Portal about sewerage and downpipes / Pipes / What is political liberalism. What is liberalism? The core values of liberalism: nomocracy and egalitarianism

What is political liberalism. What is liberalism? The core values of liberalism: nomocracy and egalitarianism

29.01.2021

Historically, the first formulated political ideology was the ideology of liberalism, which arose in the 18th century. By this time, a class of free proprietors who did not belong to the nobility and clergy, the so-called third estate or bourgeoisie, had matured in European cities. It was an active part of society, not satisfied with its own good financial situation and saw its path in political influence.

The British are considered to be the founders of the theoretical substantiation of liberalism. The Englishman John Locke (1632-1704) was the first to put forward the idea of separation of powers and interpreted the role of the state as a contractual obligation to protect the natural and inalienable human rights to life, liberty and property. The Scotsman Adam Smith (1723-1790), "the father of economics", showed, in particular, that the exchange of goods occurs when and only when it is beneficial to both parties. "In order to raise the state from the lowest stage of barbarism to the highest stage of prosperity, only peace, light taxes and tolerance in government are needed; everything else will do the natural course of things. All governments that forcibly direct events in a different way or try to stop the development of society are unnatural "To stay in power, they are forced to exercise oppression and tyranny."

The basic value of liberalism, as follows from the name of this ideology, is the freedom of the individual. Spiritual freedom is the right to choose in a religious matter, freedom of speech. Material freedom is the right to own property, the right to buy and sell for one's own benefit. Political freedom - freedom in the literal sense of the word, subject to the laws, freedom in political will. Individual rights and freedoms take precedence over the interests of society and the state.

Basic principles of liberalism

Liberalism (fr. libéralisme) is an ideology proceeding from the fact that the rights and freedoms of an individual are the legal basis of the social and economic order. Liberal parties call for the introduction and protection of civil liberties. In liberalism, the foundation is the right to freely dispose of oneself and one's property.

The ideal of liberalism is a society with freedom of action for everyone, the free exchange of politically significant information, the limitation of the power of the state and the church, the rule of law, private property and the freedom of private enterprise. Liberalism rejected many of the assumptions that were the basis of previous theories of the state, such as the divine right of the monarch and the role of religion as the sole source of knowledge. The fundamental principles of liberalism include individual rights (to life, personal liberty, and property); equal rights and universal equality before the law; free market economy; a government elected in fair elections; transparency of government. The function of state power is thus reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure these principles. Modern liberalism also favors an open society based on pluralism and democratic government, while protecting the rights of minorities and individual citizens.

Some current currents of liberalism are more tolerant of state regulation of free markets for the sake of equality of opportunity to succeed, universal education, and reduction of income disparity. Supporters of such views believe that the political system should contain elements of the welfare state, including state unemployment benefits, homeless shelters and free healthcare.

In the sphere of politics, liberalism arose as a reaction to authoritarian regimes. Liberals sought to limit the rights of hereditary power, establish institutions of parliamentary government, expand the circle of persons entitled to vote, and provide guarantees for civil liberties. Such measures were seen both as the realization of political freedom and as a means of achieving the economic reforms that the liberals insisted on. In the economic field, liberalism was a reaction to state interference in economic matters. Liberals advocated free competition within the country and freedom of trade between different countries. From their point of view, private enterprise, operating in the market according to the principle of competition, is a direct expression of fundamental economic freedoms and a source of political freedom. In the view of liberals, free trade between different countries serves as a means of resolving conflicts and preventing possible military clashes. Within a single country, individuals pursuing their own interests in a competitive environment indirectly contribute to the realization of the interests of the whole country as a whole. In the same way, in relations between different countries, individuals pursuing their own interests in conditions of free trade indirectly contribute to the realization of the interests of the world community as a whole. When everyone has equal opportunities and rights of access to goods, services and resources, freedom of trade contributes to the unification of the countries of the world into a single economic community. The word "liberalism" acquired a completely different meaning in the 20th century, especially in the USA. This distinction has little to do with the specific political forms of social order proposed by the old and new liberals: both advocate a system of representative government, virtually universal voting rights for adults, and civil liberties. However, in any particular case, when it is necessary to choose between centralization and decentralization of political responsibility, the liberals of the 19th century. would support local self-government as opposed to the authorities in the center. Liberals of the 20th century usually support decision-making by the central government, justifying this mainly by the fact that in this way much more "good for the people" can be done. Differences between liberalism 19 century. and liberalism of the 20th century. takes on much more drastic forms in the economic sphere. The early liberals favored private enterprise and a minimum degree of government intervention. Today's liberals believe less in the market and advocate the widest possible government intervention in economic activity. 19th century liberals believed that in order to achieve "individualistic" goals, "individualistic" means are required; liberals of the 20th century sometimes they propose means for achieving individualistic goals that are quite "collectivist" in nature. In addition, the understanding of "individualistic goals" has also changed, now they are mainly reduced to the achievement of well-being. Political and economic liberalism proceed from the same philosophy. At the same time, each often went his own way. During the 19th century many countries have embarked on the path of liberalism. However, while borrowing its elements, they continued to support authoritarian political forms of social order. Russia and Japan are prime examples. In the 20th century countries that introduced most of the liberal political institutions, further began to move towards a collectivist economy. Great Britain can be cited as an example: it is obvious that during the first half of the 20th century. the economy of this country was increasingly controlled by the state. Similar trends were observed in Norway and Sweden. As already noted, liberal thinkers of the 19th century considered political reforms largely as a means of achieving economic freedom. Traditional political institutions ensured concentration political power in the hands of social groups whose interests were not to support liberal projects such as free trade.

social liberalism

Social liberalism is a kind of liberalism that advocates (unlike neoliberalism) government intervention in economic processes. It borders on social democracy.

Ideology

Unlike classical liberalism, which considered the market as a self-regulating category and had a negative attitude towards the possibility of regulating economic and social relations, social liberals believe that in order to put into practice the main principle of liberalism - ensuring the right of an individual to self-determination and self-realization - it is not always enough only his own efforts. Equalization of starting opportunities is impossible without the participation of the state, and it is the state that should ensure the redistribution of a part of the social product in favor of socially weak members of society, supporting them and thereby contributing to the harmonization of social relations and strengthening social and political stability. However, unlike various varieties of socialist ideology, social liberals are committed to the capitalist type of economy.

According to social liberals, the state is obliged to intervene in economic processes in order to combat monopolism and maintain a competitive market environment. Society must have legal grounds, if income does not correspond to the contribution of a person to the common good, to withdraw part of this income through taxes and redistribute it to social needs. Improving the living conditions of the poorest sections of society will contribute to the growth of the domestic market and economic growth.

The application of these approaches, according to social liberals, should mitigate conflicts in society and gradually transform "capitalism of the era of free competition" into a society with a "social economy" based on private property and regulated market relations.

Social liberalism arose at the end of the 19th century in many developed countries under the influence of utilitarianism. Some liberals have embraced, in part or in full, Marxism and the socialist theory of exploitation and have come to the conclusion that the state must use its power to restore social justice. Thinkers such as John Dewey or Mortimer Adler have explained that all individuals, being the backbone of society, must have access to basic needs such as education, economic opportunity, protection from harmful large-scale events beyond their control in order to realize their abilities. Such positive rights, which are granted by society, are qualitatively different from classical negative rights, the enforcement of which requires non-interference from others. Proponents of social liberalism argue that without the guarantee of positive rights, the fair realization of negative rights is impossible, since in practice the poor people sacrifice their rights for the sake of survival, and the courts more often tend to favor the rich. Social liberalism supports the imposition of some restrictions on economic competition. He also expects the government to provide social protection to the population (through taxes) in order to create conditions for the development of all talented people, to prevent social unrest, and simply "for the common good."

There is a fundamental contradiction between economic and social liberalism. Economic liberals believe that positive rights inevitably violate negative ones and are therefore unacceptable. They see the function of the state as limited mainly to issues of law enforcement, security and defense. From their point of view, these functions already require a strong centralized government. On the contrary, social liberals believe that the main task of the state is social protection and ensuring social stability: providing food and housing for the needy, health care, schooling, pensions, care for children, the disabled and the elderly, helping victims of natural disasters, protecting minorities, preventing crime, support for science and art. This approach makes it impossible to impose large-scale restrictions on the government. Despite the unity of the ultimate goal - personal freedom - economic and social liberalism radically diverge in the means to achieve it. Right-wing and conservative movements often lean in favor of economic liberalism while opposing cultural liberalism. Movements on the left tend to emphasize cultural and social liberalism.

Some researchers point out that the opposition between “positive” and “negative” rights is in fact illusory, since social costs are also required to ensure “negative” rights (for example, the maintenance of courts to protect property).

Liberal ideology is a popular doctrine, the basic principles of which were formed in the 17th century. Its emergence is directly connected with those that took place in the 17-18 centuries. There was a struggle with the remnants of feudalism, characteristic of that time. Capitalism was emerging. Accordingly, the new era needed a doctrine that would be in line with the spirit of the times, since the old mainstream political ideologies no longer coped with their task. They became the so-called liberalism.

This ideology was formed under the influence of the works of such scientists as J. Mill, J. Locke, A. Smith and many others. The basic principles of this doctrine were included in the Declaration of the Model of 1789, as well as in the one published in 1791.

What are the basic ideas of such a popular trend as liberal ideology? The fundamental principle is that human rights and freedoms take precedence over the needs of the state and society. That is, liberalism proclaimed individualism. The dominant link in this doctrine is considered to be the ability to safely carry out entrepreneurial activities. The main principle of liberalism is also the importance and priority of private property over state property.

Consider the main features of this doctrine. First, the liberal ideology presupposes the individual freedom of the citizen. Secondly, the doctrine considers the protection of all fundamental human rights to be important. Thirdly, it is the freedom to carry out entrepreneurial activities and the priority of private ownership of property. Fourthly, this is a greater importance of equality of opportunity than Fifthly, this is the separation of civil society and the state. Sixth, it is the legal equality of people. Seventh, these are free elections for all branches of power. Eighth, it is the importance of a person's private life and the guarantee of non-interference in it by the state.

It is worth noting that the classical liberal ideology has led to some negative phenomena. First, there is a big difference between the poor and the rich. Secondly, it is unlimited competition, which has led to the absorption of small organizations by larger ones. Monopoly began to prevail in the economy and politics, which contradicted the basic ideas of liberalism.

A new "flourishing" of this doctrine began in the 20th century. At this time, after numerous discussions, some ideas of liberalism were revised. The teaching itself has been renamed. Now it is called "neoliberalism". Consider its differences from the classical teaching. The new liberal political ideology presupposes agreement between subordinates and managers. It carries the ideas of democracy, that is, the obligatory participation of citizens in political life. The improved doctrine takes into account the importance of state regulation in the social and economic field (including limiting the formation of monopolies). Neoliberalism implies the granting of certain in particular, the right to pensions, work and education. The doctrine involves protecting people from various negative consequences and influences of the market system.

Refined liberalism is popular in most developed countries. Neoliberalism serves as a foundation for the formation of a state that ensures the legal equality of citizens, the normal development of a market economy and the guarantee of the provision of fundamental freedoms to every person. On the this moment this doctrine is considered one of the main political ideologies.

(French libéralisme) - a philosophical, political and economic theory, as well as an ideology that proceeds from the position that individual human freedoms are the legal basis of society and the economic order.

Basic principles of liberalism

The ideal of liberalism is a society with freedom of action for everyone, the free exchange of politically significant information, the limitation of the power of the state and the church, the rule of law, private property and the freedom of private enterprise. Liberalism rejected many assumptions that were the basis of previous theories of the state, such as the divine right of monarchs to power and the role of religion as the only source of knowledge. The fundamental principles of liberalism include individual rights (to life, personal liberty, and property); equal rights and universal equality before the law; free market economy; a government elected in fair elections; transparency of government. The function of state power is thus reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure these principles. Modern liberalism also favors an open society based on pluralism and democratic government, while protecting the rights of minorities and individual citizens.
Some current currents of liberalism are more tolerant of state regulation of free markets for the sake of equality of opportunity to succeed, universal education, and reduction of income disparity. Proponents of such views believe that the political system should contain elements welfare state, including state unemployment benefits, homeless shelters and free healthcare.

According to the views of liberals, state power exists for the benefit of the people subject to it, and the political leadership of the country should be carried out on the basis of the consent of the majority of those who are led. To date, the political system that is most consonant with the convictions of liberals is liberal democracy.

Overview

Etymology and historical usage

The word "liberal" comes from the Latin. liber ("free"). Titus Livius, in The History of Rome from the Foundation of the City, describes the struggle for freedom between the plebeian and patrician classes. Marcus Aurelius in his "Discourses" writes about the idea of "a state, with a law equal for all, where equality and equal right to speech; also about autocracy, which most of all respects the freedom of its subjects. During the Italian Renaissance, this struggle resumed between the supporters of the free city-states and the pope. Niccolò Machiavelli, in his Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, outlined the principles of republican government. John Locke in England and French Enlightenment thinkers formulated the struggle for freedom in terms of human rights.

The word “liberalism” came to the Russian language at the end of the 18th century from French (French libéralisme) and meant “free-thinking”. The negative connotation is still preserved in the meaning of “excessive tolerance, harmful indulgence, connivance” (“New Dictionary of the Russian Language”, edited by T. F. Efremov). V English language the word liberalism also originally had a negative connotation, but has lost it.

The American Revolutionary War led to the emergence of the first nation to draw up a constitution based on the idea of the liberal state, especially the idea that the government leads the state with the consent of the ruled. The French bourgeoisie also tried to create a government based on liberal principles during the French Revolution. The authors of the Spanish constitution of 1812, who were in opposition to Spanish absolutism, were probably the first to use the word "liberal" to designate the supporters of a political movement. Since the end of the 18th century, liberalism has become one of the leading ideologies in almost all developed countries.

Many initial attempts to implement liberal ideas were only partially successful and sometimes even led to the opposite results (dictatorships). The slogans of freedom and equality were picked up by adventurers. Sharp conflicts arose between supporters of different interpretations of liberal principles. Wars, revolutions, economic crises and government scandals provoked massive disillusionment with ideals. For these reasons, different meanings have been put into the word "liberalism" in different periods. Over time, a more systematic understanding of the foundations of this ideology came, which became the foundation for one of the most widespread political systems in the world at the moment - liberal democracy.

Forms of liberalism

Initially, liberalism proceeded from the fact that all rights should be in the hands of individuals and legal entities, and the state should exist solely to protect these rights (classical liberalism). Modern liberalism has significantly expanded the scope of the classical interpretation and includes many currents, between which there are deep contradictions and sometimes conflicts arise. These currents are reflected, in particular, in such a key document as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For the sake of terminology, in this article "political liberalism" means a movement for liberal democracy and against absolutism or authoritarianism; "economic liberalism" - for private property and against state regulation; "cultural liberalism" - for personal freedom and against restrictions on it for reasons of patriotism or religion; "social liberalism" - for equality of opportunity and against economic exploitation. Modern liberalism in most developed countries is a mixture of all these forms. In third world countries, "third generation liberalism" often comes to the fore - a movement for a healthy environment and against colonialism.

Political liberalism

Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that public institutions exist to help empower individuals with real power, without currying favor with elites. This belief in political philosophy and political science is called "methodological individualism". It is based on the idea that each person knows best what is best for him. The English Magna Carta (1215) provides an example of a political document in which certain individual rights extend further than the monarch's prerogative. The key point is the social contract, whereby laws are made with the consent of society for its good and the protection of social norms, and every citizen is subject to these laws. Particular emphasis is placed on the rule of law, in particular, liberalism proceeds from the fact that the state has sufficient power to ensure it. Modern political liberalism also includes the condition of universal suffrage, regardless of gender, race or property; liberal democracy is considered the preferred system.

economic liberalism

Economic or classical liberalism advocates individual property rights and freedom of contract. The motto of this form of liberalism is "free private enterprise". Preference is given to capitalism on the basis of the principle of non-state intervention in the economy (laissez-faire), which means the abolition of state subsidies and legal barriers to trade. Economic liberals believe that the market does not need government regulation. Some of them are ready to allow government supervision of monopolies and cartels, others argue that the monopolization of the market occurs only as a consequence of government actions. Economic liberalism maintains that the value of goods and services should be determined by the free choice of individuals, i.e., market forces. Some allow the presence of market forces even in areas where the state traditionally maintains a monopoly, such as security or the judiciary. Economic liberalism views the economic inequality that arises from unequal positions in contracting as a natural result of competition, provided there is no coercion. Currently, this form is most pronounced in libertarianism, other varieties are minarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

cultural liberalism

Cultural liberalism focuses on individual rights related to consciousness and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual, religious, academic freedom, protection from state interference in private life. As John Stuart Mill said in his essay "On Liberty": "The only purpose that justifies the intervention of some people, individually or collectively, in the activities of other people, is self-defense. To exercise power over a member of a civilized society against his will is permissible only for the purpose of preventing harm to others. Cultural liberalism is more or less opposed to state regulation of areas such as literature and the arts, as well as issues such as the activities of academia, gambling, prostitution, the age of consent for sexual intercourse, abortion, the use of contraceptives, euthanasia, the use of alcohol and other drugs. The Netherlands is probably today the country with the highest level of cultural liberalism, which, however, does not prevent the country from proclaiming a policy of multiculturalism.

social liberalism

Social liberalism arose at the end of the 19th century in many developed countries under the influence of utilitarianism. Some liberals have embraced, in part or in full, Marxism and the socialist theory of exploitation, and have come to the conclusion that the state must use its power to restore social justice. Thinkers such as John Dewey or Mortimer Adler have explained that all individuals, being the backbone of society, must have access to basic needs such as education, economic opportunity, protection from harmful large-scale events beyond their control in order to realize their abilities. Such positive rights, which are granted by society, are qualitatively different from classical negative rights, the enforcement of which requires non-interference from others. Proponents of social liberalism argue that without the guarantee of positive rights, the fair realization of negative rights is impossible, since in practice the poor people sacrifice their rights for the sake of survival, and the courts more often tend to favor the rich. Social liberalism supports the imposition of some restrictions on economic competition. He also expects the government to provide social protection to the population (through taxes) in order to create conditions for the development of all talented people, to prevent social unrest, and simply "for the common good."

Third generation liberalism

Liberalism of the third generation was the result of the post-war struggle of the third world countries with colonialism. Today it is more associated with certain aspirations than with legal norms. Its purpose is to fight against the concentration of power, material resources and technologies in the group of developed countries. The activists of this trend emphasize the collective right of society to peace, self-determination, economic development and access to common human heritage (natural resources, scientific knowledge, cultural monuments). These rights belong to the "third generation" and are reflected in Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Defenders of collective international human rights also pay close attention to issues of international ecology and humanitarian assistance.

All of the above forms of liberalism assume that there should be a balance between the responsibilities of government and individuals, and that the function of the state should be limited to those tasks that cannot be properly performed by the private sector. All forms of liberalism aim at legislative protection of human dignity and personal autonomy, and all claim that the abolition of restrictions on individual activity contributes to the betterment of society.

Development of liberal thought

origins

The desire for personal freedom has been characteristic of representatives of all peoples in all ages. Vivid examples are city-states from Ancient Greece to European ones with the principle - “the air of the city makes free”, the political system of which included many elements rule of law and democracy, combined with the freedom of private enterprise.

Liberalism has its roots in humanism, which during the Renaissance challenged the power of the Catholic Church (which resulted in revolutions: the Dutch Bourgeois Revolution), the English Glorious Revolution (1688), during which the Whigs asserted their right to choose a king, and others. became the forerunner of the view that the supreme power should belong to the people. Full-fledged liberal movements arose during the Enlightenment in France, England, and colonial America. Their opponents were absolute monarchy, mercantilism, orthodox religions and clericalism. These liberal movements also pioneered the concept of individual rights based on constitutionalism and self-government through freely chosen representatives.

The idea that free individuals can become the basis of a stable society was put forward by John Locke. His Two Treatises on Government (1690) articulated two fundamental liberal principles: economic freedom as the right to own and use property in person, and intellectual freedom, including freedom of conscience. The basis of his theory is the idea of natural rights: to life, to personal freedom and to private property, which was the forerunner of modern human rights. By entering society, citizens enter into a social contract, according to which they give up their power in favor of the government, so that it protects their natural rights. In his views, Locke defended the interests of the English bourgeoisie, in particular, he did not extend freedom of conscience to Catholics, but human rights to peasants and servants. Locke also disapproved of democracy. Nevertheless, a number of provisions of his teaching formed the basis of the ideology of the American and French revolutions.

In continental Europe, the development of the doctrine of the universal equality of citizens before the law, to which even monarchs must obey, was carried out by Charles Louis Montesquieu. Montesquieu considered the separation of powers and federalism to be the main instruments for limiting state power. His successors, the economists Jean-Baptiste Say and Destutt de Tracy, were passionate promoters of the "harmony of the market" and the principle of laissez-faire in the economy. Of the Enlightenment thinkers, two figures had the greatest influence on liberal thought: Voltaire, who advocated a constitutional monarchy, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who developed the doctrine of natural freedom. Both philosophers, in different forms, defended the idea that the natural freedom of the individual can be limited, but its essence cannot be destroyed. Voltaire emphasized the importance of religious tolerance and the inadmissibility of torture and humiliation of human dignity.

In the treatise "On the Social Contract" (1762), Rousseau gave a new understanding of this concept. He drew attention to the fact that many people turn out to be part of society without having property, that is, the social contract simply assigns property rights to its actual owners. For such an agreement to be legitimate, in exchange for his independence, a person must receive benefits that only society can provide him. Rousseau considered education as one of these benefits, which allows people to realize their abilities in the best possible way, and at the same time makes law-abiding citizens out of people. Another good is the collective republican freedom that the individual acquires by identifying himself with the nation and national interests. Thanks to this identification, an educated person himself limits his freedom, since it becomes in his interests. The will of the nation as a whole can be realized only on the condition of self-determination of peoples. Thus, the social contract leads to national harmony, national will and national unity. These ideas became a key element in the declaration of the National Assembly during the French Revolution and the views of such liberal American thinkers as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Along with the French Enlightenment, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Adam Smith made important contributions to liberalism. David Hume argued that the fundamental (natural) laws of human behavior dictate moral standards that can neither be limited nor suppressed. Under the influence of these views, Kant gave an ethical justification for human rights without reference to religion (as was the case before him). According to his teachings, these rights are based on natural scientific laws and objective truth.

Adam Smith developed the theory that moral life and economic activity are possible without government directives, and that the strongest nations are those in which citizens are free to exercise their own initiative. He called for an end to feudal and mercantile regulation, to patents and to the monopolies that arose thanks to the patronage of the state. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) he developed a theory of motivation that brings self-interest into conformity with an unregulated social order. In An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), he argued that, under certain conditions, the free market is capable of natural self-regulation and is able to achieve greater productivity than a market with many restrictions. He relegated the government to tasks that could not be linked to the lust for profit, such as the prevention of fraud or the illegal use of force. His theory of taxation was that taxes should not hurt the economy and that the tax rate should be constant.

Revolutionary liberalism

The idea that ordinary people should go about their business without being dictated by monarchs, the aristocracy, or the church remained largely a theory until the American and French revolutions. All later liberal revolutionaries followed these two examples to one degree or another.

In colonial America, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams convinced their countrymen to rise up in the name of life, personal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—almost a Locke quote, but with one important twist: Jefferson replaced Locke's word "property" with "the pursuit of happiness." Thus, the main goal of the revolution became a republic based on personal freedom and government with the consent of the governed. James Madison believed that a system of checks and balances was needed to ensure effective self-government and protect the rights of economic minorities. It was reflected in the US Constitution (1787): a balance between federal and regional authorities; separation of powers into executive, legislative and judicial branches; bicameral parliament. Civilian control was introduced over the army and measures were taken to return officers to civilian life after serving. Thus, the concentration of power in the hands of one person became almost impossible.

The Great French Revolution deprived the monarch, the aristocracy and the Catholic Church of power. The turning point was the adoption of a declaration by the representatives of the National Assembly that it has the right to speak on behalf of the entire French people. In the field of liberalism, the French revolutionaries went further than the Americans, introducing universal suffrage (for men), national citizenship, and adopting the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), similar to the American Bill of Rights.

For the first few years, liberal ideas dominated the leadership of the country, but the government was unstable and could not effectively defend itself against the numerous enemies of the revolution. The Jacobins, led by Robespierre, concentrated almost all power in their hands, suspended due process of law and launched a large-scale terror, the victims of which were many liberals, including Robespierre himself. Napoleon I Bonaparte carried out a deep legislative reform, which reflected many of the ideas of the revolution, but subsequently abolished the republic and declared himself emperor. A side effect of the Napoleonic military campaigns was the spread of liberalism throughout Europe, and after the occupation of Spain, throughout Latin America.

The revolutions significantly strengthened the position of liberals throughout the world, who moved from proposals to uncompromising demands. They mainly sought to create parliamentary republics in place of the existing absolute monarchies. This political liberalism was often driven by economic motives: the desire to end feudal privileges, guilds and royal monopolies, restrictions on property and the freedom to contract.

Between 1774 and 1848 there have been several revolutionary waves, with each successive wave placing more and more emphasis on citizen rights and self-government. Instead of a simple recognition of the rights of the individual, all state power turned out to be a derivative of natural law: either by virtue of human nature, or as a result of a social contract ("consent of the led"). Family property and the feudal tradition, according to which the obligations of the parties are determined by personal allegiance, have been replaced by ideas of voluntary consent, commercial contract and individual private property. The idea of the sovereignty of the people and that people are able to independently adopt all the necessary laws and enforce them became the basis of national self-consciousness and went beyond the teachings of the enlighteners. A similar desire for independence from external domination in the occupied territories or in the colonies became the basis of the national liberation struggle. In some cases (Germany, Italy), this was accompanied by the unification of small states into large ones, in others ( Latin America) - the collapse of colonial systems and decentralization. The education system has become one of the most important public institutions. Over time, democracy was added to the list of liberal values.

Debates within liberalism

Liberalism and Democracy

Initially, the ideas of liberalism and democracy not only differed significantly, but were also in conflict with each other. For liberals, the basis of society was a person who owns property, strives to protect it, and for whom the choice between survival and the preservation of his civil rights cannot be acute. It was understood that only the owners form civil society, participate in the social contract and give the government consent to rule. On the contrary, democracy means the process of forming power on the basis of the majority of the whole people, including the poor. From the liberals' point of view, the dictatorship of the poor posed a threat to private property and guarantees of individual freedom. From the Democrats' point of view, depriving the poor of the right to vote and the opportunity to represent their interests in the legislative process was a form of enslavement.

Many bright liberals (J. Locke, T. Jefferson, etc.) were opponents of democracy, which, in particular, was reflected in the original version of the US Constitution, where suffrage was linked to property qualification. Many popular leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln, resorted to anti-liberal measures (imposed censorship, taxes, etc.). Fears on the part of liberals associated with democracy, especially intensified after the French Revolution. In particular, therefore, the French liberals generally supported Napoleon Bonaparte, who, although he was an opponent of the accountability of power (and even more so democracy), nevertheless contributed to the implementation and popularization of a number of important liberal ideas.

The turning point was Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835), in which he showed the possibility of a society where individual liberty and private property coexist with democracy. According to Tocqueville, the key to the success of such a model, called "liberal democracy", is equality of opportunity, and the most serious threat is the state's sluggish intervention in the economy and its violation of civil liberties.

After the revolution of 1848 and the coup d'état of Napoleon III (in 1851), the liberals more steel recognize the need for democracy for the full implementation of liberalism. At the same time, some supporters of democracy continued to deny the possibility of a just society built on private property and a free market, which led to the emergence of a movement for social democracy.

Economic liberalism versus social liberalism

The industrial revolution significantly increased the wealth of developed countries, but exacerbated social problems. Advances in medicine led to an increase in life expectancy and population, resulting in an excess labor force and falling wages. After the workers in many countries received the right to vote in the 19th century, they began to use it in their own interests. A sharp increase in the literacy of the population led to a surge in the activity of society. Social liberals demanded legislative measures against the exploitation of children, safe working conditions, minimum wages.

Classical liberals view such laws as an unfair tax on life, liberty, and property that holds back economic development. They believe that society can solve social problems on its own, without state regulation. On the other hand, social liberals favor a government big enough to ensure equality of opportunity, to protect citizens from the effects of economic crises and natural disasters.

Wilhelm von Humboldt in his work “Ideas for the experience of determining the boundaries of the activity of the state” substantiated the value of freedom by the importance of individual self-development in order to achieve perfection. John Stuart Mill developed the ideas of this liberal ethic in his On Liberty (1859). He adhered to utilitarianism, emphasizing a pragmatic approach, practical striving for the common good and improving the quality of life. Although Mill remained within the framework of classical liberalism, the rights of the individual in his philosophy receded into the background.

By the end of the 19th century, most liberals came to the conclusion that freedom required the creation of conditions for the realization of one's abilities, including education and protection from overexploitation. These conclusions were expounded by Leonard Trelawney Hobhouse in Liberalism, in which he formulated the collective right to equality in transactions ("fair consent") and recognized the validity of reasonable government intervention in the economy. In parallel, part of the classical liberals, in particular, Gustav de Molinari, Herbert Spencer and Oberon Herbert, began to adhere to more radical views close to anarchism.

War and Peace

Another subject of discussion, starting from the end of the 19th century, was the attitude towards wars. Classical liberalism was a fierce opponent of military intervention and imperialism, advocating neutrality and free trade. Hugo Grotius' treatise On the Law of War and Peace (1625), in which he set forth the theory of just war as a means of self-defence, was a liberal's handbook. In the United States, isolationism until the end of the First World War was the official foreign policy as Thomas Jefferson said, “Free trade with all; military alliances with no one." However, President Woodrow Wilson instead put forward the concept of collective security: confronting aggressor countries with the help of a military alliance and preventive conflict resolution in the League of Nations. The idea at first did not find support in Congress, which did not allow the United States to join the League of Nations, but was revived in the form of the UN. Today, most liberals are opposed to a unilateral declaration of war by one state against another, except in self-defense, but many support multilateral wars within the UN or even NATO, for example, to prevent genocide.

The Great Depression

The Great Depression of the 1930s shook the American public's faith in classical liberalism, and many concluded that unregulated markets could not bring prosperity and prevent poverty. John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, and President Franklin Roosevelt advocated a more sophisticated state apparatus that would still be a bulwark of individual freedom while protecting the population from the costs of capitalism.

John Maynard Keynes, Ludwig-Joseph Brentano, Leonard Trelawney Hobhouse, Thomas Hill Green, Bertil Ohlin, and John Dewey have described how the state must regulate the capitalist economy in order to protect freedom while avoiding socialism. In doing so, they made a leading contribution to the theory of social liberalism, which had a significant impact on liberals around the world, in particular, on the "Liberal International", which arose in 1947. They were objected by supporters of neoliberalism, according to which the Great Depression was the result of non-state intervention into the economy, but on the contrary, excessive state regulation of the market. Economists of the Austrian and Chicago schools (Friedrich August von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, and others) point out that the Great Depression was preceded by large-scale monetary expansion and artificially low interest rates, which distorted the structure of investment in the economy. In "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962), Friedman cites the fixed peg of the dollar to gold, regulation of the banking system, higher taxes, and the printing of money to pay the public debt as the main causes of the Great Depression.

In 2008, due to the economic crisis, the discussion between the supporters of neoliberalism and social liberalism escalated again. Calls began to be heard for a return to a socially oriented policy of income redistribution, protectionism and the implementation of Keynesian measures.

Liberalism versus totalitarianism

The 20th century was marked by the emergence of ideologies that directly opposed liberalism. In the USSR, the Bolsheviks began to eliminate the remnants of capitalism and the personal freedom of citizens, while in Italy fascism appeared, which, according to the leader of this movement, Benito Mussolini, was a “third way”, denying both liberalism and communism. In the USSR, private ownership of the means of production was banned in order to achieve social and economic justice. The governments in Italy and especially in Germany denied the equality of people in rights. In Germany, this was expressed in the propaganda of racial superiority of the so-called. "Aryan race", by which the Germans and some other Germanic peoples were understood, over other peoples and races. In Italy, Mussolini staked on the idea of the Italian people as a "corporate state". Both communism and fascism sought state control over the economy and centralized regulation of all aspects of society. Both regimes also asserted the primacy of public interests over private ones and suppressed individual freedom. From the point of view of liberalism, these common features combined communism, fascism and Nazism into a single category - totalitarianism. In turn, liberalism began to define itself as opposed to totalitarianism and to view the latter as the most serious threat to liberal democracy.

totalitarianism and collectivism

The above parallel between various totalitarian systems causes sharp objections from the opponents of liberalism, who point to significant differences between fascist, Nazi and communist ideologies. However, F. von Hayek, A. Rand and other liberal thinkers insisted on the fundamental similarity of all three systems, namely: they are all based on state support for certain collective interests to the detriment of the interests, goals and freedoms of an individual citizen. These may be the interests of the nation - Nazism, state-corporations - fascism or the interests of the "working masses" - communism. In other words, from the point of view of modern liberalism, both fascism and Nazism and communism are only extreme forms of collectivism.

Historical causes of totalitarianism

Many liberals attribute the rise of totalitarianism to the fact that in times of decline, people look for a solution in dictatorship. Therefore, the duty of the state should be to protect the economic well-being of citizens, to balance the economy. As Isaiah Berlin said, "Freedom for the wolves means death for the sheep." Neoliberals take the opposite view. In his book "The Road to Slavery" (1944), F. von Hayek argued that excessive government regulation of the economy can lead to the loss of political and civil liberties. In the 1930s and 1940s, when the governments of the United States and Great Britain, following the advice of the prominent British economist John Keynes, took a course towards state regulation, Hayek warned about the dangers of this course and argued that economic freedom was a necessary condition for the preservation of liberal democracy. On the basis of the teachings of Hayek and other representatives of the "Austrian school of economics", a current of libertarianism arose, which sees any state intervention in the economy as a threat to freedom.

The concept of an open society

One of the most influential critics of totalitarianism was Karl Popper, who, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), advocated liberal democracy and an "open society" where the political elite could be removed from power without bloodshed. Popper argued that since the process of accumulation of human knowledge is unpredictable, the theory of ideal government does not fundamentally exist, therefore, the political system must be flexible enough so that the government can smoothly change its policy. In particular, society must be open to multiple points of view (pluralism) and subcultures (multiculturalism).

Welfare and education

The fusion of modernism with liberalism in the post-war years has led to the spread of social liberalism, which claims that the best protection from totalitarianism is an economically prosperous and educated population with broad civil rights. Representatives of this trend, such as J.K. Galbraith, J. Rawls and R. Dahrendorf, believed that in order to increase the level of personal freedoms, it is necessary to teach them enlightened use, and the path to self-realization lies through the development of new technologies.

Personal freedom and society

In the post-war years, a significant part of the theoretical development in the field of liberalism was devoted to questions about public choice and market mechanisms for achieving a "liberal society". One of the central places in this discussion is occupied by Arrow's theorem. It states that there is no such procedure for ordering social preferences that is defined for any combination of preferences, does not depend on individual preferences on extraneous issues, is free from imposing one person's choice on the whole society, and satisfies the Pareto principle (i.e., that optimal for each individual, should be the most preferable for the whole society). A corollary of this theorem is the liberal paradox that it is impossible to develop a universal and just democratic procedure that is compatible with unfettered freedom of individual choice. This conclusion means that in pure form neither a market economy nor a welfare economy is sufficient to achieve an optimal society. Moreover, it is not at all clear what an “optimal society” is, and all attempts to build such a society ended in disaster (USSR, Third Reich). The other side of this paradox is the question of what is more important: strict adherence to procedures or equality in rights for all participants.

Personal freedom and state regulation

One of the key concepts of the classical theory of freedom is property. According to this theory, a free market economy is not only a guarantee of economic freedom, but also a necessary condition for the personal freedom of everyone.

The supporters of freedom do not deny planning in general, but only such state regulation, which replaces the free competition of owners. In the history of the 20th century, there were a number of striking examples when the rejection of the principle of inviolability of private property and the replacement of free competition with state regulation in the name of social security and stability led to significant restrictions on the personal freedom of citizens (Stalin's USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, Cuba, and others). countries of "victorious socialism"). Having lost the right to private property, citizens very soon lost other important rights: the right to freely choose their place of residence (propiska), place of work (collective farms) and were forced to work for a state-appointed (usually low) salary. This was accompanied by the emergence of repressive law enforcement agencies (NKVD, the Ministry of State Security of the GDR, etc.). A significant proportion of the population was forced to work for free in prison.

It should be noted that there are objections to these arguments. The relatively low level of wages under socialism is explained by the fact that the main concerns about housing, medicine, education and social security were taken over by the state. The need for repressive security agencies is justified by the protection of the state from external and internal enemies. Significant economic, military and scientific achievements are noted in the countries during the described period. Finally, the fact that some of the goals were not achieved in the end, corruption, etc., is associated with deviations from the chosen course, as a rule, after the death of one or another leader of the country. These objections seek to show that restrictions on personal freedom were justified and balanced by other values. However, they do not refute the main conclusion of the classical theory of freedom, namely, that without the right of legitimate private property, supported by the entire power of state power, the personal freedom of citizens is impossible.

Modern liberalism

Short review

Today, liberalism is one of the leading ideologies in the world. Concepts of personal freedom, self-respect, freedom of speech, universal human rights, religious tolerance, privacy, private property, free market, equality, rule of law, transparency of government, limits on state power, sovereignty of the people, self-determination of the nation, enlightened and reasonable public policy - have received the widest distribution. Liberal democratic political systems include countries as diverse in culture and economic well-being as Finland, Spain, Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Canada, Uruguay or Taiwan. In all these countries, liberal values play a key role in shaping the new goals of society, even despite the gap between ideals and reality.

The following list of contemporary political trends within liberalism is by no means exhaustive. The most important principles that are most often mentioned in party documents (for example, in the "Liberal Manifesto" of 1997) have been listed above.

Due to the fact that in Western Europe and North America, most political currents express solidarity with the ideals of political liberalism, a narrower classification has become necessary. Right-wing liberals emphasize classical liberalism, but at the same time they object to a number of provisions of social liberalism. They are joined by conservatives who share the political liberal values that have become traditional in these countries, but often condemn certain manifestations of cultural liberalism as contrary to moral standards. It should be noted that historically conservatism was the ideological antagonist of liberalism, but after the end of World War II and the discrediting of authoritarianism, moderate currents (liberal conservatism, Christian democracy) began to play a leading role in Western conservatism. In the second half of the 20th century, conservatives were the most active defenders of private property and supporters of privatization.

Actually, "liberals" in the United States are called socialists and leftists in general, while in Western Europe this term refers to libertarians, and left-wing liberals are called social liberals.

Libertarians believe that the state should not interfere in private life or business activities, except to protect the freedom and property of some from the encroachment of others. They support economic and cultural liberalism and oppose social liberalism. Some libertarians believe that the state must have sufficient power to implement the rule of law, others argue that the enforcement of the rule of law should be carried out by public and private organizations. In foreign policy, libertarians are generally opposed to any military aggression.

Within the framework of economic liberalism, the ideological current of neoliberalism became isolated. This current is often seen as a purely economic theory, outside the context of political liberalism. Neo-liberals strive for non-intervention of the state in the country's economy and for a free market. The state is given the function of moderate monetary regulation and an instrument for gaining access to foreign markets in cases where other countries obstruct free trade. One of the defining manifestations of neo-liberal economic policy is privatization, a prime example of which was the reforms carried out in the UK by Margaret Thatcher's cabinet.

Modern social liberals, as a rule, refer to themselves as centrists or social democrats. The latter have gained significant influence, especially in Scandinavia, where a series of protracted economic downturns has exacerbated social protection issues (unemployment, pensions, inflation). To solve these problems, the Social Democrats constantly increased taxes and the public sector in the economy. At the same time, many decades of stubborn struggle for power between right- and left-liberal forces have led to effective laws and transparent governments that reliably protect the civil rights of people and the property of entrepreneurs. Attempts to take the country too far towards socialism led to the loss of power for the Social Democrats and subsequent liberalization. Therefore, today in the Scandinavian countries prices are not regulated (even at state enterprises, with the exception of monopolies), banks are private, and there are no obstacles to trade, including international trade. This combination of liberal and social policies led to the implementation of the liberal democratic political system With high level social protection. Similar processes are taking place in other European countries, where the Social Democrats, even after coming to power, are pursuing a fairly liberal policy.

The main goals of their policy liberal parties most often consider the strengthening of liberal democracy and the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary; control over the transparency of government work; protection of civil rights and free competition. However, the presence of the word "liberal" in the name of a party does not in itself make it possible to determine whether its supporters are right-wing liberals, social liberals, or libertarians.

Public liberal movements are also very diverse. Some movements support sexual freedom, the free sale of weapons or drugs, the expansion of the functions of private security structures and the transfer of part of the police functions to them. Economic liberals often advocate a flat income tax, or even a per capita income tax, the privatization of education, health care and the state pension system, and the transfer of science to self-sustaining funding. In many countries, liberals advocate the abolition of the death penalty, disarmament, the rejection of nuclear technology, and environmental protection.

Recently, discussions about multiculturalism have intensified. Although all parties agree that ethnic minorities should share the fundamental values of society, some believe that the function of the majority should be limited to the protection of rights in ethnic communities, while others are in favor of the speedy integration of minorities in the name of preserving the integrity of the nation.

Since 1947, the Mont Pelerin Society has been operating, uniting economists, philosophers, journalists, entrepreneurs who support the principles and ideas of classical liberalism.

Contemporary critique of liberalism

Proponents of collectivism do not absolutize the meaning of individual freedom or the right to private property, instead emphasizing the collectivity or society. At the same time, the state is sometimes regarded as the highest form of the collective and the spokesman of its will.

The leftists of rigid state regulation prefer socialism as a political system, believing that only state supervision over the distribution of income can ensure the general material well-being. In particular, from the point of view of Marxism, the main drawback of liberalism is the uneven distribution of material wealth. Marxists argue that in a liberal society, real power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of people who control financial flows. In conditions of economic inequality, equality before the law and equality of opportunity, according to Marxists, remain a utopia, and the real goal is to legitimize economic exploitation. From the liberals' point of view, strict state regulation requires restrictions on the amount of wages, in the choice of profession and place of residence, and ultimately leads to the destruction of personal freedom and totalitarianism.

In addition, Marxism is also critical of the liberal theory of the social contract due to the fact that it views the state as a separate entity from society. Marxism reduces the confrontation between society and the state to a confrontation between classes based on the relationship to the means of production.

The statists on the right believe that, outside the economic sphere, civil liberties lead to indifference, selfishness, and immorality. The most categorical are the fascists, who argue that rational progress does not lead to a more humane future, as liberals believe, but, on the contrary, to the moral, cultural and physical degeneration of mankind. Fascism denies that the individual is the highest value and instead calls for the construction of a society in which people are deprived of the desire for individual self-expression and completely subordinate their interests to the tasks of the nation. From the point of view of the fascists, political pluralism, the declaration of equality and the limitation of the power of the state are dangerous, since they open up opportunities for spreading sympathy for Marxism.

A milder criticism of liberalism is carried out by communitarianism (Amitai Etzioni, Mary Ann Glendon, and others), which recognizes individual rights, but strictly links them with obligations to society and allows their limitation if they are implemented at public expense.

Modern authoritarian regimes, relying on a leader popular among the people, often carry out propaganda in order to discredit liberalism among the population. Liberal regimes are accused of being undemocratic due to the fact that voters make their choice among political elites, and do not choose representatives from the people (i.e., their own kind). Political elites are presented as puppets in the hands of a single behind-the-scenes group that also controls the economy. Abuses of rights and freedoms (demonstrations by radical organizations, publication of offensive materials, groundless lawsuits, etc.) are presented as systemic and planned hostile actions. Liberal regimes are accused of hypocrisy: that they are in favor of limiting state intervention in the life of their country, but at the same time interfering in the internal affairs of other countries (as a rule, they mean criticism for human rights violations). The ideas of liberalism are declared to be a utopia that is fundamentally impossible to implement, unprofitable and far-fetched rules of the game that Western countries (primarily the United States) are trying to impose on the whole world (for example, in Iraq or Serbia). In response, liberals argue that it is the feasibility of liberal democracy and the accessibility of its ideas to a wide variety of peoples that are the main causes of concern for dictators.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum from the statists, anarchism denies the legitimacy of the state for any purpose. (The vast majority of liberals recognize that the state is necessary to ensure the protection of rights).

Left-wing opponents of economic liberalism object to the establishment of market mechanisms in areas where they did not exist before. They believe that the presence of losers and the emergence of inequality as a result of competition causes significant harm to the whole society. In particular, there is inequality between regions within the country. The left also points out that historically political regimes based on pure classical liberalism have proved unstable. From their point of view, the planned economy is able to protect against poverty, unemployment, as well as ethnic and class differences in the level of health and education.

Democratic socialism as an ideology seeks to achieve some minimum equality at the level of the end result, and not just equality of opportunity. Socialists support the ideas of a large public sector, the nationalization of all monopolies (including housing and communal services and the extraction of the most important natural resources) and social justice. They are supporters of state funding for all democratic institutions, including the media and political parties. From their point of view, liberal economic and social policy creates preconditions for economic crises.

In this, demosocialists differ from adherents of social liberalism, who prefer much less intervention from the state, for example, through regulation of the economy or subsidies. Liberals also object to equalization by outcome, in the name of meritocracy. Historically, the platforms of social liberals and demo-socialists closely adjoined each other and even partially overlapped. Due to the decline in the popularity of socialism in the 1990s, modern "social democracy" began to shift more and more from democratic socialism towards social liberalism.

Right-wing opponents of cultural liberalism see it as a danger to the moral health of the nation, traditional values and political stability. They consider it acceptable that the state and the church regulate the private life of people, protect them from immoral acts, and instill in them love for shrines and the fatherland.

One of the critics of liberalism is Russian Orthodox Church. In particular, Patriarch Kirill, in his speech at the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra on July 29, 2009, drew parallels between liberalism and the blurring of the concepts of good and evil. The latter is fraught with the fact that people will believe the Antichrist, and then the apocalypse will come.

In matters of international politics, the problem of human rights comes into conflict with the principle of non-intervention in the sovereign affairs of other countries. In this regard, world federalists reject the doctrine of the sovereignty of nation-states in the name of protection from genocide and large-scale violations of human rights. A similar ideology is shared by American neo-conservatives, who call for an aggressive and uncompromising spread of liberalism in the world, even at the cost of a quarrel with US authoritarian allies. This trend actively supports the use of military force for its own purposes against countries hostile to the United States and justifies the violations of the principles of international law associated with this. The neoconservatives approach the statists because they advocate a strong state and high taxes to cover military spending.

Internationally, liberals in power in developed countries are criticized for keeping their countries and supranational organizations (like the EU) closed to people from other regions, restricting immigration, and making it difficult for Third World countries to break into Western markets. Globalization, accompanied by liberal rhetoric, is blamed for the deterioration of workers' rights, the growing gap between rich and poor countries and between classes, the loss of cultural identity, and the lack of accountability of large transnational corporations. She is also suspected of contributing to the overthrow of local elites and the seizure of power by Western countries over the entire planet. From the liberals' point of view, subject to certain social and economic standards, a free and fair global market can only benefit all its participants. This includes increasing the efficiency of production, the free circulation of capital, people and information. Negative side effects, in their opinion, can be eliminated by some regulation.

Criticism of liberalism in literature

At the beginning of the 21st century, with the growth of globalism and transnational corporations, dystopias directed against liberalism began to appear in the literature. One such example is Australian author Max Barry's satire Jennifer's Government, which takes corporate power to the point of absurdity.

Liberalism in Russia

There have been several liberal upsurges in Russian history that have had a significant impact on the country.
The Decembrist uprising of 1825 was the first radical attempt to impose constitutional and legal restrictions on state power.

The February Revolution of 1917 put an end to the absolute monarchy.

Perestroika 1987-1991 and subsequent economic reforms launched the country's transition to a market economy.

These events led to both important positive shifts and serious negative consequences, as a result of which, at the moment, the majority of the Russian population has an ambiguous attitude towards liberal values.

In modern Russia, there are a number of parties declaring their liberal orientation (but not necessarily being such):

LDPR;
"Just Cause";
Libertarian Party of the Russian Federation;
"Apple";
Democratic Union.

" and "liberal" come from the Latin liberalis and literally mean "having to freedom." When it comes to a liberal as a supporter of a socio-political movement, it is assumed that this person stands on a platform that welcomes the deepening and development of political freedoms in the broadest sense of the word. As a rule, liberal ideology unites supporters of democratic parliamentarism, as well as those who stand for the freedom of private enterprise.

In everyday life, the label "liberal" is most often given to those who show unnecessary and inappropriate tolerance for other people's behavior that violates generally accepted norms and rules. It is believed, for example, that excessive in the upbringing of the younger generation negatively affects the formation of the personality of a teenager. Often the public is required to end liberalism against criminals and malicious violators of social norms.

in politics

Who can be attributed to the liberals in the field of activity? We are talking about public figures who support and fully approve the idea of limiting any interference of state structures in social relations. The main principles of the liberal system of values were formed in those times when bourgeois relations based on free enterprise were born and strengthened in society.

The liberal considers personal, economic and political freedom to be the highest priority in social and political life. The rights of a citizen and his freedom for a liberal become a kind of basis and starting point for the formation of a political position. According to liberal politicians, it is the free development of any social relations that makes it possible to build a truly democratic state.

Liberal democracy is becoming the ideal of many Western politicians. However, today there is little left of the former free-thinking and free-thinking in it. The main emphasis of Western liberal democrats is not so much on expanding the real freedoms of citizens, but on removing restrictions that hinder the development of private entrepreneurship. Political scientists and sociologists note that the traditions of Western liberalism are increasingly penetrating the economy, politics and culture of developing countries.

In 2012, the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) conducted a survey in which Russians were asked to explain who a liberal is. More than half of the participants in this test (more precisely, 56%) found it difficult to disclose this term. It is unlikely that this situation has changed dramatically in a few years, and therefore let's look at what principles liberalism professes and what this socio-political and philosophical movement actually consists of.

Who is a liberal?

In the most general terms, we can say that a person who is an adherent of this movement welcomes and approves the idea of limited intervention government agencies c The basis of this system is based on a private enterprise economy, which, in turn, is organized on market principles.

Answering the question of who a liberal is, many experts argue that this is someone who considers political, personal and economic freedom the highest priority in the life of the state and society. For supporters of this ideology, freedom and the rights of every person are a kind of legal basis on which, in their opinion, the economic and social order should be built. Now let's look at who a liberal democrat is. This is a person who, while defending freedom, is an opponent of authoritarianism. According to Western political scientists, this is the ideal that many developed countries are striving for. However, this term can be discussed not only in terms of politics. In its original meaning, this word was used to refer to all freethinkers and freethinkers. Sometimes they included those who in society were prone to excessive condescension.

Modern liberals

As an independent worldview, the considered ideological movement arose at the end of the 17th century. The basis for its development was the works of such famous authors as J. Locke, A. Smith and J. Mill. At that time, it was believed that the freedom of enterprise and the non-interference of the state in private life would inevitably lead to the prosperity and improvement of the well-being of society. However, as it turned out later, the classical model of liberalism did not justify itself. Free, uncontrolled competition led to the emergence of monopolies that drove up prices. Interest groups of lobbyists appeared in politics. All this made legal equality impossible and significantly narrowed the opportunities for everyone who wanted to do business. In the 80-90s. In the 19th century, the ideas of liberalism began to experience a serious crisis. As a result of long theoretical searches at the beginning of the 20th century, a new concept was developed, called neoliberalism or social liberalism. Its supporters advocate the protection of the individual from negative consequences and abuses in the market system. In classical liberalism, the state was something like a "night watchman." Modern liberals have recognized that this was a mistake and have incorporated into their program such ideas as:

Russian liberals

In the political discussions of the modern Russian Federation, this trend causes a lot of controversy. For some, liberals are conformists who play along with the West, while for others they are a panacea that can save the country from the undivided power of the state. This disparity is to a large extent due to the fact that several varieties of this ideology operate simultaneously on the territory of Russia. The most notable of these are liberal fundamentalism (represented by Alexei Venediktov, editor-in-chief of the Ekho Moskva station), neoliberalism (represented by social liberalism (Yabloko party) and legal liberalism (Republican Party and PARNAS party).

Related materials: