What do you think?
Rate this book
Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Times
134 (quoting Pope Innocent III); Mathias Laros, " Autoritat und Gewissen,"
Hochland, ... an erroneous conscience); Max Pribilla, " Bedeutung und Bildung
...
Hochland, ... an erroneous conscience); Max Pribilla, " Bedeutung und Bildung
...
408 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1952
73 people are currently reading
1277 people want to read
About the author
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
27 books103 followersErik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was an Austrian Catholic nobleman and socio-political theorist. Describing himself as an "extreme conservative arch-liberal" or "extreme liberal", Kuehnelt-Leddihn often argued that majority rule in democracies is a threat to individual liberties, and declared himself a monarchist and an enemy of all forms of totalitarianism although he also supported what he defined as "non-democratic republics" such as Switzerland and the early United States as originally intended in its constitution.
Described as "A Walking Book of Knowledge", Kuehnelt-Leddihn had an encyclopedic knowledge of the humanities and was a polyglot, able to speak eight languages and read seventeen others. His early books The Menace of the Herd and Liberty or Equality were influential within the American conservative movement. His best-known writings appeared in National Review, where he was a columnist for 35 years.
Described as "A Walking Book of Knowledge", Kuehnelt-Leddihn had an encyclopedic knowledge of the humanities and was a polyglot, able to speak eight languages and read seventeen others. His early books The Menace of the Herd and Liberty or Equality were influential within the American conservative movement. His best-known writings appeared in National Review, where he was a columnist for 35 years.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
July 1, 2015
Karl Keating, the founder of Catholic Answers, wrote a post "The Smartest Man I ever Met." In it he referenced Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, someone I had never heard of. In his post he linked to one of his books which was freely downloadable.
I had recently read a series of essays from Christopher Dawson and found Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn book to some extent dovetail regarding liberty and equality in part. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn also references Dawson in his book and in fact there are over a hundred pages of reference notes.
This book is just brilliant and one of those books that really makes you relook at foundational things you believe and to reevaluate them. As an American the ideal of a representational democracy, a Republic, is our mother's milk. Over the years I have become more skeptical about this form of government and this book helps me to come to grasp with why that is.
He starts by giving definitions and basic principles, something every book of this type should start with. He then dives into democracy and totalitarianism in a blistering critique of the tendencies of "democracies" as experienced. I see more clearly the flaws I noticed and how this was to be expected. His book written in the 1950's has only been more born out in recent years. His critique of a two party system also clarified things for me. To paraphrase him, every election is a division among the people. He often wrote things that greatly annoyed me at first, but upon evaluating them I saw the truth in what he had to say.
He also was no political utopian critiquing one form of government while not seeing the flaws of others. From what I have followed up reading he was certainly an Monarchist, but a clear-eyed one that knew that systems faults to a T. He was also clear-eyed regarding the US.
> “No monarchic “restoration” is offered in these pages to the United States; a political change of that sort could at present only end in ridicule—and disaster.”
The last chapters take a look at the roots and the history of National Socialism and this also is very interesting through his Catholic lens and brilliant analysis. Also there is an interesting look at Martin Luther and Protestantism.
So I found this book super helpful and enlightening. I had already lost my previous more utopian views of politics or the idea of political perfection if only we elected the right people and that the media was truthful. That we work with what we have. All political theories and governmental structures in regards to original sin is like the battle plan before the reality of the battle. I am an admitted optimitic/pessimist and his view makes me see the system clearer, while also not despairing. Dawson wrote about the Gospel of Progress and the expectation of things improving on a linear path. We keep making that mistake with politics.
So I find myself rather stunned to see Monarchy in a new light and despite it's flaws which are pronounced modern democracies have a tendency towards totalitarianism, something even the Greek philosphers projected. But like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, see that this is not an option for the U.S. anytime soon. Although in the long run cultures if they survive go through many phases, repeating the same mistakes and making new ones.
http://www.catholic.com/blog/karl-kea...
I had recently read a series of essays from Christopher Dawson and found Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn book to some extent dovetail regarding liberty and equality in part. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn also references Dawson in his book and in fact there are over a hundred pages of reference notes.
This book is just brilliant and one of those books that really makes you relook at foundational things you believe and to reevaluate them. As an American the ideal of a representational democracy, a Republic, is our mother's milk. Over the years I have become more skeptical about this form of government and this book helps me to come to grasp with why that is.
He starts by giving definitions and basic principles, something every book of this type should start with. He then dives into democracy and totalitarianism in a blistering critique of the tendencies of "democracies" as experienced. I see more clearly the flaws I noticed and how this was to be expected. His book written in the 1950's has only been more born out in recent years. His critique of a two party system also clarified things for me. To paraphrase him, every election is a division among the people. He often wrote things that greatly annoyed me at first, but upon evaluating them I saw the truth in what he had to say.
He also was no political utopian critiquing one form of government while not seeing the flaws of others. From what I have followed up reading he was certainly an Monarchist, but a clear-eyed one that knew that systems faults to a T. He was also clear-eyed regarding the US.
> “No monarchic “restoration” is offered in these pages to the United States; a political change of that sort could at present only end in ridicule—and disaster.”
The last chapters take a look at the roots and the history of National Socialism and this also is very interesting through his Catholic lens and brilliant analysis. Also there is an interesting look at Martin Luther and Protestantism.
So I found this book super helpful and enlightening. I had already lost my previous more utopian views of politics or the idea of political perfection if only we elected the right people and that the media was truthful. That we work with what we have. All political theories and governmental structures in regards to original sin is like the battle plan before the reality of the battle. I am an admitted optimitic/pessimist and his view makes me see the system clearer, while also not despairing. Dawson wrote about the Gospel of Progress and the expectation of things improving on a linear path. We keep making that mistake with politics.
So I find myself rather stunned to see Monarchy in a new light and despite it's flaws which are pronounced modern democracies have a tendency towards totalitarianism, something even the Greek philosphers projected. But like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, see that this is not an option for the U.S. anytime soon. Although in the long run cultures if they survive go through many phases, repeating the same mistakes and making new ones.
http://www.catholic.com/blog/karl-kea...
December 6, 2015
Its well known that liberty & democracy are incompatible. This book attempts to clarify their incompatibility. It is a very well researched book & is encyclopaedic in its exposition of the vast differences between democracy & libertarianism. It often leaves itself down by not focusing to a point, to a solid theory or speculation. The writing is excellent but the book unstructured. You cant but feel this would have been a far better book but the author's knowledge is nonetheless impressive.
March 27, 2018
When I got this book I expected a simplorious defence of hierarchical, anti-democratic society, with the same clichés, unsupported affirmatives and ignorant claims we can find in other modern self-declared reactionaries (Benoist and Moldbug, just to stay on the more intellectualized ones, come to mind).
However, what I got was an extremely erudite, informed and precise defence of liberty and isonomy against racialism, totalitarianism, discrimination, war and the egalitarian and democratic pitfalls. Kuehnelt-Leddihn ALWAYS conceptualizes what he means by "liberty", "equality", "democracy" and etc., avoiding one of the errors of political discussions, of using abstract concepts in a free manner and manipulating its meaning afterwards. What he calls equality is not isonomy - that all are equal before the law and all should have the same basic rights - but the impetus of forcibly eroding natural inequalities through a system of financial deprivation, standardization and national homogeneity.
While some might be annoyed by Leddihn utter rejection of representative democracy, it is impossible to find a strain of racism or even overtly authoritarian views in his word. He openly denounces standing armies, the police, political violence, mandatory education and any state on national, class or racial lines.
His biggest fault is being too rosy on the monarchical system of government. Only in the postscript he admits to the violence of past monarchies, but he ignores the constant turmoils of dynastical disputes, the colonization crimes of the old world and totalitarian initiatives like the albigenesian and cathar cruzades. He also mentions how the nazi government was lukewarm at best towards the world german nobility, but fails to mention how the Kaiser initially supported the party and how each of its sons was affiliated with it.
What, in the end, would be his desired government? A stable, safe and minimum government. A monarchy where the king acted as a moderating power, two chambers - one unelected of specialists, one elected that could vote and discuss situations of general government and a supreme court of judges appointed by an independent party uninvolved in the government. Political parties could be freely formed but were prohibited from directly participating in the government. All manners of personal liberty would be protected and guaranteed by a Constitution.
This could vary, but in general, a stable, minimum government not related to principles of racial, national or class primary unable to invade on strong autonomous groups of civilian life ruled by its own ethical and moral principles would be the preferred way to live. I can easily get behind that.
However, what I got was an extremely erudite, informed and precise defence of liberty and isonomy against racialism, totalitarianism, discrimination, war and the egalitarian and democratic pitfalls. Kuehnelt-Leddihn ALWAYS conceptualizes what he means by "liberty", "equality", "democracy" and etc., avoiding one of the errors of political discussions, of using abstract concepts in a free manner and manipulating its meaning afterwards. What he calls equality is not isonomy - that all are equal before the law and all should have the same basic rights - but the impetus of forcibly eroding natural inequalities through a system of financial deprivation, standardization and national homogeneity.
While some might be annoyed by Leddihn utter rejection of representative democracy, it is impossible to find a strain of racism or even overtly authoritarian views in his word. He openly denounces standing armies, the police, political violence, mandatory education and any state on national, class or racial lines.
His biggest fault is being too rosy on the monarchical system of government. Only in the postscript he admits to the violence of past monarchies, but he ignores the constant turmoils of dynastical disputes, the colonization crimes of the old world and totalitarian initiatives like the albigenesian and cathar cruzades. He also mentions how the nazi government was lukewarm at best towards the world german nobility, but fails to mention how the Kaiser initially supported the party and how each of its sons was affiliated with it.
What, in the end, would be his desired government? A stable, safe and minimum government. A monarchy where the king acted as a moderating power, two chambers - one unelected of specialists, one elected that could vote and discuss situations of general government and a supreme court of judges appointed by an independent party uninvolved in the government. Political parties could be freely formed but were prohibited from directly participating in the government. All manners of personal liberty would be protected and guaranteed by a Constitution.
This could vary, but in general, a stable, minimum government not related to principles of racial, national or class primary unable to invade on strong autonomous groups of civilian life ruled by its own ethical and moral principles would be the preferred way to live. I can easily get behind that.
Read
January 25, 2008Found onlineat this Mises Institute, here.
December 19, 2021
There is a common misperception, especially in the West, that 'liberal' and 'democratic' are near synonymous. Kuehnelt-Leddihn destroys this notion in this important tome. Further, he shows that far from being synonymous, democratic societies have the strongest tendency towards illiberal totalitarianism of any of the major political systems.
For Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a 'liberal' is "a man or woman who is interested in having people enjoy the greatest reasonable amount of liberty," while 'democracy' is a simple description of the method of choosing rulers. Additionally, the confusion between the two concepts in democratic societies leads to the notion that freedom means little more than the right of suffrage.
Because in a democracy all are able to participate in the political process, an inevitable leveling process ensues which drives out the superior and excellent in favor of a demand for equality.
The demand for equality necessarily leads to a suppression of freedom, for apart from restraint nothing is more certain than that those gifted with superior faculties will soon rise above the ignorant masses. To the ignorant masses, sacrificing freedom to bring the superior down to their own level becomes a primary goal. One need to look no further than affirmative action and the 'woke' attitudes in America to see this principle in action. As de Tocqueville observed, "I do not know a country where there is in general less intellectual independence than in America... In America the majority builds an impregnable wall around the process of thinking." And that was 180 years ago.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn supports his thesis throughout with in-depth observations from the philosophic tradition, both ancient and modern. Nothing he argues would have surprised Plato or the medieval scholastics.
The book concludes with comparisons between Catholic and Protestant nations, with the latter tending to be the seedbeds of illiberal democracies, including an extended argument that both Hus and Luther were the intellectual forebears of National Socialism.
Recommended.
For Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a 'liberal' is "a man or woman who is interested in having people enjoy the greatest reasonable amount of liberty," while 'democracy' is a simple description of the method of choosing rulers. Additionally, the confusion between the two concepts in democratic societies leads to the notion that freedom means little more than the right of suffrage.
Because in a democracy all are able to participate in the political process, an inevitable leveling process ensues which drives out the superior and excellent in favor of a demand for equality.
The demand for equality necessarily leads to a suppression of freedom, for apart from restraint nothing is more certain than that those gifted with superior faculties will soon rise above the ignorant masses. To the ignorant masses, sacrificing freedom to bring the superior down to their own level becomes a primary goal. One need to look no further than affirmative action and the 'woke' attitudes in America to see this principle in action. As de Tocqueville observed, "I do not know a country where there is in general less intellectual independence than in America... In America the majority builds an impregnable wall around the process of thinking." And that was 180 years ago.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn supports his thesis throughout with in-depth observations from the philosophic tradition, both ancient and modern. Nothing he argues would have surprised Plato or the medieval scholastics.
The book concludes with comparisons between Catholic and Protestant nations, with the latter tending to be the seedbeds of illiberal democracies, including an extended argument that both Hus and Luther were the intellectual forebears of National Socialism.
Recommended.
January 31, 2011
Often interesting, and with an enormous depth of reference, but the arguments are rarely given time to develop. More of a scattershot attack on Democracy, where he throws everything and the kitchen sink at the idea without worrying about any logical progression or connection. The most interesting chapter was also the most paradoxical, where he tells us Catholicism, rather than Protestantism, is the religion of liberty.
September 17, 2022
This is essentially a semi-coherent rant about the ills of democracy, the product of a great mind emptying itself somewhat haphazardly onto the page. I accept the basic premise - that democracy and liberty are ultimately incompatible - and it grows increasingly plausible, but it has to be said that the argument is not as clearly or sensibly stated as it might have been.
June 21, 2023
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's books reflect his very deep research on political theory, showing the roots of contemporary discussions. Although his books emphasise left-wing thinking, they are especially useful for understanding what should really be called the " right wing", that is, those who advocate for liberty, decentralization, markets, traditions and spontaneous order.
July 21, 2021
Es un poco pesado a veces por todos los autores que menciona, pero es un libro reaccionario monárquico genial que trata una variedad grande de temas
November 6, 2021
A dense collection of essays that explains the natural evolution of the political state through a theological approach. The author clearly illustrates that without liberalism, and the ever increasing disconnect from God, that democracy in the purest of political sense will devolve into a progressively more evil political system resulting in the same ideologies held by Stalin and Mao Zedong.
October 22, 2021
Not to sure how these writings were originally released -maybe as a collection of essays or periodicals? If that's the case, the lack of organization might be forgiven but I found the author to be all over the place almost to the point of incoherence. From the myriad quotes the author collected from other thinkers and littered among his own ramblings, I gathered four main themes: democracy=terrible, Protestants=the worst, monarchies=so great, Catholics=awesome.
He starts off strong by establishing terms. I admit he cured much of my ignorance on the differences between what a "democracy" is vs a "republic", and on the true meaning of the word "liberal". I also found myself agreeing with many of the quotes he pulled from the likes of Voltaire and Nietzsche to decry the dangers of forced equality and totalitarianism. I also found his opposition of liberty to equality to be intriguing. It's the title of the book but the theme is briefly elucidated. He leaves off to raise some opinions about the short comings of democracies. Through all the weaving thought-trails and quotes characterizing the first half of the book, he never offers up any alternatives, solutions, or recommendations.
Then he switches gears and starts talking about how excellent monarchies are. It becomes clear this is his solution to democracy all while agreeing that a monarchy will never work in a place like America. The next hundred or so pages contained a bevy of reasons monarchies are better than democracy. He raised many excellent points and I found myself agreeing with several of them. Sure monarchies have positives and democracies have their negatives. But isnt the reverse also true? To that point he never seemed to honestly consider why we moved away from monarchies to begin with.
Up to this point the quotes he's regurgitated at me have given me a lot to think about but then he started to go off the rails with some really bizarre notions about Catholicism and its supremacy over Protestantism and the degradation of society via democracy. He blames Luther for democracy in Europe and the eventual rise of Hitler. Dont get me wrong - I think Luther and his padawan John Calvin are Jew-hating, deterministic, trash - but really? Democracy because of Protestants? The Catholic cardinals democratically vote in the pope! The papal conclave was around way before Protestantism in Europe. Why is democracy ok if Catholic cardinals do it but not Americans? Many of his theses at this point began to appear capricious which made his conclusions vacuous.
The last few pages he finally offers a coherent recommendation for what he would consider an ideal government - a constitutional monarchy. A government where you have a head of state bound by a constitution acting as a neutral actor among something much like a Parliament. He also recommended a Supreme Court (run by Catholics of course) that can also make their own laws if unopposed by the Parliament or monarch. He would abolish all political parties (amen to that) and relegate philosophical and political discussion to some lesser social sphere. I wish he had thrown all this out at the start and then built his case.
A chore to read but nevertheless I do now have a better grasp on where we need to bolster our democratic system, a greater respect for monarchies, and a clearer understanding of what an absolute ponce Luther was. In the end, I found it a little ironic that despite all the author's theological highpoints about the fallen state of humanity, he missed the fact that governments are not the problem - it's the people. No matter what system is in place, if the people are not genuinely, culturally, reasonably, ethically and morally imbued with a higher purpose and unity that government will eventually crumble.
He starts off strong by establishing terms. I admit he cured much of my ignorance on the differences between what a "democracy" is vs a "republic", and on the true meaning of the word "liberal". I also found myself agreeing with many of the quotes he pulled from the likes of Voltaire and Nietzsche to decry the dangers of forced equality and totalitarianism. I also found his opposition of liberty to equality to be intriguing. It's the title of the book but the theme is briefly elucidated. He leaves off to raise some opinions about the short comings of democracies. Through all the weaving thought-trails and quotes characterizing the first half of the book, he never offers up any alternatives, solutions, or recommendations.
Then he switches gears and starts talking about how excellent monarchies are. It becomes clear this is his solution to democracy all while agreeing that a monarchy will never work in a place like America. The next hundred or so pages contained a bevy of reasons monarchies are better than democracy. He raised many excellent points and I found myself agreeing with several of them. Sure monarchies have positives and democracies have their negatives. But isnt the reverse also true? To that point he never seemed to honestly consider why we moved away from monarchies to begin with.
Up to this point the quotes he's regurgitated at me have given me a lot to think about but then he started to go off the rails with some really bizarre notions about Catholicism and its supremacy over Protestantism and the degradation of society via democracy. He blames Luther for democracy in Europe and the eventual rise of Hitler. Dont get me wrong - I think Luther and his padawan John Calvin are Jew-hating, deterministic, trash - but really? Democracy because of Protestants? The Catholic cardinals democratically vote in the pope! The papal conclave was around way before Protestantism in Europe. Why is democracy ok if Catholic cardinals do it but not Americans? Many of his theses at this point began to appear capricious which made his conclusions vacuous.
The last few pages he finally offers a coherent recommendation for what he would consider an ideal government - a constitutional monarchy. A government where you have a head of state bound by a constitution acting as a neutral actor among something much like a Parliament. He also recommended a Supreme Court (run by Catholics of course) that can also make their own laws if unopposed by the Parliament or monarch. He would abolish all political parties (amen to that) and relegate philosophical and political discussion to some lesser social sphere. I wish he had thrown all this out at the start and then built his case.
A chore to read but nevertheless I do now have a better grasp on where we need to bolster our democratic system, a greater respect for monarchies, and a clearer understanding of what an absolute ponce Luther was. In the end, I found it a little ironic that despite all the author's theological highpoints about the fallen state of humanity, he missed the fact that governments are not the problem - it's the people. No matter what system is in place, if the people are not genuinely, culturally, reasonably, ethically and morally imbued with a higher purpose and unity that government will eventually crumble.
May 11, 2018
Always Interesting
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is always a fascinating author to read. As an Austrian, Catholic monarchist, his views are very different from the usual ones found in American politics. He's very good at pointing out the flaws of democracy and always offers new insights into history.
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is always a fascinating author to read. As an Austrian, Catholic monarchist, his views are very different from the usual ones found in American politics. He's very good at pointing out the flaws of democracy and always offers new insights into history.
August 22, 2021
Liberty or Equality is a good book, but I more strongly recommend his other work, Leftism. It has the same gems the reader is presumably digging for, but with more insight and better-established context.
I only recommend this one for a more thorough explanation for why Nazism has more in common with Progressivism than anything Right Wing after 1789.
I only recommend this one for a more thorough explanation for why Nazism has more in common with Progressivism than anything Right Wing after 1789.
September 14, 2019
Buenísimo. De lo mejor que hay. Muy difícil de encontrar en Español (ojalá una edición nueva sobre este fantástico título). Libertad o Igualdad, la dicotomía política moderna desde un prisma católico. Los problemas de la democracia y la llegada del estatismo con los igualitaristas.
September 25, 2025
Americans are taught of the infallibility of democracy from an early age without learning of it’s many downsides. This is despite the fact that history is full of instances when democratic systems failed and were the ruin of many a nation (Nazism, the USSR, etc.). In addition, we are taught of the evils of monarchism, an apparently backward system which our ancestors were so wise to abandon. The author of this book tries to correct these shortcomings of our educational system by explaining the truth about democracy. It is an unstable way to select our leaders and govern our nations. At its heart, democracy is not about representing the people but it is about political retribution. Every four years Americans choose who they hate the most and want to watch suffer, then they vote accordingly. Democratically elected leaders are often not even held accountable at the ballot box because they can simply blame their failures on their opponents. Monarchs, in contrast, do not need to appeal to hateful and ignorant crowds, but rely on their own expertise to make decisions. This book is a good stepping stone for anyone who wants to better understand why democracies fail and why western civilization was likely mistaken in abandoning monarchy for democracy.
March 2, 2019
Four stars for the chapter that places Martin Luther's (The Reformer) ideas in the family tree of Nazism. The rest of the book's main themes (monarchy is preferable to democracy, property rights, natural law, etc...) are better left to clearer writers.
April 2, 2021
Amazing book. Facts after facts, a dissection of the political sprectrum into its core.
May 31, 2023
A 250-or-so-page book by the great nobleman Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. I would say if you haven't read religious texts or delved into philosophical esoteric kinds of stuff, you will get bogged down a bit because it's an extremely dense text. Nevertheless, in the first few chapters Kuehnelt-Leddihn goes on to explain how the French Revolution completely destroyed the (real) liberal tradition that existed under the Ancient Regime in Europe. He then goes on to explain how (liberal) Protestantism is cancerous and is the cause of all leftist occurrences we've seen throughout the years by quoting a bunch of reactionary and religious philosophers who warned society of the danger of pre-leftist reformed traditions centuries of years ago. In the later chapters, he then comes to the conclusion that all the woke/cultural Marxist things we've been seeing can be traced back to the rise of the religious Reformation in the 16th century. I agree with Kuehnelt-Leddihn here that the reformed traditions are the cause of the downfall of the West, though I disagree with some of his premises that some Catholic societies could be revived (well this book was written after the war).
Read
September 23, 2010"Liberty or Equality: Fortieth Anniversary Edition, 1952-1992 by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1993)"
April 17, 2023
Compelling
September 8, 2015
Read this book when you have the patience for a painfully slow read.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews