding Fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Madison—were slave owners who championed personal liberty while denying it to enslaved people.
• The U.S. Constitution (1787) explicitly protected slavery:
  • Three-Fifths Compromise: Counted enslaved people as 3/5ths of a person for congressional representation.
  • Fugitive Slave Clause: Required the return of escaped slaves to their owners.
  • Slave Trade Clause: Guaranteed that the international slave trade could continue until at least 1808.
• Instead of being abolished, slavery expanded rapidly after the Revolution, fueling the cotton economy and global trade.

2.2 The Justifications for Slavery within Liberal Thought

Losurdo examines how prominent liberal philosophers and political leaders justified slavery, revealing the deep contradictions in liberal ideology.

John Locke: The “Father of Liberalism” and Slave Trader

• Locke is often celebrated as the great theorist of liberty, but he was directly involved in the slave trade.
• He invested in the Royal African Company, which was responsible for shipping thousands of Africans into slavery.
• Locke helped draft the 1669 Constitution of Carolina, which explicitly declared: “Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.”
• While Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1689) criticized absolute monarchy as a form of slavery, he had no problem with actual slavery in the colonies.

Montesquieu and the “Climate Theory” of Slavery

• Montesquieu, another key Enlightenment liberal thinker, argued that slavery was necessary in hot climates because people in those regions were supposedly too lazy to work.
• This argument helped justify slavery in the Caribbean, South America, and the southern U.S., while allowing liberals to claim that slavery had no place in “civilized” Europe.
• Slavery was framed as a “necessary evil” for economic development, particularly in the colonies.

John Stuart Mill and the Defense of Colonial Rule

• Mill, often seen as a champion of freedom, argued that certain “uncivilized” races were not ready for self-government.
• He supported British colonial rule in India, claiming that despotism was necessary to “educate” non-European peoples before they could enjoy liberal freedoms.
• While opposing slavery in the U.S., Mill endorsed forced labor and political subjugation in the British Empire.

These contradictions reveal that liberalism was never truly universal—it was designed to protect the freedom of the dominant class while justifying the subjugation of others.

2.3 The Exclusionary Logic of Liberalism

Losurdo argues that liberalism was never about freedom for all—it was a system of selective liberty, with clear racial, class, and geographic boundaries.

The Metropolis vs. The Colonies

• In Europe and North America, liberal freedoms were celebrated, but in the colonies, despotism and slavery were accepted as normal.
• The “community of the free” was limited to white, property-owning men.
• Non-Europeans—blacks, indigenous peoples, and colonized populations—were systematically excluded from liberal protections.

The Transformation of Slavery into Racial Slavery

• In early modern Europe, slavery was not yet racialized—both whites and non-whites could be enslaved as indentured servants or prisoners of war.
• But by the 18th and 19th centuries, slavery became exclusively racial, with blackness itself being treated as a marker of servitude.
• This shift strengthened the liberal illusion—by excluding blacks from the category of “individuals” with rights, liberals could claim to uphold freedom while continuing slavery.

2.4 Slavery’s Influence on Liberal Politics

Losurdo also explores how slavery shaped liberal political institutions.

1. The Self-Government of Slave Owners

• The U.S. and Britain both granted significant political power to large-scale slave owners.
• In the U.S., Southern slaveholders dominated Congress and the presidency for decades, shaping national policy to protect slavery.
• In Britain, the wealth generated from slavery influenced political decision-making, despite growing abolitionist sentiment.

2. The Creation of Racial Democracy

• The U.S. Constitution defined freedom in racial terms: while white men gained unprecedented political rights, black people were either enslaved or excluded from citizenship.
• The 1790 U.S. Naturalization Act restricted citizenship to “free white persons,” officially linking liberty to whiteness.
• The logic of “master race democracy” ensured that white workers, even those who were poor, would feel superior to enslaved blacks, preventing class solidarity.

2.5 Conclusion: Liberalism’s Twin Birth with Slavery

Losurdo concludes by emphasizing that liberalism did not emerge in opposition to slavery but alongside it.

• Slavery was not a pre-modern relic that liberalism overcame—it was a central part of the liberal world order.
• The countries that most celebrated liberty (Britain and the U.S.) were also the biggest slave-owning powers.
• Rather than a contradiction, liberalism’s expansion and the expansion of racial slavery were deeply interconnected.

This chapter lays the groundwork for understanding how liberalism—while claiming to be a universal ideology of freedom—has historically functioned as an exclusionary system, protecting liberties for some while justifying oppression for others.

Chapter 3: White Servants between Metropolis and Colonies – Proto-Liberal Society

In this chapter, Domenico Losurdo examines the condition of white servants, indentured laborers, apprentices, and the poor in early liberal societies, particularly Britain and the United States. He challenges the idea that liberalism was solely about individual freedom, showing that while political and economic liberties were expanding for property-owning elites, many white workers, the poor, and marginalized groups were subjected to oppressive conditions that resembled slavery.

Losurdo argues that slavery and servitude were not limited to black Africans, but that a system of social hierarchy, compulsion, and exclusion also governed white laborers. He focuses on the harsh conditions in workhouses, indentured servitude, military impressment, and criminal punishment, revealing the deep contradictions of early liberal societies.

3.1 The Persistence of Servitude in Liberal Societies

Liberalism is often associated with free labor, individual rights, and personal autonomy, but Losurdo shows that coercive labor systems persisted well into the liberal era, particularly for the poor and working class.

White Laborers as “Servants” in England

• In 18th-century Britain, many laborers were still referred to as “servants”, a term that included:
  • Menial domestic workers
  • Indentured apprentices
  • Agricultural laborers
• The legal status of servants shared some similarities with slavery, including:
  • Masters had the right to physically punish their servants.
  • The servant had to be obedient and loyal to the master.
  • Contracts often lasted for years, limiting mobility and personal freedom.
• Blackstone, a leading jurist of the time, wrote that English common law strongly rejected slavery in the metropolis, but tolerated severe restrictions on the personal freedom of white laborers.

Indentured Servitude in Britain and the Colonies

• Many white laborers sold themselves into indentured servitude to pay for their passage to the Americas.
• Indentured servants worked under strict conditions for several years before they were freed.
• They could be bought and sold, beaten, and had little legal protection.
• Some never regained their freedom due to contract extensions, punishment, or debt bondage.

This system, Losurdo argues, was a precursor to racial slavery, normalizing forced labor in the emerging liberal world.

3.2 Workhouses: Prisons for the Poor

Losurdo examines workhouses, institutions designed to control and exploit the poor while providing a form of forced labor.

The Role of Workhouses in Early Liberal Societies

• Established in Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries, workhouses were places where the unemployed, homeless, and disabled were sent.
• They were intended to discipline the poor and force them into productive labor.
• Conditions were deliberately harsh to discourage dependency on welfare.

Inside Workhouses:

• Inmates were forbidden to leave and were often separated from their families.
• Work was hard, often worse than factory labor.
• Punishments included corporal punishment and food deprivation.
• Some inmates preferred prison over workhouses because prison sentences were limited, while workhouse confinement was indefinite.

Jeremy Bentham’s “Perfect” Workhouse

• Bentham, a key liberal philosopher, designed a Panopticon-style workhouse.
• He celebrated the workhouse as a model for disciplining the poor.
• His plan included constant surveillance, uniform clothing, and strict obedience to superiors.
• The workhouse was essentially a forced labor camp disguised as a welfare institution.

Workhouses show that early liberalism was deeply concerned with controlling the lower classes, rather than granting universal freedom.

3.3 The Military as a System of Forced Labor

Losurdo explores how early liberal states used forced military service as a way to control and discipline the lower classes.

Impressment: Enslaving Soldiers

• The British navy forcibly conscripted men into service, a practice known as impressment.
• Sailors were kidnapped from the streets and forced to serve, often in horrific conditions.
• Many sailors died from disease, poor nutrition, and brutal punishments.
• The U.S. also used impressment, leading to conflicts with Britain and internal resistance.

This system mirrored slavery, as men were forced into labor, denied personal freedom, and subject to violent discipline.

The Army as a Tool of Social Control

• Many poor and unemployed men were forced into military service.
• Soldiers faced brutal punishments for disobedience, including flogging and execution.
• The military was used to suppress revolts, strikes, and colonial uprisings, enforcing the will of liberal governments.

Losurdo shows that early liberal states did not just rely on economic coercion, but also military force and violence to maintain order.

3.4 Criminalizing Poverty: Prisons, Transportation, and Execution

Another major theme of the chapter is how liberal states criminalized poverty, using harsh punishments to discipline the working class.

The Explosion of Capital Punishment

• From 1688 to 1820, the number of crimes carrying the death penalty in England increased from 50 to over 200.
• Most capital crimes were property-related, such as theft or poaching.
• People could be hanged for stealing food or small amounts of money.
• Even children as young as nine were sometimes executed.

Convict Transportation: Exile as Punishment

• Instead of execution, many criminals were sent to the American colonies, and later Australia.
• They were forced to work under slave-like conditions.
• Convicts built roads, infrastructure, and worked on plantations in conditions often worse than slavery.

This system used criminal punishment as a tool to supply forced labor, especially in colonial expansion.

3.5 The Racialization of Servitude

Losurdo argues that while white servitude existed, it was eventually replaced by racial slavery.

From Indentured Servants to Racial Slaves

• Early colonies used both white and black indentured servants.
• By the late 1600s, permanent, racialized slavery replaced temporary servitude.
• Blackness became synonymous with slavery, while whiteness became associated with freedom.

The Shift from Class to Race

• In early liberal societies, both poor whites and blacks were seen as potential laborers under forced conditions.
• But as slavery expanded, a strict racial hierarchy emerged:
  • White workers became “free laborers”.
  • Black workers were permanently enslaved.
• This shift protected the white lower class from complete subjugation, ensuring that racial identity, not just class, defined social hierarchy.

3.6 Conclusion: The Hidden Side of Early Liberalism

Losurdo concludes that early liberal societies were far from the utopias of freedom they claimed to be. This chapter helps explain why liberalism did not immediately lead to universal human rights—it was designed to protect certain freedoms while maintaining strict social hierarchies.

Chapter 4: Were Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century England and America Liberal?

In this chapter, Losurdo critically examines whether England and the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries can truly be considered “liberal” societies. While both nations are often presented as pioneers of liberal democracy, constitutional rights, and individual freedom, Losurdo argues that their political and economic structures were built on exclusion, coercion, and systematic oppression—especially in relation to slavery, colonialism, and class hierarchies.

4.1 The Myth of Universal Liberty

Losurdo begins by addressing the common assumption that England and the U.S. were inherently liberal societies, arguing that this view is historically misleading.

Liberalism as an Ideology of Selective Freedom

• England and the U.S. claimed to be champions of liberty, yet denied it to the majority of their populations.
• Liberalism was not initially about universal human rights, but rather the rights of a privileged elite—mostly white, property-owning men.
• The liberal rhetoric of liberty concealed widespread coercion, exclusion, and forced labor.

The British Empire: Liberalism and Colonial Domination

• Britain’s liberal self-image was based on the supposed abolition of feudalism and absolute monarchy, but at the same time:
  • It conquered and ruled vast colonial territories with authoritarian control.
  • It exploited millions of enslaved Africans and colonized populations in the Caribbean, Africa, India, and beyond.
  • The British professed liberty in the metropole (England), but ruled their colonies with despotism.
• Example:
  • The British justified colonial rule in India under the pretext of “civilizing” the natives.
  • John Stuart Mill, often celebrated as a liberal thinker, explicitly defended British colonialism as a necessary “despotism” over “uncivilized” peoples.

The United States: A “Republic of Liberty” Built on Slavery

• The U.S. proclaimed itself the land of the free, yet it was built on the forced labor of African slaves and the dispossession of indigenous peoples.
• The U.S. Constitution, despite its rhetoric about democracy, explicitly protected slavery and excluded entire populations from citizenship.
• The liberalism of the Founding Fathers coexisted with deep racial and class-based oppression.

4.2 The Political Exclusion of the Working Class

Losurdo argues that, in both England and the U.S., workers, poor people, and non-property owners were systematically excluded from political participation.

Britain: Political Rights for the Few

• Before the Reform Act of 1832, only about 3% of the British population had the right to vote.
• The working class, women, and the poor were denied political representation.
• Liberal politicians opposed universal suffrage, fearing that allowing the poor to vote would threaten property rights and elite rule.
• Harsh repression was used to suppress worker uprisings and demands for democracy:
  • The Peterloo Massacre (1819): British troops attacked peaceful protesters demanding electoral reform.
  • The Chartist movement (1838–1857): British workers demanded voting rights, but their demands were mostly ignored or violently suppressed.

The U.S.: The Democracy of Property Owners

• The early U.S. only granted voting rights to white, property-owning men.
• The expansion of voting rights was slow and heavily contested:
  • Many states restricted voting based on property, literacy, or race well into the 19th century.
  • Black people were largely disenfranchised, even in the North.
• The legal system worked to reinforce racial and economic hierarchies, ensuring that democracy remained a tool of elite rule.

Conclusion:
Despite claiming to be the most progressive, liberty-loving societies of their time, both England and the U.S. denied basic democratic rights to large sections of their populations, undermining their liberal credentials.

4.3 Racial and Class-Based Hierarchies in “Liberal” Societies

Losurdo emphasizes that both England and the U.S. institutionalized deep inequalities, which directly contradicted liberal principles.

Slavery and Racial Exclusion in the U.S.

• The enslavement of Black people was essential to the U.S. economy and political system.
• Even after abolition, racial segregation and disenfranchisement continued:
  • Black Codes and Jim Crow laws enforced white supremacy in the South.
  • Voting restrictions (e.g., literacy tests, poll taxes) kept Black people politically powerless.

The British Empire: Racism and Colonial Oppression

• The British ruled over India, Africa, and the Caribbean with strict racial hierarchies.
• Colonial subjects were denied political representation and self-rule.
• Forced labor, economic exploitation, and brutal military repression were common in British colonies.

Key Example: The Irish Question

• The Irish were treated as an inferior race by the British government.
• The Great Irish Famine (1845–1852) was exacerbated by British policies that prioritized economic liberalism (free trade) over humanitarian aid.
• The British government allowed millions to starve, reinforcing the idea that liberalism was often indifferent to mass suffering.

4.4 The Economic Foundations of Liberal Societies

Losurdo argues that liberal societies were built on coercive labor systems, not just free markets.

The Persistence of Forced Labor

• Workhouses in Britain functioned as prisons for the poor, forcing the unemployed to labor under degrading conditions.
• Indentured servitude continued in the U.S. and British colonies, trapping workers in contracts that were almost indistinguishable from slavery.
• Convict labor was used to develop British colonies like Australia.

The Myth of the “Self-Made Man”

• While liberal ideology promoted the idea of meritocracy and free enterprise, the reality was that wealth and power were inherited.
• Landowners and capitalists benefited from state-backed oppression of workers.
• Economic liberalism did not mean freedom for all—it meant protecting the interests of the wealthy.

4.5 Conclusion: Were These Societies Truly Liberal?

Losurdo concludes that England and the U.S. were only liberal for a privileged minority.

1. Both nations promoted liberty while denying it to slaves, workers, women, and colonized peoples.
2. Political rights were concentrated in the hands of property-owning elites, with universal suffrage arriving only after decades of struggle.
3. Liberalism coexisted with racial hierarchies, slavery, and colonial domination, undermining its claims to universality.
4. The economic system was not based on “free labor,” but on coercion, forced labor, and severe class inequalities.

Losurdo’s analysis forces us to reconsider what liberalism really meant in practice during the 18th and 19th centuries. Rather than being an ideology of universal freedom, it was a system that carefully balanced political rights for elites with mechanisms of exclusion and coercion for the majority.

Chapter 5: The Revolution in France and San Domingo – The Crisis of the English and American Models and the Formation of Radicalism on Either Side of the Atlantic

In this chapter, Domenico Losurdo examines how the French and Haitian Revolutions challenged the dominant liberal models of England and the United States. While England and the U.S. built their liberal institutions around exclusionary principles—limiting rights based on race, class, and property—the French and Haitian Revolutions attempted to universalize the ideals of liberty and equality. These revolutions not only exposed the contradictions in Anglo-American liberalism but also paved the way for a more radical critique of freedom and human rights.

5.1 The French Revolution: A Threat to the Anglo-American Liberal Model

Losurdo argues that the French Revolution (1789) was radically different from the American Revolution (1776) and the Glorious Revolution (1688) in England because it sought to eliminate privileges based on class, rather than merely limiting the power of the monarchy.

The Challenge to Liberalism

• The French Revolution declared liberty, equality, and fraternity as universal principles, whereas Anglo-American liberalism was designed to serve elites.
• The abolition of feudal privileges and hereditary aristocracy in France threatened the property-based liberalism of Britain and the U.S.
• The revolution expanded democratic participation beyond property-owning elites.

The Radicalization of the French Revolution

• Initially, the revolution was focused on establishing constitutional monarchy, similar to Britain.
• However, as popular movements pushed for greater economic and social equality, the revolution radicalized.
• The abolition of slavery in French colonies (1794) was one of the most radical breaks with Anglo-American liberalism, which depended on slavery.

British and American Reactions

• Britain and the U.S. saw the French Revolution as dangerous and destabilizing:
  • Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) became the foundation for modern conservatism, arguing that radical change leads to chaos.
  • The U.S. distanced itself from France, despite initially supporting its revolution.
  • British liberals who had once supported the American Revolution turned against the French Revolution.

5.2 The Haitian Revolution (1791–1804): The Ultimate Test of Liberalism

While the French Revolution expanded human rights in principle, it was the Haitian Revolution that forced the question of whether liberty truly applied to all people, regardless of race.

The First Successful Slave Revolt

• Inspired by the French Revolution’s ideals, enslaved Africans in the French colony of Saint-Domingue (Haiti) rebelled in 1791.
• Under leaders like Toussaint Louverture, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, and Henri Christophe, the revolutionaries fought against French, British, and Spanish forces.
• In 1804, Haiti became the first independent Black republic, abolishing slavery permanently.

The Contradictions in French Liberalism

• The French National Convention abolished slavery in 1794, largely due to military necessity and revolutionary idealism.
• However, Napoleon Bonaparte reinstated slavery in 1802, betraying the revolution’s earlier commitments.
• The attempt to reconquer Haiti ended in failure, forcing France to recognize Haitian independence.

The Anglo-American Response to Haiti

• The Haitian Revolution terrified the U.S. and Britain, which saw it as a direct threat to their own slave economies.
• The U.S. refused to recognize Haiti’s independence for decades, fearing it would inspire slave revolts.
• Britain, despite later abolishing slavery (1833), tried to suppress the Haitian revolutionaries during the war.

Key Contradiction:
While England and the U.S. claimed to champion freedom, they actively worked to suppress Haiti’s fight for real liberty.

5.3 The Rise of Radicalism on Both Sides of the Atlantic

Losurdo argues that the French and Haitian Revolutions led to the emergence of radical political thought that challenged traditional liberalism.

The Emergence of Radical Republicanism

• The French Revolution inspired radical movements across Europe, demanding universal suffrage, social rights, and an end to privilege.
• Figures like Gracchus Babeuf (executed in 1797) developed early socialist ideas, arguing for economic equality.

Abolitionism and the Fight Against Racial Liberalism

• The Haitian Revolution forced abolitionism onto the global agenda, leading to anti-slavery movements in Britain, the U.S., and France.
• Radicals like William Wilberforce (Britain) and Frederick Douglass (U.S.) challenged the racist logic of liberalism, pushing for a more inclusive definition of human rights.

Liberalism’s Internal Crisis

• The revolutions exposed the hypocrisy of liberalism, forcing liberal thinkers to either embrace or reject racial and class oppression.
• Some liberals embraced the radical turn (e.g., Condorcet argued for universal rights, including for Black people).
• Others retreated into a more conservative liberalism, defending property rights over human rights.

5.4 The Long-Term Consequences of the Revolutions

Losurdo concludes that the French and Haitian Revolutions permanently altered the course of liberalism.

How the Anglo-American Model Changed

• The revolutions forced Britain and the U.S. to respond to growing demands for abolition and democracy.
• Britain abolished slavery in 1833, largely due to economic changes and abolitionist activism.
• The U.S. maintained slavery until the Civil War (1861–1865), showing how deeply entrenched racial liberalism remained.

The Global Impact of Haiti

• Haiti became a symbol of Black resistance, inspiring liberation movements in Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean.
• European powers continued to isolate Haiti, imposing economic blockades and refusing to recognize its independence.
• The Haitian Revolution showed that liberty must be fought for—not merely granted by liberal elites.

The Split in Liberalism: Radical vs. Conservative Paths

• Radical liberalism (French model): Advocated for universal suffrage, racial equality, and social justice.
• Conservative liberalism (Anglo-American model): Prioritized property rights, limited democracy, and racial exclusion.
• The struggle between these two models continues to shape modern politics.

5.5 Conclusion: The Crisis of the English and American Models

Losurdo’s key argument is that the French and Haitian Revolutions exposed the contradictions of Anglo-American liberalism, forcing liberal societies to reckon with their own exclusions.

Losurdo demonstrates that liberalism was not a single, unified ideology, but a contested battlefield between exclusionary and universalist forces. The revolutions in France and Haiti pushed the boundaries of liberal thought, forcing it to either expand human rights or betray its principles.

Chapter 6: The Struggle for Recognition by the Instruments of Labour and the Reaction of the Community of the Free

In this chapter, Domenico Losurdo shifts his focus from race-based exclusions to class-based exclusions within liberal societies. He examines how workers, servants, and the poor fought for political and social recognition, only to face harsh repression from the ruling liberal elites. The chapter explores how liberalism was often an ideology of selective freedom, ensuring rights for the “community of the free” (property-owning elites) while denying them to the working class, indentured servants, and laborers.

Losurdo’s main argument is that liberalism, far from being the ideology of universal liberty, functioned as a mechanism for protecting elite privileges against demands for social justice. The working class struggled for economic rights, labor protections, and suffrage, but liberal governments often responded with violent repression, restrictive laws, and ideological justifications for economic inequality.

6.1 The Emergence of the Working Class as a Political Force

As industrialization expanded in Britain, the United States, and France, the working class began to demand recognition, rights, and political participation. However, liberal elites viewed these demands as a direct threat to their economic and political dominance.

The Role of Industrialization

• The Industrial Revolution created a massive urban working class, leading to:
  • Long working hours in factories.
  • Child labor.
  • No protections for workplace safety.
  • Extremely low wages.
• While liberals celebrated economic growth and free markets, they saw no contradiction between liberalism and the exploitation of workers.

Workers’ Struggle for Rights

• The working class began to organize strikes, demand higher wages, and call for universal suffrage.
• Chartist Movement (1838–1857, Britain):
  • Called for voting rights for all men.
  • Demanded shorter working hours and better conditions.
  • Rejected the idea that only property owners should have political power.
  • Result: Chartists faced brutal repression, arrests, and forced exile.

Key Contradiction: Liberal governments celebrated the “freedom” of individuals in theory, but denied basic rights to workers in practice.

6.2 The Reaction of the “Community of the Free”

Losurdo introduces the term “community of the free”, referring to the elite class of property owners, industrialists, and bourgeois politicians who resisted workers’ demands for rights.

The Fear of “Mob Rule”

• Liberal elites feared that granting rights to workers would lead to the redistribution of wealth.
• John Stuart Mill: Supported democracy but opposed giving workers full suffrage, arguing that they lacked the education and morality to govern.
• Alexis de Tocqueville: Praised democracy in America but warned against socialism, believing that too much equality would destroy civilization.

State Repression of Worker Movements

• The Peterloo Massacre (1819, Britain):
  • Workers gathered to demand parliamentary reform.
  • The British government sent in the army to attack protesters, killing and injuring many.
• 1848 Revolutions (Europe):
  • Workers across France, Germany, and Italy revolted against liberal governments.
  • The bourgeois elites sided with monarchies and conservatives to crush the uprisings.

6.3 The Bourgeois Liberal Justifications for Worker Oppression

Losurdo examines how liberals defended economic inequality by creating ideological justifications for denying workers’ rights.

Classical Liberal Economics: Freedom as the Right to Exploit

• Adam Smith and David Ricardo:
  • Defended free markets and competition.
  • Rejected government intervention to help workers.
• Thomas Malthus:
  • Argued that poverty was natural and inevitable.
  • Opposed helping the poor, claiming it would encourage laziness.

The Myth of Social Mobility

• Liberal elites argued that anyone could escape poverty through hard work.
• This ignored structural barriers, inherited wealth, and class exploitation.
• In reality, the working class remained trapped in cycles of low wages and economic dependence.

Workhouses as Instruments of Social Control

• Britain’s workhouses were deliberately harsh, designed to make unemployment worse than factory work.
• Liberal governments criminalized poverty, forcing people into workhouses under brutal conditions.

6.4 The U.S. Model: “Democracy for the Free, Exclusion for the Poor”

Losurdo argues that while the U.S. claimed to be a beacon of democracy, it was just as exclusionary as Britain.

The Racial and Class Divide in U.S. Liberalism

• White workers had more rights than in Europe, but:
  • Many were exploited under extreme conditions in mines, factories, and plantations.
  • Anti-union laws and violent crackdowns kept labor movements weak.
• Black Americans were denied political rights even after the Civil War:
  • Jim Crow laws kept them in a state of economic dependency.
  • Lynching and violence were used to suppress Black labor activism.

Strike Repression in the U.S.

• The Great Railroad Strike of 1877:
  • Workers protested wage cuts and poor conditions.
  • The U.S. government sent the military to crush the strike, killing dozens.
• The Pullman Strike (1894):
  • President Grover Cleveland used federal troops to break the strike.
  • Liberal elites saw workers’ demands as a threat to capitalism.

6.5 The Radicalization of the Worker’s Movement

Losurdo examines how the failure of liberal democracy to address worker grievances led to the rise of socialism and Marxism.

Karl Marx and the Critique of Liberalism

• Marx argued that liberalism was a system designed to maintain capitalist exploitation.
• Workers were only “free” in the sense that they could choose between different employers—but not free from poverty.
• Liberal democracy was an illusion, because economic power controlled political power.

The Paris Commune (1871)

• Workers briefly took control of Paris and created a government based on direct democracy.
• The liberal French government joined with conservatives to brutally suppress the Commune, killing thousands.
• This showed that liberal elites preferred dictatorship over worker-led democracy.

6.6 Conclusion: Liberalism as an Exclusionary System

Losurdo concludes that liberalism was never designed to include workers as full citizens. Instead, it functioned as a system for preserving economic and political power for the elite.

Chapter 7: The West and the Barbarians – A ‘Master Race Democracy’ on a Planetary Scale

In this chapter, Domenico Losurdo explores the expansionist and imperialist dimensions of liberalism, arguing that the liberal societies of Britain and the United States operated under a “master race democracy”—a political system that championed liberty for whites while justifying colonial domination, genocide, and racial hierarchy on a global scale.

Losurdo challenges the traditional notion that liberalism and imperialism were opposing forces, showing instead that liberal thought often provided ideological justifications for conquest, racial superiority, and the exclusion of non-European peoples from the “community of the free.”

7.1 The Expansion of Liberal Democracies and Racial Exclusion

Losurdo begins by showing how liberal nations such as Britain and the U.S. framed their imperialist and colonial projects as extensions of their “civilizing mission”—arguing that non-European societies needed to be ruled by superior Western powers.

The U.S. Model: Manifest Destiny and Racial Exclusion

• The U.S. positioned itself as the world’s first major liberal democracy, yet it systematically excluded:
  • Indigenous peoples, Black Americans, and non-European immigrants.
  • Enslaved Black people were denied rights, and even free Black Americans were heavily discriminated against.
• Manifest Destiny:
  • The belief that the U.S. was destined to expand across North America, taking land from Indigenous peoples.
  • This ideology justified violent expansion, forced displacement, and genocide.
  • The Indian Removal Act (1830) under Andrew Jackson led to the Trail of Tears, where thousands of Native Americans were forcibly removed from their lands.
• The Mexican-American War (1846–1848):
  • The U.S. annexed huge territories from Mexico, arguing that Mexicans were “unfit for self-government.”
  • Mexican landowners were often disenfranchised, their properties seized by Anglo-American settlers.

The British Empire: Liberalism and Colonial Rule

• Britain was the leading imperial power of the 19th century, ruling India, Africa, and the Caribbean.
• British liberals like John Stuart Mill supported imperial rule, arguing that:
  • Colonial subjects were “barbaric” and needed British governance.
  • Liberal principles of self-government only applied to “civilized” peoples.
• Examples of British colonial brutality:
  • India (1857 Rebellion): When Indians revolted against British rule, the British responded with mass executions, village burnings, and extreme violence.
  • Ireland: Irish people were treated as racially inferior, and British policies contributed to the Great Famine (1845–1852).
  • Africa: British liberal politicians supported violent conquests in South Africa, Kenya, and Sudan under the justification of “civilizing” Africans.

7.2 How Liberal Thinkers Justified Racial Imperialism

Losurdo explores how key liberal philosophers and politicians reconciled their ideas of freedom with racial domination.

John Stuart Mill: Liberty for Some, Despotism for Others

• Mill argued that while self-government was ideal, it was only suited for advanced European societies.
• He defended British colonial rule in India, claiming that Indians were not yet ready for democracy.
• He saw imperialism as a temporary “necessary despotism”, preparing non-European peoples for eventual self-rule (which never came).

Alexis de Tocqueville: Defending Colonial Oppression

• Tocqueville, famous for his analysis of American democracy, supported brutal French colonial policies in Algeria.
• He argued that colonialism was necessary to spread civilization, even if it required violent repression.
• He wrote that “the conquest of Algeria is useful to humanity”, despite acknowledging French atrocities.

Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism

• Spencer applied Darwin’s ideas to human society, arguing that European domination was natural.
• He saw imperialism as part of the “survival of the fittest”, justifying white rule over non-Europeans.

7.3 Liberal Democracy and Racial Segregation

Losurdo argues that liberalism was not only imperialist abroad but also deeply racist at home.

The United States: Racial Apartheid Within a Democracy

• The U.S. formally abolished slavery in 1865, but racial exclusion remained through Jim Crow laws, segregation, and voter suppression.
• Black Americans were denied the right to vote, access to education, and economic opportunities.
• The Ku Klux Klan and white supremacist groups enforced racial hierarchy through violence.

Britain’s Racial Hierarchies

• Even within the British Empire, white settlers had more rights than colonized people.
• The Boer Wars (1899–1902):
  • The British used concentration camps against the Boers and Black Africans.
  • Tens of thousands died in forced labor camps.

7.4 The Myth of the “Civilizing Mission”

Losurdo exposes the contradiction of liberal imperialists claiming to spread civilization while engaging in atrocities.

Genocide in the Name of Progress

• The U.S. and Britain framed Indigenous extermination and African conquest as “civilizing missions”.
• Examples of liberal-led genocides:
  • The Herero and Namaqua Genocide (1904–1908, German Southwest Africa): Tens of thousands of Africans were killed in the first genocide of the 20th century.
  • King Leopold’s Congo (1885–1908): Millions of Africans died under brutal forced labor conditions.
  • The Scramble for Africa (1880s–1914): European liberals divided Africa among colonial powers without considering native rights.

Economic Exploitation and Forced Labor

• Liberal empires justified slavery and forced labor in their colonies.
• Indentured servitude replaced chattel slavery, keeping non-European workers under exploitative contracts.

7.5 Resistance to Liberal Imperialism

Losurdo highlights the anti-colonial struggles that exposed the contradictions of liberal imperialism.

Haiti: The First Anti-Colonial Republic

• The Haitian Revolution (1791–1804) directly challenged the white supremacist logic of liberalism.
• Haiti’s success terrified liberal slave-owning nations like the U.S. and Britain.

Indian and African Resistance

• The Indian Rebellion (1857): Fought against British exploitation.
• The Zulu Wars (1879): Challenged British domination in South Africa.

The Rise of Anti-Colonial Thought

• Figures like Frantz Fanon, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Gandhi critiqued liberalism’s hypocrisy regarding empire and race.

7.6 Conclusion: Liberalism’s Legacy of Exclusion

Losurdo concludes that liberalism was deeply intertwined with racial exclusion, imperial domination, and economic exploitation.

This chapter challenges the myth that liberalism was inherently progressive or anti-imperialist. Instead, Losurdo shows that liberalism was historically a system designed to expand rights for some while justifying racial domination and empire.

Chapter 8: Self-Consciousness, False Consciousness, and Conflicts in the Community of the Free

In this chapter, Domenico Losurdo explores the internal contradictions of liberal societies by examining the conflicts and tensions within the so-called “community of the free”—the elite class that benefited from liberalism. He argues that liberalism developed mechanisms of self-justification and ideological control that allowed it to overlook its own contradictions, particularly regarding inequality, slavery, and imperialism.

Losurdo introduces the concepts of self-consciousness and false consciousness to explain how liberal elites rationalized oppression while maintaining an image of moral superiority. He also examines how conflicts within the ruling class—between industrial capitalists, slaveholders, and imperialists—shaped the evolution of liberal ideology.

8.1 The “Community of the Free” and Internal Hierarchies

Losurdo revisits his concept of the “community of the free”, the class of property-owning elites who benefited from liberal democracy while excluding large sections of the population.

The Inner Conflicts of the Liberal Elite

• The liberal ruling class was not a homogeneous bloc—it was divided by economic interests, regional conflicts, and ideological disagreements.
• Key conflicts emerged between:
  • Industrialists vs. Slaveholders: In the U.S., the northern capitalists and southern plantation owners both defended liberal principles but disagreed over slavery.
  • Colonial Administrators vs. Free Market Liberals: Some liberals supported state-led imperial control, while others promoted economic laissez-faire.
  • Old Aristocracy vs. New Bourgeoisie: In Europe, aristocrats sought to preserve their privileges, while the bourgeoisie demanded political power.

The Myth of Universal Freedom

• Liberal societies portrayed themselves as champions of freedom, but in reality:
  • Workers were excluded from full citizenship (no voting rights, no labor protections).
  • Women were denied political rights.
  • Colonized people were ruled through dictatorship, not democracy.
• The liberal elite saw no contradiction between defending freedom and upholding systems of racial and economic oppression.

Key Paradox:
The “free world” was built on unfree labor, but liberal ideology obscured these contradictions.

8.2 False Consciousness: How Liberalism Justified Oppression

Losurdo explores how liberal elites maintained ideological control by developing narratives that concealed or justified their contradictions.

The Creation of Racial and Class Ideologies

Liberal thinkers developed ideologies that justified exclusion and inequality:

• Slavery was portrayed as a necessary institution (e.g., John C. Calhoun called it a “positive good”).
• Imperialism was framed as a civilizing mission (e.g., John Stuart Mill argued that British rule in India was “benevolent despotism”).
• Economic inequality was explained as natural (e.g., Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinism).

The Role of Liberal Philosophy

Locke, Mill, Tocqueville, and other liberals shaped ideologies that:

• Defended property rights over social justice.
• Separated political freedom from economic freedom (allowing extreme exploitation).
• Framed exclusion as a step toward future progress.

Example: U.S. and Racial Democracy

• The U.S. Constitution was written to protect slavery, yet Americans celebrated it as a symbol of liberty.
• Even after slavery ended, Jim Crow laws and segregation ensured that freedom remained racialized.
• The U.S. government promoted itself as the leader of the “free world” while enforcing racial apartheid.

The Distortion of Reality in Liberal Discourse

Liberal elites created myths to avoid confronting their contradictions:

• Colonial rule was necessary for economic development.
• Poor people were responsible for their own poverty.
• Workers who demanded rights were radicals or communists.

Key Idea:
Losurdo argues that false consciousness was essential to liberalism—it allowed ruling elites to justify their privileges while maintaining the illusion of universal freedom.

8.3 The Working Class and the Fight Against False Consciousness

While liberal elites promoted ideological justifications for inequality, workers, abolitionists, and revolutionaries challenged these narratives.

The Worker’s Struggle for Recognition

• Throughout the 19th century, workers demanded voting rights, higher wages, and social protections.
• Liberal elites saw this as a threat to property rights and capitalist profits.
• The labor movement was violently suppressed in Britain, France, and the U.S.

The Rise of Socialist and Radical Thought

• Karl Marx and other critics of liberalism exposed the contradictions of the system.
• Socialists argued that political democracy without economic democracy was meaningless.
• Liberal states often aligned with conservatives to suppress worker revolts.

Example: The Paris Commune (1871)

• After France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, workers took control of Paris and established a radical democracy.
• The French liberal government joined forces with monarchists to crush the Commune, killing over 20,000 workers.

Key Contradiction:
Liberal states claimed to defend freedom, but they preferred dictatorship over socialist democracy.

8.4 Conflicts Between Different Liberal Models

Losurdo explores how internal divisions among liberals shaped the future of the ideology.

Radical vs. Conservative Liberalism

• Some liberals embraced progressive reforms (e.g., gradual expansion of voting rights).
• Others remained committed to strict property-based democracy.

The American Civil War as a Liberal Conflict

• The war was not just about slavery—it was about competing visions of liberalism:
  • Southern slaveholders saw themselves as defenders of classical liberalism (property rights, limited government).
  • Northern industrialists promoted a more modern, state-supported capitalism.

The Shift Toward Social Liberalism

• In the late 19th century, some liberals began supporting reforms to prevent revolution:
  • Social insurance programs in Germany and Britain.
  • Workers’ rights protections to avoid mass uprisings.
• This marked the transition from classical liberalism to welfare-state liberalism.

Key Takeaway:
Losurdo argues that liberalism only expanded rights when forced to do so by mass movements and crises.

8.5 Conclusion: Liberalism’s Contradictions and Its Future

Losurdo concludes that liberalism has always been a contradictory ideology, struggling between its commitment to freedom and its need to maintain elite power.

Losurdo’s analysis forces us to rethink liberalism not as a neutral ideology of freedom, but as a historically specific system that balanced democratic expansion with elite control. This chapter helps explain why liberal societies could champion political rights while simultaneously maintaining racial hierarchies, colonial rule, and class exploitation.

Chapter 9: Sacred Space and Profane Space in the History of Liberalism

In this chapter, Domenico Losurdo examines how liberalism created a dualistic world—a division between a “sacred space” of freedom and democracy, and a “profane space” of oppression, colonialism, and exploitation. He argues that liberal societies historically justified their contradictions by maintaining these spatial and conceptual boundaries, where liberal freedoms applied only to specific groups or regions while being denied to others.

Losurdo explores how this sacred-profane divide operated within nation-states (racial and class exclusions), in colonies (imperial domination), and in global politics (Western exceptionalism). He demonstrates that liberalism was not universally applied but rather selectively enforced, depending on race, geography, and class.

9.1 The “Sacred Space” of Liberty and the “Profane Space” of Oppression

Losurdo introduces the concept of sacred and profane spaces to describe how liberal societies simultaneously upheld and denied freedom based on geography, race, and class.

Sacred Space: The Community of the Free

• This was the realm of political and civil liberties, where rights like free speech, property rights, and representative government were protected.
• However, this space was exclusive, reserved for:
  • White property-owning men in early liberal democracies.
  • Settler populations in colonial empires.
  • The ruling class in industrialized nations.
• Liberal freedoms were framed as a privilege, not a universal right.

Profane Space: The Realm of Exclusion

• This was the space where oppression, coercion, and exploitation were justified.
• It included:
  • Slaves, indigenous peoples, and colonial subjects.
  • The working poor, who had limited political rights.
  • Entire nations subjected to imperialist rule.
• Liberalism accepted despotism, forced labor, and racial exclusion as natural in these spaces.

Key Idea:
Losurdo argues that liberalism was not inherently hypocritical, but rather functioned through this dualistic logic—freedom for some, subjugation for others.

9.2 The United States: A Democracy Built on Spatial and Racial Exclusion

The U.S. is often celebrated as the birthplace of modern liberal democracy, yet it perfectly exemplified the sacred-profane divide.

The U.S. Constitution: Liberty for Whites, Exclusion for Others

• Sacred Space: The U.S. defined itself as a free republic, championing constitutional rights, individual liberty, and democracy.
• Profane Space: At the same time, it enshrined slavery and racial segregation.
  • The Three-Fifths Compromise dehumanized enslaved people.
  • Black codes, segregation laws, and Jim Crow ensured that Black Americans remained second-class citizens.
  • Indigenous peoples were seen as obstacles to territorial expansion.

Manifest Destiny and the Expansion of “Profane Space”

• As the U.S. expanded westward, it pushed indigenous peoples into ever-smaller “profane spaces”.
• The Indian Removal Act (1830) led to the Trail of Tears, where thousands of Native Americans were forcibly displaced.
• Mexican lands were annexed, but Mexicans were not granted equal rights, reinforcing racial hierarchies.

Segregation and Apartheid Within U.S. Liberalism

• After the Civil War (1861–1865), the U.S. abolished slavery but maintained racial hierarchies through:
  • Jim Crow laws, which enforced segregation.
  • Voter suppression, disenfranchising Black citizens.
  • Lynching and racial terror, which kept the racial order intact.
• White Americans continued to see themselves as the rightful inheritors of liberal democracy, even as they systematically excluded Black citizens.

Key Contradiction:
The U.S. called itself the “land of the free” while maintaining racial apartheid—a clear example of how sacred and profane spaces were institutionally preserved.

9.3 The British Empire: Liberalism and Colonial Rule

Like the U.S., Britain presented itself as the beacon of liberalism, yet it maintained brutal colonial rule over much of the world.

Britain’s Dual Liberalism

• Sacred Space: Britain’s liberalism applied to white British citizens at home.
• Profane Space: Colonized peoples in India, Africa, and the Caribbean were denied self-rule and subjected to coercion.

India as the Ultimate Profane Space

• The British framed colonial rule as a moral duty, with liberal intellectuals like John Stuart Mill justifying despotism.
• The 1857 Indian Rebellion against British rule was met with mass executions, torture, and the destruction of entire villages.
• British liberals claimed that Indians were not yet “civilized” enough for self-government.

The Boer War (1899–1902) and Racial Hierarchies

• Even among white colonial populations, Britain enforced racial hierarchies.
• During the Boer War, the British placed Boers (white Dutch settlers in South Africa) into concentration camps.
• Meanwhile, Black South Africans were forced into labor camps, their suffering ignored by liberal politicians.

Key Contradiction:
Britain preached freedom while ruling over millions of people with military force, economic exploitation, and racial segregation.

9.4 The Globalization of the Sacred-Profane Divide

Losurdo argues that this division wasn’t just national—it became a global system of liberal imperialism.

The “Civilized World” vs. The “Barbaric World”

• Western liberal nations framed themselves as the guardians of civilization, while non-European societies were deemed backward and in need of control.
• The Scramble for Africa (1880s–1914) saw European powers dividing Africa without any regard for its people.
• Japan was initially excluded from the “civilized” world until it adopted Western-style imperialism.

The White Man’s Burden

• Liberals framed colonialism as a duty to civilize “inferior” races.
• Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden” (1899) expressed this ideology explicitly.

Racial Hierarchies in International Politics

• Even after decolonization, Western liberalism continued to enforce global economic inequalities.
• The U.S. and Britain continued to support authoritarian regimes that served Western interests, such as in Latin America and Africa.

Key Idea:
Losurdo argues that the liberal order didn’t end colonialism—it simply restructured it through economic and political dominance.

9.5 Conclusion: The Persistence of the Sacred-Profane Divide

Losurdo concludes that the history of liberalism is inseparable from the history of exclusion and domination.

This chapter forces us to reconsider liberalism not as a universal ideology of freedom, but as a historically specific system that enforced racial, colonial, and economic hierarchies. The sacred-profane divide did not disappear with decolonization—it was simply adapted to new forms of control.