Liberalism main principles. What is liberalism and what are its features? The main ideas of liberalism briefly

The term “liberalism” (from the Latin liberalis - free) was first used in Spain in 1811 in Spain. Subsequently, this term entered all European languages. The ideas of liberalism were actively developed and defended by such thinkers as J. Locke, T. Hobbes, A. Smith, C. Montesquieu, I. Kant, T. Jefferson, B. Constant, A. De Tocqueville, I. Bentham, J. St. Mill and others. As an ideological and political phenomenon, liberalism arose on the basis of the ideas of the Enlightenment in the late XYII - early XYIII centuries. In the early stages of its development, it was the most important means of struggle of the “third estate” led by the bourgeoisie against the existing absolutist order. Therefore, its content was directly related to the needs and interests of the emerging bourgeoisie. From the very beginning, the foundation of liberalism was laid down by the principles of individual freedom, its high self-worth and the right to self-realization, as well as the recognition of its responsibility to society. Freedom was understood by liberals as freedom from state, church and other forms of social control. Based on these prerequisites, the economic and political guidelines of liberalism were formed. In the economic sphere, the idea of individual freedom was interpreted by liberals as freedom of private enterprise and the market. They consistently advocated for the liberation of economic activity from state regulation and for providing maximum scope for private initiative. Economic freedom, according to liberals, is the basis of civil and political freedoms. The principle of freedom in the political sphere was interpreted by liberals as freedom from restrictions from the state. On the basis of such an attitude, the idea of the “night watchman state” was formulated, the essence of which was that the state should be endowed with only the most minimal and necessary functions that ensure the protection of order, legality and protection of the country from external danger. It was noted that civil society should have priority over the state, which can be achieved on the basis of the principles of constitutionalism and parliamentarism. Liberals defended the ideas of the rule of law as a means of limiting the state and the separation of powers as an instrument of public control over the state. Opposing class privileges, they emphasized the idea of equality of citizens before laws, which should be more in the nature of prohibitions rather than regulations. Such ideas of liberalism created a theoretical basis for the formation of the rule of law. By the beginning of the twentieth century, liberalism found itself in a rather difficult position in Western countries. The development of the free market and entrepreneurship has gone from an idea to a reality. But it was then that it became clear that the unrestricted play of market forces in conditions of social insecurity of workers did not bring the majority of society either prosperity or freedom. In such a situation, trust in traditional liberal values fell sharply and a revision of the most important provisions of classical liberalism began. Under the influence of the current situation, as well as the development of the labor and social democratic movement, ideas of social justice, state support for the poor, elimination of extremes of property inequality, etc. appeared in the arsenal of liberals. As a result, liberalism evolved into “social liberalism (neoliberalism)” Decisive The socialist revolution in Russia and the global economic crisis of the early 1930s played a role in the establishment of neoliberalism as one of the most important reformist ideologies of the twentieth century, which raised the question of the need to rethink such postulates of classical liberalism as unlimited individual freedom and freedom of competition. Of particular importance were the ideas of the English economist J. Keynes (1881 - 1946), which were widely popular in those years, who developed a model of state regulation aimed at a sharp expansion of state intervention in the economy and a significant limitation of its market principles. The Keynesian model also provided for a significant expansion of consumer demand based on a significant increase in government spending, the creation of social guarantees for the poor in the field of medicine, education, employment, pensions, etc. In practice, the ideas of neoliberalism were first implemented in the “New Deal” President F. Roosevelt, elected in 1932. His government began to actively pursue a policy of demonopolizing the economy and implementing its state regulation. Unemployment benefits were introduced, the activities of trade unions were legalized, and collective agreements began to be concluded between workers and entrepreneurs. Subsequently, similar processes covered almost all industrialized countries. The main difference between neoliberalism and classical liberalism is the recognition of the active role of the state in regulating the economy and pursuing social policy. The idea of its detachment from economic and social processes has been replaced by the understanding that the state must do everything possible to help end social conflicts and smooth out excessive social inequality on the basis of supporting the poorest and most socially vulnerable sections of society. It was recognized that such a policy can be carried out by the state only on the basis of its active influence on economic processes. Under these conditions, liberals, like Social Democrats, began to defend the ideas of medical care available to all citizens, free school and higher education, expansion of the social security system, etc. They were also adherents of the idea of progressive taxation, believing that large owners should bear their share of responsibility for the social stability of society. As a result of the implementation of similar policies in the West, a new model of state was created, called the “welfare state.” However, in the 70s, neoliberal ideology also began to lose its influence, which, while remaining faithful to the basic principles of freedom and market entrepreneurship, absorbed a number of ideas that were previously unusual for it (emphasis on social equality of citizens, recognition of the need for government intervention in the economy and social life of society etc.), which gave rise to a violation of its internal integrity and consistency. The economic crisis of the 70s, accompanied by the crisis of the “welfare state,” was largely a consequence of the policies pursued by neoliberal-oriented parties. As a result of the decline in their popularity, they were forced to cede state power to parties pursuing neoconservative policies. However, later liberalism again embarked on the path of rethinking its leading principles. In particular, the need to return to the principles of stimulating market mechanisms while simultaneously reducing the regulatory role of the state was recognized.

Having inherited a number of ideas of the ancient Greek thinkers Lucretius and Democritus, liberalism as an independent ideological movement was formed on the basis of the political philosophy of the English enlighteners D., Locke, T. Hobbes, A. Smith at the end of the 17th-18th centuries. Linking individual freedom with respect for fundamental human rights, as well as with the system of private property, liberalism based its concept on the ideals of free competition, market, and entrepreneurship.

Liberalism is an ideology that proclaims the recognition of the political and economic rights of the individual within the framework of laws that are a generalization of the natural needs and inalienable rights of people to life, freedom, property, security, order. Liberalism provides for a structure of society and power mechanisms in which free competition and the market limit the role of the state in the life of society.

The main, system-forming principles of liberalism are the following:

1) natural equality of people;

2) the presence and guarantee of the inalienability of such human rights as the right to life, freedom, property;

3) the rule of law, its binding on everyone;

4) the contractual nature of relations between the state and citizens, providing for their mutual responsibility;

5) a democratic political regime that gives all citizens equal rights to vote and be elected;

6) the presence of a developed civil society and guarantees of non-interference in private life;

7) constitutionalism, which provides for the limitation of legislative and executive powers through, first of all, a system of separation of powers, a mechanism of checks and balances, establishing limits and “clear” procedures for the activities of legislators.

The main problems of liberal ideology have always been the determination of the permissible degree and nature of state intervention in the private life of an individual, the combination of democracy and freedom, loyalty to a specific Fatherland and universal human rights.

Attempts to resolve these issues led to the emergence of numerous internal trends in liberalism. So, in the 20th century. Along with traditional liberalism, trends were formed that attempted to combine its core values with total reliance on the state, or with socially oriented ideas that affirmed the greater responsibility of society for the well-being of all people rather than of the individual, or with ideas that denied the social orientation of the state’s activities (“conservative liberalism ") etc.

The strengthening of elements of state ideology and social goals, which adapted the traditional values of liberalism to the economic and political realities of the second half of the 20th century, led to talk about its historically updated form - neoliberalism. The most important advantage of the political system here was proclaimed justice, and the government’s orientation towards moral principles and values. The political program of the neoliberals was based on the ideas of consensus between the managers and the governed, the need for mass participation in the political process, and the democratization of the procedure for making managerial decisions.

In contrast to the previous tendency to mechanically determine the democracy of political life by the majority, preference began to be given to pluralistic forms of organization and exercise of state power. Moreover, R. Dahl, C. Lindblum and other neopluralists believe that the weaker the rule of the majority, the more consistent it is with the principles of liberalism. True, representatives of right-wing liberal movements (F. Hayek, D. Escher, G. Olson) believe that with pluralism, mechanisms can be formed for the majority to expropriate the rich minority, and this can jeopardize the fundamental principles of liberalism.

At the same time, the orientation preserved in neoliberalism primarily towards public types of human activity (political activity, entrepreneurship, freedom from prejudice, etc.), the traditional attitude towards morality as a private matter of a person (which does not contribute to the strengthening of all connections and relationships in society, and at times carries the danger of atomization of society) limit the electoral base of these ideas in modern conditions.

On the other hand, it was the basic values of liberalism that caused a fundamental change in mass political views in many countries of the world and formed the basis of many national ideologies, guidelines for neoconservatism and Christian-democratic ideology. On a liberal basis, various theories of political participation, democratic elitism, etc. have developed.

Liberalism - school in international studies, which is fundamentally opposed to realism. The origins of this trend are in the works of J. Locke, I. Kant, A. Smith, J. S. Mill. The founder of this school is considered to be Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), the 28th President of the United States, one of the founders of the League of Nations. Representatives of this school are also called idealists, and the school itself is called idealistic. Idealism was especially widespread in 1919-1939 and represented an attempt through international institutions, primarily the League of Nations, to ensure peace and cooperation between states.

The idealistic approach is distinguished from other approaches by a clearly expressed ethical position. It proceeds from an optimistic idea of the nature of man as a rational being, capable of moral improvement, peaceful coexistence, and for the sake of the common good, ready to abandon the politics of force and the desire for dominance. Idealists sought to create a harmonious model of international relations, devoid of military conflicts. They put international cooperation, legal resolution of conflicts, regulation of relations between peoples with the help of international organizations, and discussion of controversial issues in negotiations at the forefront. The factor of power in politics was not valued as highly as among the realists; economic and legal levers were considered more effective means of influence. Liberals proceeded from the fact that the interaction of states on the world stage in order to maintain peace and economic prosperity must necessarily be regulated by intergovernmental organizations and international regimes (rules, norms, procedures jointly developed by members of the world community in a specific area of international relations, for example, in trade, financial policy and etc.). In a liberal approach, states are recognized as the main participants in international relations, but not the only ones. It is emphasized that, along with them, there are intergovernmental (UN, OSCE, etc.) and non-governmental organizations (human rights, environmental, humanitarian, transnational corporations, etc.).

In the 1980s, a school appeared neoliberalism A(or structural liberalism), which continues classical liberalism, but takes into account the new realities of the world political process: complex interdependence, developing interstate cooperation, integration, the creation of a global community. Neoliberalism places particular emphasis on the relationship between politics and economics. Due to the interdependence of states, the possibilities for their cooperation through international organizations should increase, and the influence of anarchy on the international environment should weaken.

Within neoliberalism and several directions and concepts have emerged, which are sometimes considered as independent conceptual schools. These include, first of all, the concept complex interdependence. Its representatives are American political scientists Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. In this concept, international politics is analyzed from the point of view of the participation of many political actors in it - not only states, but also non-governmental organizations (there are over 10,000 of them in the world today), including influential transnational corporations. Parties, churches, trade unions and other organizations actively participated in political life. The state has ceased to be the only actor on the world stage; moreover, it is losing its role as the main subject of international politics in favor of international organizations. Recognition of the diversity of actors, types and channels of interaction between them has led to the fact that in the study of world politics, now instead of the concept of international (and essentially interstate) relations, the concept has begun to be used transnational relations. The model of transnational relations, which emphasizes the role of non-state actors, was formulated by R. Keohane together with J. Nye, and the concept of complex interdependence is often attributed to transnationalist, or globalist school.

According to interdependence theory, all political actors influence international politics to a greater or lesser extent. They are interested not only in economic cooperation, but also in joining efforts to solve common, global problems, for example, environmental protection, arms limitation, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc. The position of any country depends on its relations with other states and on the international system in in general. Due to the growing interdependence of different countries, the distinction between domestic and foreign policies of a state is becoming more and more relative: not only foreign policy depends on domestic policy, but also domestic policy on foreign policy, and to an ever greater extent. The multilateral dependence of states makes forceful resolution of conflicts unprofitable, while cooperation creates conditions for peace and prosperity, transnationalists say.

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

The British are considered the founders of the theoretical foundation of liberalism. The Englishman John Locke (1632-1704) first 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 if and only if it is beneficial to both parties. “In order to raise a state from the lowest level of barbarism to the highest level of prosperity, all that is needed is peace, light taxes and tolerance in government; the rest will be done by 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 carry out oppression and tyranny."

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

Basic principles of liberalism

Liberalism (fr. libеralisme) is an ideology based on the fact that the rights and freedoms of the 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 fundamental right is considered to be 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 relevant information, limited power of the state and church, the rule of law, private property and freedom of private enterprise. Liberalism rejected many of the principles that had been the basis of previous theories of the state, such as the divine right of the monarch 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 power. The function of state power is reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure these principles. Modern liberalism also favors an open society based on pluralism and democratic governance, while protecting the rights of minorities and individual citizens.

Some modern movements of liberalism are more tolerant of government regulation of free markets in order to ensure equality of opportunity to achieve success, universal education and reducing income disparities. Proponents of these views believe that the political system should contain elements of the welfare state, including government unemployment benefits, homeless shelters and free health care.

In the political sphere, liberalism arose as a reaction to authoritarian regimes. Liberals sought to limit the rights of hereditary power, establish the institutions of parliamentary government, expand the circle of persons entitled to vote, and provide guarantees of civil liberties. These kinds of measures were seen both as the realization of political freedom and as a means of achieving the economic reforms that liberals insisted on. In the economic field, liberalism was a reaction to government intervention in resolving economic issues. Liberals advocated free competition within the country and free 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 entire country as a whole. Likewise, in relations between different countries, individuals pursuing their own interests in free trade indirectly contribute to the realization of the interests of the entire world community as a whole. When everyone has equal opportunities and rights of access to goods, services and resources, free trade helps unite 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 bearing on the specific political forms of social order proposed by old and new liberals: both advocate a system of representative government, near-universal adult voting, and civil liberties. However, in any particular case, when it is necessary to choose between centralization and decentralization of political responsibility, 19th century liberals. would begin to 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 19th century liberalism. and liberalism of the 20th century. takes on much more drastic forms in the economic sphere. Early liberals advocated private enterprise and a minimal degree of government intervention. Today's liberals have less faith in the market and advocate the broadest government intervention in economic activity. Liberals of the 19th century. believed that in order to achieve “individualistic” goals, “individualistic” means are required; liberals of the 20th century sometimes they propose means to achieve individualistic goals that are completely “collectivist” in nature. In addition, the understanding of “individualistic goals” has changed; now they are mainly reduced to achieving well-being. Political and economic liberalism come from the same philosophy. At the same time, everyone often went their own way. During the 19th century. many countries have taken the path of liberalism. However, borrowing its elements, they continued to support authoritarian political forms of social order. Prime examples include Russia and Japan. In the 20th century countries that have introduced most liberal political institutions, subsequently began to move towards a collectivist economy. Great Britain can be taken 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 to be largely a means of achieving economic freedom. Traditional political institutions ensured the concentration of political power in the hands of social groups whose interests did not include support for liberal projects, such as free trade.

Social liberalism

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

Ideology

In contrast to classical liberalism, which viewed 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 individual’s right to self-determination and self-realization - it is not always enough only his own efforts. Equalizing starting opportunities is impossible without the participation of the state, and it is the state that must ensure the redistribution of part of the social product in favor of socially weak members of society, providing them with support 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 a person’s contribution 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 use of these approaches, according to social liberals, should soften 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 adopted, in part or in whole, Marxism and the socialist theory of exploitation and came to the conclusion that the state should use its power to restore social justice. Thinkers such as John Dewey and Mortimer Adler explained that all individuals, as the foundation of society, must have access to basic needs such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful large-scale events beyond their control 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 a guarantee of positive rights, the fair implementation of negative rights is impossible, since in practice the low-income population sacrifices their rights for the sake of survival, and the courts are more often inclined in favor of the rich. Social liberalism supports the introduction of some restrictions on economic competition. He also expects the government to provide social protection to the population (through taxes) 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, security and defense. From their point of view, these functions already require a strong centralized state power. In contrast, social liberals believe that the main task The state consists of social protection and ensuring social stability: providing food and housing to those in need, health care, school education, pensions, care for children, the disabled and the elderly, assistance to victims of natural disasters, protection of minorities, crime prevention, support for science and the arts. 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 fundamentally diverge in the means to achieve it. Right-wing and conservative movements often tend to favor economic liberalism while opposing cultural liberalism. Leftist movements tend to emphasize cultural and social liberalism.

Some researchers point out that the opposition between “positive” and “negative” rights is in fact imaginary, since ensuring “negative” rights actually also requires public costs (for example, maintaining courts to protect property).

from lat. liberalis - free) is the name of a “family” of ideological and political movements that historically developed from rationalistic and educational criticism, which in the 17th and 18th centuries. Western European class-corporate society, political “absolutism” and the dictates of the church in secular life were subjected. The philosophical foundations of the “members of the liberal family” have always been different to the point of incompatibility. Historically, the most important among them are: 1) the doctrine of “natural rights” of man and the “social contract” as the foundation of a legitimate political system (J. Locke et al., Social Contract); 2) the “Kantian paradigm” of the moral autonomy of the noumental “I” and the concepts of the “rule of law” that follow from it; 3) the ideas of the “Scottish Enlightenment” (D. Hume, A. Smith, A. Ferguson, etc.) about the spontaneous evolution of social institutions, driven by the irreducible scarcity of resources combined with the selfishness and ingenuity of people, connected, however, by “moral feelings”; utilitarianism (I. Betpam, D. Ricardo, J. S. Mill, etc.) with its program of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people”, considered as prudent maximizers of their own benefit; 5) “historical liberalism”, one way or another connected with Hegelian philosophy, affirming human freedom, but not as something inherent in him “from birth,” but as, in the words of R. Collingwood, “acquired gradually insofar as a person enters into the self-conscious possession of one's own personality through... moral progress." In modified and often eclectic versions, these various philosophical foundations are reproduced in modern discussions within the “liberal family.” The main axes of such discussions, around which new groupings of liberal theories are emerging, relegating the importance of differences in philosophical foundations to the background, are the following. Firstly, should liberalism as its main goal strive to “limit the coercive power of any government” (F. Hayek) or is this a secondary issue, decided depending on how liberalism copes with its most important task - “maintaining conditions without which the free practical realization of one’s abilities by a person is impossible” (T. X. Green). The essence of these discussions is the relationship between the state and society, the role, functions and permissible scale of activity of the former for the sake of ensuring the freedom of development of the individual and the free community of people. Secondly, should liberalism be “value neutral”, a kind of “pure” technique for protecting individual freedom, regardless of what values it is expressed in (J. Rawls, B. Ackerman), or he embodies certain values (humanity, tolerance and solidarity, justice, etc.), departure from which and boundless moral relativism are fraught with the most harmful consequences for him, including directly political ones (W. Galston, M. Walzer). The essence of this type is the normative content of liberalism and the dependence on it of the practical functioning of liberal institutions. Thirdly, the dispute between “economic” and “ethical” (or political) liberalism. The first is characterized by the formula of L. von Mises: “If we condense the entire program of liberalism into one word, then it will be private property... All other requirements of liberalism follow from this fundamental requirement.” “Ethical” liberalism argues that the relationship between freedom and private property is ambiguous and variable across historical contexts. According to B. Krone, freedom “must have the courage to accept means of social progress that ... are diverse and contradictory,” considering the principle of laissez faire only as “one of the possible types of economic order.”

If various types liberalism, classical and modern, it is impossible to find a common philosophical denominator and their approaches to key practical problems differ so significantly, then what allows us to say that they belong to the same “family”? Prominent Western researchers reject the very possibility of giving liberalism a single definition: its history reveals only a picture of “discontinuities, accidents, diversity... thinkers, indifferently mixed together under the guise of “liberalism” (D. Gray). The commonality of types of liberalism that are different in all other respects is revealed if they are considered not from their philosophical or political-programmatic content, but as an ideology, the defining function of which is not to describe reality, but to act in reality, mobilizing and directing the energy of people towards specific goals. In different historical situations, the successful implementation of this function requires appealing to different philosophical ideas and putting forward different programmatic guidelines in relation to the same market, “minimization” or expansion of the state, etc. In other words, the only general definition of liberalism can only be that it is a function of the implementation of certain values-goals, manifested in a specific way in each specific situation. The dignity and measure of “perfection” of liberalism are determined not by the philosophical depth of its doctrines or fidelity to one or another “sacred” formulations about the “naturalness” of human rights or the “inviolability” of private property, but by its practical (ideological) ability to bring society closer to its goals and prevent he will “break” into a state that is radically alien to them. History has repeatedly demonstrated that philosophically poor liberal teachings turned out to be much more effective from this point of view than their philosophically refined and sophisticated “brothers” (let us compare at least the political “fates” of the views of the “Founding Fathers” of the USA, as they are set out in “The Federalist”, etc. documents, on the one hand, and German Kantianism, on the other). What are the stable goals-values of liberalism, which received various philosophical justifications in its history and were embodied in various practical programs of action?

1. Individualism - in the sense of the “primacy” of the moral dignity of a person over any encroachments on him by any group, no matter what considerations of expediency such encroachments are supported. Understood thus. individualism does not a priori exclude a person’s self-sacrifice if he recognizes the demands of the collective as “fair.” Individualism is not connected in a logically necessary way with those ideas about an “atomized” society, within the framework and on the basis of which it was initially affirmed in the history of liberalism.

2. Egalitarianism - in the sense of recognizing all people as having equal moral value and denying the importance for the Organization of the most important legal and political institutions of society of any “empirical” differences between them (in terms of origin, property, profession, gender, etc.). Such egalitarianism is not necessarily justified according to the formula “everyone is born equal.” For liberalism, it is important to introduce the problem of equality into the logic of ought ~ “everyone must be recognized as morally and politically equal,” regardless of whether such an introduction follows from the doctrine of “natural rights,” the Hegelian dialectic of “slave and master,” or the utilitarian calculation of one’s own strategic benefits.

3. Universalism - in the sense of recognizing that the demands of individual dignity and equality (in this understanding) cannot be rejected by reference to the “immanent” features of certain cultural and historical groups of people. Universalism should not necessarily be linked to ideas about the ahistorical “human nature” and the same understanding of “dignity” and “equality” by everyone. It can also be interpreted in such a way that in every culture - in accordance with the inherent nature of human development - there must be the right to demand respect for dignity and equality, as they are understood in their historical certainty. What is universal is not what exactly people demand in different contexts, but how they demand what they demand, namely, not as slaves seeking favors that their masters can rightfully deny them, but as worthy people who have the right to what they require.

4. Meliorism as an affirmation of the possibility of correcting and improving any social institutions. Meliorism does not necessarily coincide with the idea of progress as a directed and deterministic process, with which it has long been historically associated. Meliorism also allows for different ideas about the relationship between the conscious and spontaneous principles in changing society - ranging from the spontaneous evolution of Hayekado to the rationalist constructivism of Bentham.

With this constellation of values and goals, liberalism declares itself as a modern ideology, different from earlier political teachings. The boundary here can be indicated by the transformation of the central problem. All pre-modern political thought focused in one way or another on the question: “what is the best state and what should its citizens be like?” At the center of liberalism is another question: “how is a state possible if the freedom of people, which can result in destructive self-will, is irremovable?” All liberalism, figuratively speaking, follows from two formulas of G. Hobbes: “There is no absolute good, devoid of any relation to anything or anyone” (i.e., the question of “the best state in general” is meaningless) and “ the nature of good and evil depends on the totality of conditions existing at a given moment” (i.e., “right” and “good” policies can only be defined as a function of a given situation). The change in these central issues determined the general outline of liberal political thinking, outlined by the following lines: 1) in order for any state to take place, it must include everyone who is concerned, and not just those who are virtuous or have some special characteristics that make them suitable for political participation (as was the case, for example, with Aristotle). This is the liberal principle of equality, which was filled with content during the history of liberalism, progressively spreading to all new groups of people excluded from politics at previous stages. It is clear that such a spread occurred through a democratic struggle against previously established institutional forms of liberalism with their inherent mechanisms of discrimination, and not due to the self-deployment of the “immanent principles” of liberalism. But something else is important: the liberal state and ideology were capable of such development, while earlier political forms (the same ancient polis) broke down when trying to expand their original principles and spread them to oppressed groups; 2) if there is no absolute good that is self-evident for all participants in politics, then achieving peace presupposes allowing everyone the freedom to follow their own ideas about the good. This assumption is “technically” realized through the establishment of channels (procedural and institutional) through which people satisfy their aspirations. Initially, freedom comes to the modern world not in the form of a “good gift,” but in the form of a terrible challenge to the very foundations of human coexistence from their violent selfishness. Liberalism had to recognize this brutal and dangerous freedom and socialize it according to that primitive formula of “freedom from” that early liberalism so expressively conveys. Such recognition and what followed from it for political theory and practice are necessary for the realization of the very possibility of people living together in modern conditions. (In the sense of the Hegelian formula - “freedom is necessary”, that is, freedom has become a necessity for modernity, which, of course, has little in common with the “dialectical-materialist” interpretation of this formula by F. Engels - freedom as a recognized necessity). But the need to recognize freedom in its crude form does not mean that liberalism does not go further in the understanding and practice of freedom. If ethical liberalism strived for something, it was precisely for freedom itself to become an end in itself for people. The formula of this new understanding of freedom as “freedom for” can be considered the words of A. de Tocqueville: “He who seeks in freedom something other than itself is created for slavery”; 3) if freedom is recognized (both in the first and second understandings), then the only way to organize a state is the consent of its organizers and participants. The meaning and strategic goal of liberal politics is to achieve consensus as the only real foundation of a modern state. The movement in this direction - with all its failures, contradictions, the use of tools of manipulation and suppression, as well as with moments of historical creativity and the realization of new opportunities for the emancipation of people - is the real history of liberalism, its only meaningfully rich definition.

Lit.: Leonpyovich V.V. History of liberalism in Russia. 1762-1914. M., 1995; DunnJ. Liberalism.- Idem., Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future. Cambr.. 1993; Galston W.A. Liberalism and Public Morality.- Liberals on Liberalism, ed. by A. Damico. Totowa (N.J.), 1986; Gray). Liberalism. Milton Keynes, 1986; HayekF.A. The Constitution f Liberty. L., 1990; Holmes S. The Permanent Structure of Anti-Liberal Thought.- Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. by N. Rosenblum, Cambr. (Mass), 1991; Mills W. C. Liberal Values in the Modem Vbrld.- Idem. Power, Politics and People, ed. by I. Horowitz. N.Y., 1963; RawlsJ. Political Liberalism. N. Y, 1993; Ruggiero G. de. The History of Liberalism. L., 1927; Wallerstein 1. After Liberalism. N.Y., 1995, pans 2, 3.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Liberalism is an ideology that places human freedom at the forefront of the development of society. The state, society, groups, classes are secondary. The purpose of their existence is only to ensure free development for man. Liberalism proceeds from the fact that, firstly, man is a rational being, and secondly, the very nature of man contains the desire for happiness, success, comfort, and joy. By realizing these aspirations, a person will not do evil, because, as a reasonable person, he understands that it will return to him. This means that, leading his life along the path of reason, a person will strive to improve it not at the expense of other people, but in all other available ways. But he shouldn’t be disturbed in this. And then, building his own destiny on the principles of reason and conscience, a person will achieve harmony of the whole society.

“Every man, provided he does not violate the laws of justice, is free to pursue his own interests as he pleases, and to compete in his activities and the use of capital with other men or classes.”(Adam Smith "The Wealth of Nations").

The idea of liberalism is built on the Old Testament commandment: “Do not do to others what you would not do to yourself.”

History of liberalism

Liberalism was born in Western Europe during the era of bourgeois revolutions of the 17th-18th centuries in the Netherlands and England. The principles of liberalism were put forward in the essay “Two Treatises on Government” by the British teacher and philosopher John Locke; in continental Europe, his ideas were supported and developed by thinkers such as Charles Louis Montesquieu, Jean-Baptiste Say, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, and figures of the American and Great French revolutions.

The essence of liberalism

Economic freedom
Freedom of conscience
Political freedoms
Human right to life
On private property
To protect the state
Equality of all before the law

“Liberals...represent the interests of the bourgeoisie, which needs progress and a somewhat orderly legal system, respect for the rule of law, the constitution, and ensuring some political freedom”(V.I. Lenin)

The crisis of liberalism

- Liberalism, as a system of relationships between people and states, like communism, can only exist on a global scale. It is impossible to build a liberal (as well as a socialist) society in one single country. For liberalism is a social system of peaceful, respectable citizens who, without coercion, are aware of their rights and responsibilities to the state and society. But peaceful, respectable citizens always lose in a clash with aggressive and unscrupulous ones. Consequently, they either must try by all means to build a universal liberal world (which is what the United States is trying to do today) or abandon most of their liberal views in order to preserve their own little world intact. Both are no longer liberalism.
- The crisis of the principles of liberalism also lies in the fact that people, by their nature, cannot stop in time, at reasonable limits. And the freedom of the individual, this alpha and omega of liberal ideology, turns into human permissiveness.

Liberalism in Russia

Liberal ideas came to Russia with the writings of French philosophers and educators of the late 18th century. But the authorities, frightened by the Great French Revolution, began an active struggle against them, which lasted until the February Revolution of 1917. The ideas of liberalism were the main topic of disagreement between Westerners and Slavophiles, the conflict between which, either subsiding or intensifying, lasted for more than a century and a half, until the end of the twentieth century. Westerners were guided by the liberal ideas of the West and called them to Russia; the Slavophiles rejected liberal principles, arguing that Rus' had a special, separate historical path, different from the path of European countries. In the 90s of the twentieth century, it seemed that the Westerners had gained the upper hand, but with the entry of humanity into the information age, when the life of Western democracies ceased to be a secret, a source of myths and an object for imitation among Russians, the Slavophiles took revenge. So now liberal ideas in Russia are clearly not in trend and are unlikely to return to their positions in the near future.

(French libéralisme) - 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 relevant information, limited power of the state and church, the rule of law, private property and freedom of private enterprise. Liberalism rejected many of the principles that had been 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 power. The function of state power is reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure these principles. Modern liberalism also favors an open society based on pluralism and democratic governance, while protecting the rights of minorities and individual citizens.
Some modern movements of liberalism are more tolerant of government regulation of free markets in order to ensure equality of opportunity to achieve success, universal education and reducing income disparities. Proponents of this view believe that the political system should contain elements of a welfare state, including government 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 governed. Today, the political system that is most in tune with the beliefs of liberals is liberal democracy.

Review

Etymology and historical usage

The word "liberal" comes from the Latin. liber (“free”). Titus Livius, in his History of Rome from the Founding 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 everyone, where equality and an equal right to speech are recognized; also about autocracy, which most of all respects the freedom of its subjects.” During the Italian Renaissance, this struggle was renewed between supporters of 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 the thinkers of the French Enlightenment framed the struggle for freedom in terms of human rights.

The word “liberalism” came into the Russian language at the end of the 18th century from French (French libéralisme) and meant “freethinking.” The negative connotation is still preserved in the meaning of “excessive tolerance, harmful condescension, connivance” (“ New dictionary Russian language" ed. T. F. Efremova). IN English language the word liberalism also initially had a negative connotation, but has lost it.

The American Revolutionary War gave rise to the first nation to develop a constitution based on the idea of a liberal state, especially the idea that government governs by the consent of the governed. The French bourgeoisie also attempted 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 coin the word "liberal" to designate 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). Slogans of freedom and equality were taken up by adventurers. Sharp conflicts arose between supporters of different interpretations of liberal principles. Wars, revolutions, economic crises and government scandals provoked mass disappointment in ideals. For these reasons, the word “liberalism” has had different meanings 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 was based on 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 trends are reflected, in particular, in such a key document as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. To be precise with terminology, in this article “political liberalism” means the movement for liberal democracy and against absolutism or authoritarianism; “economic liberalism” - for private property and against government 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” - the movement for a healthy living environment and against colonialism - often comes to the fore.

Political liberalism

Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the foundation of law and society and that public institutions exist to help give individuals real power without kowtowing to 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 that extends some individual rights further than the prerogative of the monarch. The key point is the social contract, according to which laws are made with the consent of society for its benefit and protection of social norms, and every citizen is subject to these laws. Particular emphasis is placed on the rule of law, in particular, liberalism assumes that the state has sufficient power to enforce it. Modern political liberalism also includes the condition of universal suffrage, regardless of sex, race or property; Liberal democracy is considered the most preferable system.

Economic liberalism

Economic or classical liberalism advocates individual rights to property and freedom of contract. The motto of this form of liberalism is “free private enterprise.” Preference is given to capitalism based on the principle of laissez-faire, which means the abolition of government 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 oversight of monopolies and cartels, others argue that market monopolization arises only as a consequence of government action. Economic liberalism argues that the prices of goods and services should be determined by the free choices of individuals, i.e., market forces. Some accept the presence of market forces even in areas where the state traditionally maintains a monopoly, such as security or justice. Economic liberalism views economic inequality, which arises from unequal bargaining power, as a natural result of competition in the absence of coercion. Currently, this form is most expressed in libertarianism; other varieties are minarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

Cultural liberalism

Cultural liberalism focuses on individual rights related to consciousness and lifestyle, including issues such as sexual, religious, academic freedom, and protection from government interference in personal life. As John Stuart Mill said in his essay “On Liberty”: “The only object which justifies the interference of men, individually or collectively, in the activities of other men, is self-defense. It is permissible to exercise power over a member of a civilized society against his will only for the purpose of preventing harm to others.” Cultural liberalism, to varying degrees, objects to government regulation of such areas as literature and art, as well as such issues as the activities of academia, gambling, prostitution, age of consent for sexual relations, abortion, use of contraceptives, euthanasia, use of alcohol and other drugs. The Netherlands is probably the country with the highest level of cultural liberalism today, 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 adopted, in part or in whole, Marxism and the socialist theory of exploitation, and came to the conclusion that the state should use its power to restore social justice. Thinkers such as John Dewey and Mortimer Adler explained that all individuals, as the foundation of society, must have access to basic needs such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful large-scale events beyond their control 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 a guarantee of positive rights, the fair implementation of negative rights is impossible, since in practice the low-income population sacrifices their rights for the sake of survival, and the courts are more often inclined in favor of the rich. Social liberalism supports the introduction of some restrictions on economic competition. He also expects the government to provide social protection to the population (through taxes) 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, security and defense. From their point of view, these functions already require the presence of a strong centralized state power. On the contrary, social liberals believe that the main task of the state is social protection and ensuring social stability: providing food and housing to those in need, healthcare, school education, pensions, care for children, the disabled and the elderly, assistance to victims of natural disasters, protection of minorities, prevention 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 tend to favor economic liberalism while opposing cultural liberalism. Leftist movements tend to emphasize cultural and social liberalism.
Some researchers point out that the opposition between “positive” and “negative” rights is in fact imaginary, since ensuring “negative” rights actually also requires public costs (for example, maintaining courts to protect property).

Third generation liberalism

Third generation liberalism was a consequence of the post-war struggle of third world countries against colonialism. Today it is more associated with certain aspirations than with legal norms. Its goal is to fight against the concentration of power, material resources and technology in a group of developed countries. Activists of this movement emphasize the collective right of society to peace, to self-determination, to economic development and to access to the commonwealth (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 environmental and humanitarian assistance.

In all of the above forms of liberalism, it is assumed that there must 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 adequately performed by the private sector. All forms of liberalism aim to provide legislative protection for human dignity and personal autonomy, and all argue that the removal of restrictions on individual activity improves society.

Development of liberal thought

Origins

The desire for personal freedom has been characteristic of representatives of all nations in all centuries. Vivid examples are city-policies from Ancient Greece to European ones with the principle “the air makes the city free”, the political system of which included many elements of the rule of law and democracy in combination with 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, etc. The latter became the forerunner of the view that supreme power should belong to the people. Full-fledged liberal movements emerged 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 could become the basis of a stable society was put forward by John Locke. His Two Treatises on Government (1690) formulated two fundamental liberal principles: economic freedom as the right to personal ownership and enjoyment of property, and intellectual freedom, including freedom of conscience. The basis of his theory is the idea of natural rights: to life, to personal liberty and to private property, which was the forerunner of modern human rights. When citizens enter into society, they enter into a social contract in which they relinquish their power to the government to protect 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, or 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 separation of powers and federalism to be the main tools for limiting state power. His followers, the economists Jean-Baptiste Say and Destutt de Tracy, were passionate promoters of "market harmony" and the principle of laissez-faire economics. Of the thinkers of the Enlightenment, 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 his treatise On the Social Contract (1762), Rousseau brought new understanding to this concept. He noticed that many people find themselves part of society without having property, i.e., 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 to be one of these benefits, which allows people to best realize their abilities, and at the same time makes people law-abiding citizens. Another good is collective republican freedom, which the individual gains through identification with the nation and national interests. Thanks to this identification, educated person he limits his freedom because it becomes in his interests. The will of the nation as a whole can be realized only under the condition of self-determination of peoples. Thus, the social contract leads to national consent, national will and national unity. These ideas became a key element of the Declaration of the National Convention during the French Revolution and the views of such liberal American thinkers as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

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

Adam Smith developed the theory that moral life and economic activity were possible without government directives and that the strongest nations were those in which citizens were free to exercise their own initiative. He called for an end to feudal and mercantile regulation, patents and monopolies that arose thanks to state protection. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), he developed a theory of motivation that brought personal material interest into harmony with the unregulated social order. In his 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 capable of achieving greater productivity than a market with many restrictions. He assigned the government to solve problems that could not be reconciled with the thirst for profit, for example, preventing fraud or the illegal use of force. His theory of taxation was that taxes should not harm the economy and that the percentage rate of tax should be constant.

Revolutionary liberalism

The idea that ordinary people should go about their business without dictate from monarchs, aristocracies, or churches, 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 rebel in the name of life, personal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—almost a Locke quote, but with one important modification: Jefferson replaced Locke's word "property" with "the pursuit of happiness." Thus, the main goal of the revolution was a republic based on personal freedom and rule with the consent of the governed. James Madison believed that to ensure effective self-government and protect the rights of economic minorities, a system of balances and checks was necessary. It is 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 representatives of the National Assembly that it had 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 the Citizen” (1789), similar to the American “Bill of Rights”.

For the first few years, liberal ideas dominated the country's leadership, but the government was unstable and could not effectively defend itself against the many 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 reign of terror, the victims of which were many liberals, including Robespierre himself. Napoleon I Bonaparte carried out a profound legislative reform, which reflected many of the ideas of the revolution, but subsequently abolished the republic and declared himself emperor. A side effect of 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 around the world, who moved from proposals to uncompromising demands. Mainly, they sought to create parliamentary republics in place of the existing absolute monarchies. The driving force behind this political liberalism was often economic motives: the desire to end feudal privileges, guilds and royal monopolies, restrictions on property and freedom of contract.

Between 1774 and 1848 There were several revolutionary waves, with each subsequent wave placing greater emphasis on citizens' rights and self-government. Instead of a simple recognition of individual rights, 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 governed”). Family ownership and the feudal tradition, in which the obligations of the parties were determined by personal loyalty, were replaced by ideas about voluntary consent, commercial contract and individual private property. The idea of the sovereignty of the people and the fact that people are capable of independently passing all the necessary laws and enforcing them became the basis of national identity and went beyond the teachings of the Enlightenment. A similar desire for independence from external domination in occupied territories or 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.

Discussions within liberalism

Liberalism and democracy

Initially, the ideas of liberalism and democracy were not only significantly different, but were also in conflict with each other. For liberals, the basis of society was a person who has property, strives to protect it, and for whom the choice between survival and the preservation of his civil rights cannot be acute. The implication was that only property owners formed civil society, participated in the social contract, and gave the government consent to rule. On the contrary, democracy means the process of forming power based on the majority of the entire people, including the poor. From the liberals' point of view, the dictatorship of the poor posed a threat to private property and the guarantee of individual freedom. From the Democratic 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 was particularly reflected in the original version of the US Constitution, where suffrage was linked to property qualifications. Many popular leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln, resorted to anti-liberal measures (introducing censorship, taxes, etc.) Fears on the part of liberals related to democracy especially intensified after the French Revolution. In particular, this is why French liberals generally supported Napoleon Bonaparte, who, although he was an opponent of government accountability (and especially democracy), nevertheless contributed to the implementation and popularization of a number of the most 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 freedom and private property coexisted with democracy. According to Tocqueville, the key to the success of this model, called “liberal democracy,” is equality of opportunity, and the most serious threat is the lax government intervention in the economy and its trampling of civil liberties.

After the revolution of 1848 and the coup d'état of Napoleon III (in 1851), liberals increasingly began to 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 aggravated social problems. Advances in medicine led to an increase in life expectancy and population, resulting in a surplus of labor and falling wages. After workers in many countries received the right to vote in the 19th century, they began to use it to their advantage. The sharp increase in population literacy led to a surge in social activity. Social liberals demanded legislative measures against the exploitation of children, safe working conditions, and a minimum wage.

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

Wilhelm von Humboldt, in his work “Ideas for the Experience of Determining the Boundaries of State Activity,” 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 pursuit of the common good and improving the quality of life. Although Mill remained within the framework of classical liberalism, individual rights receded into the background in his philosophy.

By the end of the 19th century, most liberals had come to the conclusion that freedom required the creation of conditions for the realization of one's abilities, including education and protection from excessive exploitation. These conclusions were outlined by Leonard Trelawney Hobhouse in Liberalism, in which he articulated a collective right to equality in transactions (“equitable consent”) and recognized the validity of reasonable government intervention in the economy. In parallel, some classical liberals, in particular Gustavus de Molinari, Herbert Spencer and Oberon Herbert, began to adhere to more radical views close to anarchism.

War and Peace

Another subject of debate, starting from the end of the 19th century, was the attitude towards war. Classical liberalism was a fierce opponent of military intervention and imperialism, advocating neutrality and free trade. Hugo Grotius's treatise On the Law of War and Peace (1625), in which he outlined the theory of just war as a means of self-defense, was a liberal reference book. In the United States, isolationism was the official foreign policy until the end of World War I, as Thomas Jefferson said: “Free trade to all; military alliances with no one.” However, President Woodrow Wilson instead put forward the concept of collective security: confronting aggressor countries through a military alliance and preemptively resolving conflicts in the League of Nations. The idea initially 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 unilateral declarations of war by one state on 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 create prosperity or prevent poverty. John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, and President Franklin Roosevelt advocated the creation of a more complex government that would still be a bastion of individual freedom while protecting the public from the costs of capitalism.

John Maynard Keynes, Ludwig Joseph Brentano, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, Thomas Hill Green, Bertil Ohlin, and John Dewey described how the state should regulate a capitalist economy to protect freedom while avoiding socialism. In doing so, they made a leading contribution to the theory of social liberalism, which had a significant influence on liberals around the world, in particular the Liberal International, which emerged in 1947. They were opposed by supporters of neoliberalism, according to which the Great Depression was not the result of laissez-faire government into the economy, but on the contrary, excessive government regulation of the market. Economists of the Austrian and Chicago schools (Friedrich August von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, etc.) 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 identifies the main causes of the Great Depression as the dollar being pegged to gold, regulation of the banking system, higher taxes, and printing money to pay off the national debt.

In 2008, due to the economic crisis, the debate between supporters of neoliberalism and social liberalism intensified again. Calls began to be heard to return to socially oriented policies 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, represented a “third way” that denied both liberalism and communism. In the USSR, private ownership of the means of production was prohibited in order to achieve social and economic justice. Governments in Italy and especially in Germany denied people's equal rights. In Germany, this was expressed in the propaganda of racial superiority of the so-called. the "Aryan race", which meant the Germans and some other Germanic peoples, above other peoples and races. In Italy, Mussolini relied on the idea of the Italian people as a “corporation state.” Both communism and fascism sought state control of the economy and centralized regulation of all aspects of society. Both regimes also asserted the priority of public interests over private ones and suppressed personal freedom. From the point of view of liberalism, these common features united communism, fascism and Nazism into a single category - totalitarianism. In turn, liberalism began to define itself as an opponent of totalitarianism and consider the latter as the most serious threat to liberal democracy.

Totalitarianism and collectivism

The above parallel between various totalitarian systems causes sharp objections from 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 of certain collective interests to the detriment of the interests, goals and freedoms of the individual citizen. These could 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, fascism, Nazism, and communism are only extreme forms of collectivism.

Historical reasons for totalitarianism

Many liberals explain the rise of totalitarianism by saying that in times of decline people are looking for a solution in dictatorship. Therefore, the duty of the state should be to protect the economic well-being of citizens and balance the economy. As Isaiah Berlin said, “Freedom for the wolves means death for the sheep.” Neoliberals take the opposite view. In his work “The Road to Serfdom” (1944), F. von Hayek argued that excessive government regulation of the economy could lead to the loss of political and civil liberties. In the 30s and 40s, when the governments of the USA and Great Britain, following the advice of the prominent British economist John Keynes, took a course towards government regulation, Hayek warned about the dangers of this course and argued that economic freedom was a necessary condition for the preservation of liberal democracy. Based on the teachings of Hayek and other representatives of the “Austrian economic school,” a movement of libertarianism arose, which sees any government intervention in the economy as a threat to freedom.

Open society concept

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 accumulation of human knowledge is unpredictable, theories of the ideal government controlled fundamentally does not exist, therefore, the political system must be flexible enough for the government to smoothly change its policies. 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 led to the spread of social liberalism, which argues that the best defense against totalitarianism is an economically prosperous and educated population with broad civil rights. Representatives of this movement, such as J. K. Galbraith, J. Rawls and R. Dahrendorf, believed that in order to increase the level of personal freedoms it was necessary to teach them enlightened use, and the path to self-realization lay through the development of new technologies.

Personal freedom and society

In the post-war years, much 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 procedure for ordering social preferences that is defined for any combination of preferences, is independent of individual preferences on extraneous issues, is free from the imposition of one person's choice on the entire society, and satisfies the Pareto principle (i.e., that optimal for each individual should be most preferable for the whole society). The consequence of this theorem is the liberal paradox according to which it is impossible to develop a universal and fair democratic procedure that would be compatible with unlimited freedom of personal choice. This conclusion means that neither a market economy nor a welfare economy in its pure form 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 equal rights for all participants.

Personal freedom and government 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 everyone's personal freedom.

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 of when the rejection of the principle of the inviolability of private property and the replacement of free competition with government 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 (usually low) salary assigned by the state. This was accompanied by the emergence of repressive law enforcement agencies (NKVD, Ministry of State Security of the GDR, etc.). A significant proportion of the population was forced to work without pay under conditions of confinement.

It should be noted that there are objections to the above arguments. The relatively low level of wages under socialism is explained by the fact that the state took upon itself the main concerns about housing, medicine, education and social security. 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 in the countries during the period described are noted. Finally, the fact that some of the goals were ultimately not achieved, 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 legal private property, supported by the full force of state power, 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 markets, equality, rule of law, government transparency, limits on government power, sovereignty of the people, self-determination of a nation, enlightened and reasonable public policy - have become very widespread. Liberal-democratic political systems include countries as different in culture and level of 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 list of modern political trends within the framework of liberalism given below is by no means exhaustive. The most important principles that are most often mentioned in party documents (for example, the 1997 Liberal Manifesto) have been listed above.

Due to the fact that in Western Europe and North America most political movements express solidarity with the ideals of political liberalism, the need for a narrower classification arose. Right-wing liberals emphasize classical liberalism, but at the same time 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 individual 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 discredit of authoritarianism, moderate movements began to play a leading role in Western conservatism (liberal conservatism, Christian democracy). 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 government should not interfere in personal life or entrepreneurial activity, except to protect the freedom and property of some from the encroachments of others. They support economic and cultural liberalism and oppose social liberalism. Some libertarians believe that in order to implement the rule of law, the state must have sufficient power, others argue that ensuring the rule of law must 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 trend of neoliberalism became isolated. This movement is often viewed as a purely economic theory, outside the context of political liberalism. Neoliberals strive for state non-intervention in the country's economy and for a free market. The state is assigned the function of moderate monetary regulation and an instrument for gaining access to foreign markets in cases where other countries create obstacles to free trade. One of the defining manifestations of neoliberal economic policy is privatization, a striking example of which was the reforms carried out in Great Britain by the cabinet of Margaret Thatcher.

Modern social liberals, as a rule, consider themselves centrists or social democrats. The latter have gained significant influence especially in Scandinavia, where a series of protracted economic downturns have 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 persistent 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 and subsequent liberalization for the Social Democrats. Therefore, today in the Scandinavian countries prices are not regulated (even in state-owned enterprises, with the exception of monopolies), banks are private, and there are no barriers to trade, including international trade. This combination of liberal and social policies led to the implementation of a 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, pursue a fairly liberal policy.

Liberal parties most often consider the strengthening of liberal democracy and the rule of law, and the independence of the judicial system to be the main goals of their policies; control over the transparency of government work; protection of civil rights and free competition. At the same time, the presence of the word “liberal” in the name of a party does not in itself allow one to determine whether its supporters are right-wing liberals, social liberals or libertarians.

Social liberal movements are also very diverse. Some movements support sexual freedom, the free sale of weapons or drugs, and the expansion of the functions of private security agencies and the transfer of some of the functions of the police to them. Economic liberals often advocate a flat income tax rate, or even replacing the income tax with a capitation tax, the privatization of education, health care and the state pension system, and the transition of science to self-sustaining financing. In many countries, liberals advocate the abolition of the death penalty, disarmament, abandonment of nuclear technology, and environmental protection.

IN Lately Discussions about multiculturalism have intensified. While all parties agree that ethnic minorities should share the fundamental values of society, some believe that the majority's function should be limited to protecting the rights of ethnic communities, while others advocate the speedy integration of minorities in order to preserve the integrity of the nation.

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

Modern criticism of liberalism

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

Left supporters of strict government regulation prefer socialism as a political system, believing that only government supervision over the distribution of income can ensure general material well-being. In particular, from the point of view of Marxism, the main disadvantage 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 point of view of liberals, strict government regulation requires restrictions on salary, 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.

Right-wing statists 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 humanity. 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 objectives of the nation. From the point of view of fascists, political pluralism, the declaration of equality and the limitation of state power are dangerous because they open up opportunities for the spread of sympathy for Marxism.

A softer criticism of liberalism is made by communitarianism (Amitai Etzioni, Mary Ann Glendon, etc.), which recognizes individual rights, but strictly links them with responsibilities towards society and allows for their limitation if they are implemented at public expense.

Modern authoritarian regimes, relying on a popular leader, often carry out propaganda to discredit liberalism among the population. Liberal regimes are accused of being undemocratic due to the fact that voters choose among political elites rather than choosing representatives from among the people (i.e., their own kind). Political elites are seen as puppets in the hands of a single behind-the-scenes group that also holds control over the economy. Abuses of rights and freedoms (demonstrations by radical organizations, publication of offensive materials, baseless lawsuits, etc.) are presented as systemic and planned hostile actions. Liberal regimes are accused of hypocrisy: that they advocate limiting government intervention in the life of their country, but at the same time interfere in the internal issues of other countries (usually, this refers to criticism for human rights violations). The ideas of liberalism are declared a utopia, which is fundamentally impossible to implement, unprofitable and far-fetched rules of the game that Western countries (primarily the USA) 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 statists, anarchism denies the legitimacy of the state for any purpose. (The vast majority of liberals accept that the state is necessary to ensure the protection of rights).

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

Democratic socialism as an ideology strives to achieve some minimum equality at the level of the final 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 critical natural resources) and social justice. They are supporters of state funding of all democratic institutions, including the media and political parties. From their point of view, liberal economic and social policies create the preconditions for economic crises.

This distinguishes demosocialists from adherents of social liberalism, who prefer much less government intervention, for example, through economic regulation or subsidies. Liberals also object to outcome-based equalization in the name of meritocracy. Historically, the platforms of social liberals and demosocialists were closely adjacent to each other and even partially overlapped. Due to the decline in the popularity of socialism in the 1990s, modern “social democracy” began to increasingly shift away 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 for the state and church to regulate the private life of people, protect them from immoral acts, and instill in them a love for shrines and the fatherland.

One of the critics of liberalism is the 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 risk is that people will believe the Antichrist, and then the apocalypse will come.

In matters of international politics, the issue of human rights comes into conflict with the principle of non-interference in the sovereign issues of other countries. In this regard, global federalists reject the doctrine of the sovereignty of nation states in the name of protection against genocide and large-scale violations of human rights. A similar ideology is adhered to by American neoconservatives, who call for the aggressive and uncompromising spread of liberalism in the world, even at the cost of a quarrel with the authoritarian allies of the United States. This movement actively supports the use of military force for its own purposes against countries hostile to the United States and justifies the associated violations of the principles of international law. Neoconservatives are closer to statists because they support a strong government 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, limiting 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 widening gap between rich and poor countries and between classes, the loss of cultural identity, and the lack of accountability of large multinational 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 a liberal perspective, provided certain social and economic standards are met, a free and fair global market can only bring benefits to all its participants. This includes increasing production efficiency, free circulation of capital, people and information. Negative side effects, in their opinion, can be eliminated through some regulation.

Criticism of liberalism in literature

At the beginning of the 21st century, with the rise of globalism and transnational corporations, dystopias directed against liberalism began to appear in literature. One such example is the satire of the Australian writer Max Barry “Jennifer's Government”, where the power of corporations is brought to the point of absurdity.

Liberalism in Russia

In the history of Russia there were several liberal upsurges that had a significant impact on the country.
The Decembrist uprising of 1825 was the first radical attempt to introduce 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 changes and serious negative consequences, as a result of which at the moment the majority of the Russian population has an ambivalent attitude towards liberal values.

In modern Russia, there are a number of parties that claim to be liberal in orientation (but are not necessarily so):

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

Liberalism main principles. What is liberalism and what are its features? The main ideas of liberalism briefly

History of liberalism

The essence of liberalism

The crisis of liberalism

Liberalism in Russia

Regular and irregular English verbs

Where did the Romanov dynasty come from?