The Continued Rise of Red Toryism

[Warspite]

His argument is that liberalism basically destroyed communal, local politics and social networks because it argued from the perspective of the individual alone, something Blond dislikes.

Which I always found a less than satisfactory objection. The essence of liberalism, in my mind, is voluntarism, not atomism. That means I don't necessarily live as an island, but it means the state should not deny me the right to live as I choose in a manner that is compatible with others' rights.

I think economic prosperity is part of the reason for the decline of the old networks we view with nostalgia. Family, friends, communities are necessary elements of survival in an environment without state-level welfare systems, free education, etc. But with wealth, you have the luxury of shunning the world if you so choose.

[grumbler]

His argument is that liberalism basically destroyed communal, local politics and social networks because it argued from the perspective of the individual alone, something Blond dislikes.

Which I always found a less than satisfactory objection. The essence of liberalism, in my mind, is voluntarism, not atomism. That means I don't necessarily live as an island, but it means the state should not deny me the right to live as I choose in a manner that is compatible with others' rights.

I think economic prosperity is part of the reason for the decline of the old networks we view with nostalgia. Family, friends, communities are necessary elements of survival in an environment without state-level welfare systems, free education, etc. But with wealth, you have the luxury of shunning the world if you so choose.

Yes, to a large degree.  Coercive communialism pretty much eliiminated social mobility, of course, but the conservatives don't seem to remember that.  Liberalism allows only for non-coercive communalism, but Blond et al wouldn't see its "benefits" if communalism were voluntary.

But, again, this is all in advance of his actual work, so is unfair (even if somewhat fun).

[Oexmelin]

But with wealth, you have the luxury of shunning the world if you so choose.

But that, in itself, is part of the illusion. The world which you live in allows you to shun it - to a certain extent. The reason wh you can turn your back on the traditional networks is because the State creates and maintain institutions which purport to replace these networks. Legal and coercive apparatus which allows you to no longer rely (to a certain extent, as the crisis shows) on personal reputation and credit. The market allows you to dissolve your personall relationships at your own leisure, rather than be enmeshed in a web of reciprocal obligations.

This has lots of advantages - as grumbler mentions, the communal has been used to oppress and discriminate. But it also has drawbacks - notably the illusion that no one owes anything to anyone, or the eventual dissolution of moral terms into utilitarianism. Where I agree with the views exposed in the OP is that the leftist drawbacks have been denounced in systemic terms rather than communal, i.e.: let's re-orient the State's activity so that it maintains new types of institutions with different end-result. In the end, I fear it shares the same basic faulty (IMO) premise of seeing mankind in primarily individual economical relationships.