{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014111006585136407, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.08, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Identity of English Liberalism

MY intention is to stand the usual account of English liberalism on its head and to do so partly in deference to the claims of historical accuracy, but also with due regard to the social uses of knowledge. The conventional view is that during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries liberalism blossomed from a sectional ideology into a dominant mode of consciousness and that it achieved ascendancy because its separation of the economy from the polity, together with its sanctification of individual property and other private rights, coincided with the development of productive forces. In taking issue with this account I accept the diagnosis of two younger members of the British New Left, Perry Anderson and Tom Nairn, who, in a now historic debate with one of its older generation, E. P. Thompson, suggest that classical liberalism failed to dislodge an hegemonic Whiggism from the English consciousness.’ The English revolution occurred so early in the formation of capitalism that it enabled the constitutional settle-