Bankstoday.

What is liberalism and who are liberals? Why are they so often scolded in Russia?

Liberals are often associated with the so-called "fifth column" - supporters of a different path in the development of the country. But in fact, liberalism is the existing long-term political, economic and social ideas that have had their own followers, including in Russia. Moreover, many of the liberal ideas are embodied in the Russian Constitution. So why do liberals scold and how justified this criticism?

Why liberalism is not a very new theory

Liberals in Russia is customary to call those who do not share the "official" point of view on political processes, and at the same time does not relate to supporters of the left course of the state. But in fact, liberalism is a little more than accusing oppositionists in belonging to the "fifth column". This is the direction of political thought, which is several hundred years, and which was presented, including Russian thinkers.

It is believed that Liberalism originates in the Renaissance Epoch When the principles of Humanism were opposed to the ideology of Catholicism. In practice, liberal ideas were embodied in the English "glorious revolution" when Vigi fought for the right to choose the king and for democratic freedoms. Since then, the main principle of liberalism has become the fact that the supreme power in the state should belong to the people.

Then there was the Epoch of Enlightenment, when liberal ideas began to expand in other countries - including in France and colonial America. The concept of liberalism competed with the absolute monarchy, mercantilism, orthodox religions and clerics. In contrast to them, liberal movements offered an idea of ​​personal rights on the basis of constitutionalism and self-government.

As the Liberal movements included new and new ideas:

  • personal freedom, free dignity, freedom of speech and free religion;
  • inviolability of personal life;
  • existence and protection of private property;
  • free market;
  • the principle of equality, the presence of a legal state, the openness of the government and the limited state power;
  • Supreme to the authorities of the people and the right to self-determination of nations, etc.

Now These principles are included in the legal doctrines of almost all countries of the world. - And in a number of state, the principles of liberalism are considered the primary goals of social development.

Russia did not remain aside from the development of liberal ideas - and besides John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, there are names and Russian liberals in history. Russian intelligentsia has created its own idea of ​​liberalism - with the specifics of the Russian idea.

It all started in about the middle of the XVII century - scientists associate the origin of Russian liberalism with the work of Alexander Radishchev, in which liberalism becomes a consistent socio-political teaching. The second stage of development began in the middle of the XIX century and is associated with the works of Konstantin Cavelin and Boris Chicherina, and the third - begins at the end of the 19th century and the highest development reaches in the 20th century.

Other researchers believe that The ideology of liberalism originated in Russia since the XVIII century and is associated with the reforms of Peter I and Catherine II . So, in understanding Peter I, Western liberalism was supposed to affect Russia in the form of economic, cultural and social transformations. And at least transformations prevented the serfdom and unaware of society to change, the beginning was laid.

Thus, the policy of Catherine II, as it is believed, was founded on the ideas of Western European liberalism, and she considered the freedom to be "soul for everything in the world." These are the principles of religious tolerance, humanization of criminal law, strengthening the right of private ownership, freedom for nobles, limited state interference in cases in places. In fact, this principle "Do not prohibit and not forced", although in the trimmed version (in the time of Catherine II, the liberation of the peasants was still affectionate).

In the future, the ideas of liberalism in Russia promoted Mikhail Speransky, Nikolai Novosillesev, Nikita Muravyev other. And the whole history of the development of Russian liberalism is based on the principles of civil liberties.

What are the main ideas of liberals

The ideas of representatives of classical liberalism are quite simple, they are based on the principles of personal freedom, human rights, the protection of private property and non-interference of the state in human life. Based on this Liberal parties and movements are building their policies in such areas:

  • independence of the judicial system and the legal state;
  • responsibility of the authorities for the decisions made;
  • Protection of rights of citizens and business;
  • Creating all conditions for free competition, etc.

In essence, this Principles of building almost any modern legal state And the majority is inscribed in the Constitution or to the State Doctrine.

Speaking about the ideas of liberalism, it is impossible not to say about the different flows:

  • Social liberalism - I do not deny the desire for the freedom of man and business, insist that the state should take responsibility for poor, pay pensions, provide free medicine, help citizens during the emergency period, maintain science and culture. The client countries (truth, high tax costs) approached this idea.
  • Libertarianism - Movement that defends the position of distance distance from human life. Some libertarians believe that the state should still have a certain strength in the economic and military sphere, others believe that even the army does not need. True, it is impossible to call them anarchists - the libertarians recognize the right state to interfere with the life of a person who grossly violates the rights of another person (that is, the same power unit);
  • Neoliberalism - His representatives consider their task to create such a legislative framework for the state that the authorities will not be able to dominate the economy, but will only help to establish a mechanism of market relations;

Truth, In the public consciousness, the word "Liberal" gradually acquired more painful tint , and that is, the reasons. Many confuse liberalism with tolerance, and tolerance - with those (rather radical) ideas of political correctness. As a result, it is believed that the adoption of liberal ideas will practically automatically lead the country to the "parent 1" and "parent 2" - although in reality, a whole eternity is missing between these events.

In Russia There are many critics of liberalism - Starting from the President (Vladimir Putin called himself Liberal, but then stated that this idea had exhausted himself) to the Polystologist Gevorg Mirzayan, who may well substantiate his position. Nevertheless, supporters of liberalism accuse critics in the fact that those incorrectly perceive their ideas - for example, liberals are not against the traditional family, they are not ready to free migrants from liability for their offenses, and intersections with political correctness may be temporary.

So why did the liberals become called all the dissenters?

Why are the liberals now called not those?

Criticism of the ideas of liberalism is not a new phenomenon, but in the past few years she literally gained a new force. So, the USSR authorities, without renounced from the principles of freedom, actually created a pole of opposition to the liberally tuned collective west led by the United States. Modern researchers Call the Soviet ideology partly "cave anti-liberalism" But now the situation of such ideas is very and very controversial.

It is now difficult to imagine, but becoming president in 2008, Dmitry Medvedev said that the policy should be based on the principle "Freedom is better than non-free" , and in all its manifestations - both personal, and economic freedom, and freedom of expression. After a few years, as we know, the situation has changed dramatically - now the ideas of liberalism are considered to be ill.

But why is it going on? Researchers Call the point of reference of the new reality Start of 2010 It all started with sending the ratings of the authorities and the growth of protest activity in Moscow and other cities of Russia. The tough response to protests on the Swamp area was the beginning of the new ideology of the Russian government, but after the events of 2014 everything became even more difficult. Now "liberals" is customary to be called those who do not support the position of Russia in the question of the Crimea, who continues to maintain a different course of the country's development rather than those selected by the authorities.

Meanwhile, the ideas of liberalism in Russia have different opponents:

  • Russian Orthodox Church - According to unofficial data, the denial has come enough enough: in intracrekny affairs the word "liberalism" has long been prohibited. Freedom of personality is opposed to freedom of moral choice and freedom from evil. What is interesting, many real liberals have positively assessed the influence of religion as a whole to society, but after the active onset of the ROC, the Church is regularly criticized on freedom;
  • Communists - At least now this is the second largest faction in the State Duma, in fact, more than 13-15% of the CPRF votes are not able to collect. Nevertheless, modern left critically refers to liberalism, recalling the success of the Chinese economy and more explicit signs of stagnation in Europe;
  • Supporters of the Social Democratic Course - They believe that the current parliamentary democracy is able to solve issues of social justice. Freedom of speech they are linked with state support for media, as well as election campaigns and political movements;
  • Socialists - It is believed that the growth of independence and competition will ultimately lead the country to the mass unemployment and the lack of money from the population on the simplest goods and services - including medicine and education.

Thus, modern opponents of liberalism ideas Not quite liberalism elected the object of their criticism - And some mixture of ideas in which everything is united, which contradicts the official and informal ideology of modern Russia.

Which of the famous people are called liberals

First of all, it is worth saying - in modern politics there has been no division for "black" and "white", as is not the liberals in its pure form (they probably remained in pre-revolutionary Russia). The ideology of any party is a mixture of different ideas. For example, representatives Communist Party Requested from the idea of ​​reviving the USSR, and its leader Gennady Zyuganov regularly receives awards from the ROC.

Even more brighter example - headed by Vladimir Zhirinovsky Liberal Democratic Party of Russia . If you carefully consider all the ideas and bills that the party offers, it will become clear - from liberalism and democracy there is only the name (though, and from the full name of the party already refused, leaving only the abbreviation of the LDPR).

Some politicians and just known people themselves call themselves liberals, for example:

  • Head of Sberbank Herman Gref "He discovered that" I was liberal, and I was not ashamed to recognize himself by Liberal. " I am an absolute liberal in the economy ";
  • Former Finance Minister, and now the head of the Accounts Chamber Alexey Kudrin - it is even considered "systemic liberal", that is, related to the official authorities;
  • Russian President Vladimir Putin - in one of the interviews called himself liberal, etc.

If we talk about political forces, then the liberal (fully or partially) can be called those who adheres to the right course:

  • Union of Right Forces - The party existed from 1999 to 2008, which included many famous figures, including Boris Nemtsov, Irina Khakamad, Hydara, Sergey Kirienko and others. Subsequently, the party reformatted in the "right case" under the leadership of Mikhail Prokhorov, and since 2016 it is a "Growth Party" under the leadership of Boris Titov's business ombudsman. Places in the State Duma party received only 2 convocations;
  • "Apple" - Gregory Yavlinsky, created in the 1990s, Yaruri Boldyrev and Vladimir Lukin, and from the first letters of the names - an appliance, which among all other generic forces received the most power - was presented in the State Duma and local councils. In the 90th party had a good position and acted as a democratic opposition policy of President Boris Yeltsin. Now, after a series of shifts of leadership, the position is no longer the highest;
  • PARNASSUS (Folk Freedom Party) - The party founded in 1990, which the former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov is now headed. The last few election campaigns were not the most successful for the party, and now it is not presented in the State Duma, nor in regional parliaments;
  • Unregistered Libertarian Party, Russia's Russia and others.

As for the most famous representatives of the movement of liberalism, there are many more them - they are often attributed to them as Public figures (Anatoly Chubais, Alexey Kudrin, Igor Shuvalov) and Opposition politicians (Alexey Navalny, Ksenia Sobchak, Ilya Yashin, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Kasyanov, Vladimir Milov). And often called liberals famous journalists, writers and artists , for example, Andrei Makarevich, Leonida Parfenova, Dmitry Bykov, Evgenia Albats, Alexander Gordon, Boris Akunina, Alexey Venediktova and many others.

As a rule, during the crisis, the circle of "Liberals" - the "fifth columns" expands, and includes it Government members and State Duma deputies . True, most of them are as far from the ideas of liberalism, like their critics.

Are there any prospects for liberal ideas in Russia

Despite the fact that liberalism officially is not the ideology of the Russian state (and the Constitution generally prohibits a mandatory ideology), many of the liberal ideas have reflected in the laws, including the Constitution - as in most countries of the world. Nevertheless, the president speaks of the lack of prospects in liberalism, and state TV channels pay a lot of attention to his criticism.

However, even recent representatives of liberally oriented intelligentsia had a rather high status in the Russian government - it was necessary at least To establish relationships with the West (the same "reboot"). In addition, in the period of a favorable situation, the country needed more freedom, especially in an economic sense. And Alexey Kudrin, and Alexey Ulyukayev, were recognized experts on economic issues - at least the second for several years already sits in prison.

It all ended with the first crisis - in 2008-2009, the world recession struck economics in 2008, and in 2011-2012 there were first mass protests for political reasons over many years (in particular, in the Swamp Square). Around then, the liberals began to lose their status, but the main process went from 2014, when the situation with Crimea and Ukraine divided many.

In the last two conveners of the State Duma there is no place for some specialized parties (And in fact, there are not there since 2003), right, democratic and liberal forces continue to give up in the regions. It is believed that the liberal agenda in Russia is ready to support 15-20% of voters, but practice shows the opposite - even in the amount, all the batches of the liberal sense would barely move through the passage barrier.

The economy goes stronger in the path of nationalization : Several years ago they spoke about the public sector in the amount of 70% of the entire economy, and then 3 large private banks were nationalized. But still representatives of the liberal wings are in power (the same Boris Titov, Alexey Kudrin, heads of banks and state corporations), and the government is not the first year working with the "regulatory guillotine", getting rid of unnecessary requirements and standards.

Experts agree that Now in liberalism in Russia there are no bright representatives - All well-known persons are somehow connected with some scandals or other unpleasant situations, but it is not necessary to talk about the delicacy of this flow in Russia. Yet those 15-20% of the electorate - middle class, educated people who are unhappy with the policies conducted by the authorities - in the future can get a new force. But just can the liberals be united for victory?

Liberalism is a political ideology that recognizes the main values ​​of the freedom and human rights. The main of these rights is to freely dispose of themselves and their property. Speaking briefly, liberalism is the "ideology of freedom." The word itself comes from Latin Liber - "free."

Liberals are supporters of liberal ideology. In politics, liberals advocate democracy, political equality. The economy supports free market and private property. In the field of culture and ideology they advocate pluralism - recognition of the right to different views, tastes and opinions.

Freedom of personality is not opposite to the interests of society, but on the contrary, the main driving force of social development, liberals are believed.

Along with conservatism and radicalism , liberalism is considered one of the main political ideologies of modernity. Unlike conservatives, liberals advocate the conversion of society by reforms, for reducing the role of the state in society. Unlike radicals, do not support rapid revolutionary changes, considering them dangerous and harmful.

Content

The essence of liberal ideologielibers and conservatives. Liberalism and conservatism: general and distinctive such economic liberalismliberalism in Russia: the shortest history. Westerners, Slavophiles and "Liberals" who said "I do not share your beliefs, but is ready to die for your right to express them"?

The essence of liberal ideology

The main values ​​of liberalism are democracy and individualism, human rights. Human life is recognized as an absolute value.

Liberals advocate private property and economic freedoms - market economy, competition, minimal government intervention in business affairs.

Liberals advocate democracy, political equality of all people, equality to law and court.

Liberals encourage to limit the scope and spheres of state activities, reduce state interference to the life of citizens.

Liberals support the course of a change in society through reforms gradual non-violent transformations.

Liberals and conservatives. Liberalism and conservatism: general and distinction

The differences between liberalism and conservatism are obvious at the level of values. For conservatives, the major values ​​are traditional public institutions - the family, the state, religion. For liberals - individualism and personal freedom.

At the same time, in the practice of liberals and conservatives often advocate the same things. After all, both liberals and conservatives refer to "right":

Both liberals and conservatives consider private ownership of the basis of society, support the market economy.

Both liberals and conservatives oppose revolutions, radical changes.

Thus, liberalism and conservatism is not always hard to oppose each other. The same person may in favor of liberalism in favor of conservatism in favor of conservatism. In this regard, the statement of the British Prime Minister of Benjamin Dizraeli is usually remembered: "At the one who was not liberal at sixteen, there is no heart; Who has not become a conservative to sixty, no head. "

In democratic countries, voters can vote for Liberals, then for the conservatives. So, in the US bipartisian system, the Democratic Party is considered more liberal, Republican - more conservative. Party periodically replaces each other in power as a result of elections, which is why the political course becomes more liberal, then more conservative.

Donald and Melania Trump vote in the presidential elections. 2016 year. Photo: Reuters. https://img.nerews.com/media/gallery/106274586/279967344.jpg

What is economic liberalism

Economic liberalism is part of the liberal ideology relating to the market and private property. According to Liberals, political freedom and social justice are inseparable from economic freedom and private property. Liberals protrude for the market economy, maintain maximum freedom of trade and competition, freedom of entrepreneurship.

Liberals advocate the minimum state intervention in business affairs, for reducing taxes and legislative restrictions for entrepreneurs. According to Liberals, the economy is best regulated by the "invisible market's hand" - the law of supply and demand.

The opposite of economic liberalism is a centralized planned economy. Also liberals disagree in views with representatives of mercantilism, Keynesianism and other directions of economic thought.

Liberalism in Russia: the shortest history. Westerners, Slavophiles and "Liberals"

The word "liberalism" fell into Russia in the XVIII century from France. In the future, the word "liberal" began to be used as the antonym of the word "statestone" - a supporter of a strong central government.

Catherine II (1762-1796) herself shared many liberal ideas of the enlighteners, but could not or did not want to fully embody them into life.

Under Alexander I (1801-1825), the country operated the secret societies of the Decembrists. Many of the conspirators adhered to liberal ideas, dreamed of establishing a limited monarchy or republic.

Under Nicolas I (1825-1855), the main representatives of liberalism in Russia were Slavophiles and Westerners. Westerners advocated the development of Russia on the European sample, Slavophiles for a special Russian path. However, those and others considered the necessary abolition of serfdom and restricting the autocratic power of the king.

Under Alexandra II (1855-1881), the so-called "liberal bureaucracy" appeared - officials who, on behalf of the king, conducted great reforms. Fortieted right was canceled, independent competition courts, land and urban Duma were created, the army moved to universal Woning service instead of 25-year reccristic.

Under Alexandra III (1881-1894), the main support of the liberal intelligentsia, the Local Government Bodies. Under Nicolae II (1894-1917), the Farmers of the Zemsky Movement created the first liberal political organization - the illegal "union of land-constitutionalists".

From 1905, when parties were resolved and elections to the State Duma were declared, Liberals created a batch of democrats (cadets). She played a prominent role in parliament until the 1917 revolution. After the February Revolution, the Liberal Cadets included in the Provisional Government, but their October Revolution was working together with the Government.

With the coming to power of the Bolsheviks and the establishment of a single-party system, liberalism in Russia ceased existence: the surviving Russian liberal politicians continued their activities already in emigration.

"October 17, 1905." Picture of Ilya Repin. On October 17, 1905, King Nikolai II signed a manifesto, who gave the population to democratic rights and freedoms, proclaimed the election in the Duma https://img.nerews.com/media/gallery/106274586/4631826.jpg

In modern Russia, disputes are being conducted about whether it is possible to talk about liberals and conservatives in the traditional sense. Now, for example, in the country there is a liberal-democratic party of Russia (LDPR). However, the actions and statements of the leadership of the Party far do not always reflect liberal ideas.

In Russia, the word "liberalism" from the very beginning many were perceived as synonymous with liberalness, excessive tolerance, low-planness in front of the West. So, the hero of the novel F.M. Dostoevsky "demons" Ivan Shatov declares: " Our Russian liberal is primarily a lacquer and only looks like someone to clean the boots "

In modern Internet slang, there is a mocking word "Liberast", which is called all in a row: and authors of market reforms of the 1990s, and today's ministers, and radical oppositionists.

Caricature with signature ridicuing liberals https://img.news.com/media/gallery/106274586/81775146.jpg

Who said "I do not share your beliefs, but is ready to die for your right to express them"?

One of the pillars of liberalism is freedom of speech. Sometimes the essence of liberalism is transmitted by the following quote: " I do not share your belief, but ready to die for your right to express them " In another translation: " I do not agree with any word you say, but ready to die for your right to speak "

This statement is attributed to the French enlightener of the XVIII century Voltera, but in fact it first appeared in 1906 in the biography of Voltaire, written by the British Evelyn Hall. The original sounds like this: " I Disapprove of What You say, But i Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say IT "

The phrase became the winged while Evelyn Hall, and she had to explain that in reality Voltaire did not write these words: "I did not want to create the impression that these are genuine words of Voltaire ... This is just the paraphrase of his words from" essays about tolerance " - "Think and let others think too." "

Bust Voltaire. Jean-Antoine Hudon. 1778. https://img.news.com/media/gallery/106274586/189177498.jpg

Liberal - who is this and what liberalism is simple words

January 19 2021.

Hello, dear blog readers KtonanovenKogo.ru. The concept of liberalism often emerges when it comes to political issues. But not everyone is fully aware that he hides behind this word.

Often the man scolds liberalism, passing its values ​​in passing. Do not want a similar incident to happen to you? Then read on.

Liberalism

What is liberalism

The philosophical dictionary states that liberalism is an ideological course, which is based on the belief in the need to reform the Company for the most complete implementation. Individual values (rights and freedoms).

The term comes from the lat. Liberalis is free.

Determination of liberalism

Key for liberalism is the principle of personal freedom. His supporters believe that a person should have freedom to determine his fate. The main method of this flow is the elimination of everything that threatens or prevents the development of individual freedom.

Speaking briefly, liberalism is a cult of self-sufficiency of freedom in all spheres of human life.

Liberalism is ...

Forms of liberalism

Over time, the interpretation of this concept has expanded significantly. Thus, there were 4 forms of liberal ideas, possessing their specific features. Consider them in more detail.

Political liberalism . This is the concept of limited state interference in public relations. According to her, ensuring security, legality and public order are in government jurisdiction, but in the form of close cooperation with society.

The basis of this platform is the conviction that public institutions exist in order to assist in the empowor of the authorities, without improving the elite.

Economic . This ideology opposes the rigid state regulation of the free market. In economic liberalism, the key role is played by freedom of trade and competition (what is it?). The main motto is free private entrepreneurship.

Supporters of this flow believe that the market is capable of functioning independently. At the same time, the possibility of government oversight for monopolies is not excluded.

Globalization is just a conductor of this idea. Erasing the boundaries between states, free trade, the overall labor market and the concentration of power in the suprupral structures (corporations and oligarch). Now we are seeing the inglorious end of this idea.

Cultural liberalism . The main principle of this form is the protection of personal life and life of a person from the state intervention. That is, each waven adhere to its own cultural norms.

Cultural liberalism opposes state control in such areas as gambling, prostitution, abortion, euthanasia, drinking alcohol and drugs.

Social . The liberal image of thoughts is quite controversial. Certificate of which serves social liberalism, which supports state intervention in the economy.

Supporters of this direction believe that the state should redistribute the public product in favor of socially weak representatives of the Company (this is closer to socialism of the USSR times).

Liberal: Who is it

Understanding who liberal is over time changed markedly :

  1. In the novel "Don Quixote", written at the beginning of the XVII century, Liberal is a tolerant, well-educated and sociable person.
  2. At the end of the XVIII century, the word acquires the value associated with ideals of freedom.
  3. In the XIX century, Liberal is a person who preaches freedom and enlightenment, acts in defense of civil rights and for the liberation of society from religious obscurantism.
  4. In the XX century, a self-sufficient individualist with a developed sense of responsibility becomes the ideal of liberal.
  5. Now it is more difficult to say who liberals such as simple words. The definition often depends on culture and country.

For instance, in Russia Prevails Negative The perception of liberals. It is believed that these are people who are focused on Europe and the United States.

Dostoevsky called such people (in due time) "Westerners" and severely criticized (how to actually sound his words a hundred years!).

Dostoevsky about liberalism

In this regard, everything is pretty prose. Good, the correct word "wrong people" cover their unsightly essence (wolf in sheep skins).

In the same way, the word "democracy" was launched. The struggle for democracy Western countries cover the frank robbery, interference in the affairs of other countries and the genocide of entire peoples.

So and our "liar liberals" . They have nothing to do with the original meaning of the word "liberalism". This is only a convenient shirma, behind which the "fifth column" hides, hateing the country and all the people. They are supposedly advantageous for the freedom of personality, but in fact they carry an inglorious banner of collaborators.

These are embittered, narcissists and any unable people in this life. Somehow they do not work out differently over the crowd, so everyone else needs to be held in the dirt (crushing, hang labels, get to repent), and thus raise themselves (after all, they simply, and the rest of the blind).

Separating ourselves from the people, they become some "representatives in the field" of the Western world. At the same time, they continue to speak on behalf of the people (as a meme with Achidzhakova). Westerners they are Westerners. They found their vocation and get both material and moral satisfaction From his betrayal (Boyshi-badist). And there is no limit to their moral fall, because people are empty.

And Western false liberals?

In liberalism, after all, the main value is the rights and freedoms of a person. Very elevated and right. So, it can be bought by this idea that you can fight for the rights of people in any country (with the support of local "alleged liberals").

Oh, you have the rights of a person violated (and local liberal defenders are confirmed)! Then we go to you (with airplanes, rockets and other democratizers and liberalizers).

Under this slogans bombed Yugoslavia, broke into parts of Libya, almost ruined Syria. And all this under the banners of liberalism and democracy! Blooming the struggle for the benefit of the inhabitants of these countries. Hypocrisy (what is it?).

How not to give a quote Mahatma Gandhi:

"What is the difference for the dead, orphans and homeless people, in the name of what arbitrariness and destruction work - in the name of totalitarianism or in the name of the Holy Democracy and Liberalism?"

Brief history of liberalism

Liberalism was formed at the end of 17-18 centuries. On the basis of the ideas of the Epoch of Enlightenment. The first liberal concepts appeared in the works of Montesquieu, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau. In the XIX century, Tokville, Mill and Humboldt, Mill and Humboldt played a key role.

Liberal

Listed thinkers have advanced ideas of violence, human security from political arbitrariness, board with the consent of the people and the right to private property.

All this was the basis of classical liberalism, arguing that a person is a sovereign person, which should not be imposed by the rules introduced "top above". Liberals sought to limit the rights of hereditary monarchs, establish the institutions of parliamentary rule and provide civil liberties.

The French Revolution of the XVIII century, Liberalism opposed traditionalism only. Wide distribution received in the XIX century . Then in Western Europe there were liberal parties that cause the purpose of transformation of society on the ideas of equality, social justice and humanism. In the last quarter of the XIX century, socialist ideas were fisted.

In the 1930s of the XX century is formed The ideology of neoliberalism . Her practical embodiment was the "new course" of the American president F. Roosevelt. Neoliberalism recognized the importance of the participation of the state in regulating the economy and the need for social policy.

In practice, this was embodied in the restriction of the power of monopolies and state social programs. Neoliberalism remains the ideological basis of the US Democratic Party.

In the XVIII-XIX centuries, Liberals were the apostles of "Freedom". However, the development of production, urbanization, extremes of competition, the consequences of the Great Depression and World Wars were noticeably transformed by liberalism. In ideology, concepts appeared (what is it?) Associated with the protection of the weak and prevention of the instability of the economy.

Liberalism in Russia

The origins of liberalism in Russia can be traced in the XVIII century, but as an ideological flow, it appears only in the 1830-1840s. He received the greatest distribution in the university environment.

Theoretics of liberalism in Russia in 1830-1890s. K. Cavelin, B. Chicherin, S. Solovyov and A. Gradovsky. They considered the necessary gradual expansion of civil liberties and establishing constitutional orders.

In the XIX century, Russia, like a number of other countries, borrowed elements of liberalism, while maintaining authoritarian forms of the social device. A bright example is served Liberal reforms Alexander II .

In 1905, political parties of liberalization arise in Russia:

  1. Constitutional Democratic Party;
  2. "Union October 17";
  3. Party of democratic reforms;
  4. Party of peaceful update;
  5. Party of progressors.

It is Liberals achieved renunciation From the power of the emperor Nikolai II, the first composition of the Provisional Government was formed during the February Revolution.

After the October Revolution of 1917, the medium disappears to spread liberal ideas. In the post-Soviet Russia, the liberals insisted on minimizing the role of the state in the economic sphere and denied the concept of social state.

Brief summary

Liberalism is not ideal and contradictory. However, like any other doctrine. They are covered as shirma. It can be treated in different ways, but it is impossible to deny that it is the liberal principles that underlie the modern civil society.

Good luck to you! Seeing fast meetings on the pages of KtonanovenKogo.ru

Summary of article:

A man calling himself liberal must have not just certain political interests. The ideas of liberalism are very comprehensive and associated not only with politics, but also with philosophy.

Who is Liberal?

Essence and basic components of liberalism

Foundation liberalism make up The idea of ​​equality and freedom . Adherent of this ideological flow firmly convinced that society will be harmonious and prosperous only if every citizen will have the same rights and opportunities .

Liberal is confident that power structures should only ask a tone to develop the country and protect the interests of its inhabitants. That is, their intervention in public life and the economy should be minimal.

Power should not:

  • Maintain and all the more impose some definite religion;
  • Main ideological propaganda. But at the same time, moderate cultivation of non-aggressive patriotic sentiment is allowed;
  • Tester dissenters. Any citizen must have the right to criticize the state device or specific political representatives.

It should not be confused Liberals и Anarchists . The first are confident that the state is necessary to maintain order in society and determining the vector of its development.

Anarchists deny any forms of state power. They believe that instead of a difficult arranged system of government agencies, rational use self-government. For example, the problems of a certain area or city are solved at meetings.

Philosophical reflections on the basis of liberalism are reduced to the fact that the citizen himself knows that it is better for him. It is not limited to non-religiously imposed by religious, political or other ideas. Performs for liberalism

Who are liberals in Russia?

The first liberal ideas penetrated Russia in Peter I. It is his orientation to the West, where much seemed to him better, allowed representatives of the highest class to join the works of Boden, Locke, etc. Nevertheless, many more centuries in a row self-adjusting and church Save their positions.

The beginning of the 19th century was marked by the flourishing of liberalism in the intelligentsia environment. The Decembrists who dreamed of "catching up" enlightened by Europe were a striking example, reset the Yarm of autocracy and serfdom from the country.

During the USSR, liberalism was actually prohibited So it was considered a hostile ideology promoting private property. After the arrival of the Yeltsin, the implementation of liberal ideas in the economy, media, social life, etc. began. The first large batches of this political direction appeared.

Russian liberals still consider Western countries with a model of the proper structure of society. They are convinced that in our country only the visibility of freedom and publicity has been created. For example, they indicate the fact that independent Russian media at the moment can be found only on the Internet.

Creating himself a liberal man is confident in unnecessary imposition of Orthodox values. However, The supporter of this ideology does not necessarily have to be an enemy of the current power and church. .

Some Moderate Liberals believe that democratic institutes existing in Russia are quite efficient, there are relative freedom for entrepreneurship. Zhirinovsky as a representative of the party

Why do not love liberals in Russia?

Unfortunately, liberal forces quickly lost popularity in Russian society already several years after the collapse of the USSR. This is due to the following reasons:

  1. Unfortunately implemented economic reforms. Many of their troubles in the period of the 90s were associated with the failure of the liberal economic model in the Western model;
  2. Lack of sustainable party institute. Despite the abundance of liberal parties, many of them did not exist longer than 5 years;
  3. Too much focus on presidential power. Many Liberals believed that the country is enough to have a leader that will create the ideal private property system and a market economy. At the same time, the right-wing forces neglected the need to develop their ideas in local self-government and the judicial system.

Clericalism Always was one of the main rivals of liberalism. Therefore, the ROC has long criticized liberal values. The church is confident that along with the desire for freedom, "liberty" is carrying confusion and contributes to the propaganda of defects.

The percentage of Orthodox believers in Russia is very high. Therefore, many people (especially the older generation) listen to the opinions of priests. Not popular views

Liberalism in the modern political system of the Russian Federation

Despite the unpopularity of liberalism, there are those who adhere to these views in the environment of Russian politicians and ruling structures. For instance, Alexey Kudrin He always discovered about his commitment to a liberal approach in the economy.

The former Minister of Finance became one of those who perfectly coped with the task of developing small businesses in the country. Under his leadership, a stabilization fund was founded and the foreign debt is significantly reduced.

Liberalism's supporter, many consider Dmitry Medvedev. He was one of the few who publicly spoke about the negative manifestations of Stalinism. This is a sufficiently bold step, since in the post-Soviet space a lot of people perceive Stalin as an outstanding ruler. Kudrin and Medvedev - Liberals?

Liberals and Democrats: What is the difference?

Democracy is one of the types of political regime. With it, important issues (the choice of the ruler, the formation of the government, amendments to the Constitution, etc.) is solved by popular voting.

Liberalism is primarily ideology proclaiming the main value freedom man . Fullly liberal ideas will be implemented only in conditions of democracy, when each citizen contributes to important political decisions.

Therefore, the main difference between the concepts of "Liberal" and "Democrat" is that they are from different categories .

The first is a commitment to the general idea of ​​freedom and equality. "Democrat" is a more specific definition and denotes a supporter of the political regime. At the same time, the democrat may not separate liberal values. For example, he approvingly belongs to the death penalty or opposes freedom of entrepreneurial activity.

The ideas of liberalism about universal equality, disarmament and protection of the rights of national and sexual minorities seem very attractive. Nevertheless, their implementation in practice even in developed countries does not always lead to positive results.

Video: 8 basic signs of liberal

In this video, the political scientist Mikhail Utopin tells what signs are liberalism in modern society:

They privatized the right to express "public opinion", they speak on behalf of the "progressive public" and "Russian intelligentsia". At the same time, their views have nothing to do with the values ​​and worldviews of the majority of Russians. So who are they, liberals?

The origins of modern "liberalism"

Let's start with the fact that those people who today call themselves liberals and are also evaluated by the population, in fact, have a very indirect attitude towards liberalism as a classical political ideology. It is not by chance that many philosophers talk about "political death." And to perceive the liberals of modern Russia as the ideological heirs of John Locke and it is hardly worth it.

Classic Western liberals have been with all that patriots of their countries. They had their own views on the political and economic development of their countries, but never would ever come to work against the British Empire. Moreover, the external, and internal politics they carried out quite tough and national interests.

Liberalism in modern Russia is a phenomenon of a completely different order. First, it rises with its roots not to the pre-revolutionary Russian liberalism, which wanted to limit autocracy and introduce certain freedoms. The true mother of modern liberalism is the Soviet dissident, and then its most concern, the crazy part. After all, among the dissidents there were the same Marxists-Communists, there were nationalists and Orthodox conservatives, about which, by the way, today they prefer not to remember when they talk about Soviet political prisoners.

There were dissidents, wanted to make the Soviet Union much more radical "red" state, or to revive the Russian Empire. And our "Liberals" are the heirs of pro-American dissidents that bordered with real spies. They were ready to transmit any information not only by the "Voice of America", but also to those gloomy people who seemed by the Voice of America. These are they applauded the collapse of the Soviet Union, despite the disasters, which then fell into millions of people who lived in the post-Soviet space.

Life with a loaf to the west. Who are liberals?

In October 1993, the advocates of the "human rights" were launched, demanding to drown in the blood of the defenders of the House of Soviets. When ordinary people are pensioners, workers, military, students - stood on the barricades in the name of their homeland, stood under the most different flags - from the red flags of Anpilovtsev to the black and yellow-white stages of monarchists, - "Liberals" demanded to shoot these people, crush them

Tanks

. And then President Boris Yeltsin did this, though he did some more gently. By the way, were among thirsty blood and those who then came to the horror of a pair of pins on demonstrations on the Swamp Square.

But then, in the nineties, Liberals were little interested in chronic non-payment of wages on dying enterprises, the beggar of old people, who did not receive an insignificant pension, street children, the growth of drug addiction and prostitution. All this was explained by the fakes of the transition period, market therapy. Today, the liberals of any small conflict like building the park is inflated as a universal scale problem. Then they were silent.

Nelyubov to Russia as credo and pathology

The most abomination of those who call themselves liberals is that they sincerely hate their native state. Liberal can be born in Moscow or Votkinsk, Novosibirsk or Novoshakhtinsk, to be ethnically quite a Russian man, but at the same time he will hate Russia to the triums, to despise her, call the "rashka". Ukrainian Nazi, Dudaevets, Baltic Fascist, Even Igilovets - they will be even closer to him, he will sympathize with them.

A distinctive feature of Liberals is hatred for most Russian population. At the same time, they assign themselves the right to speak on behalf of this majority, calling themselves "public." But ordinary people of Liberals, considering themselves some kind of the highest casom dedicated, hate. How many times had to read in the network of their statements about the fact that the Russian people, they say, to blame for Putin himself, that he deserves his fate, that he is underdeveloped and cannot adopt the only correct liberal model.

Probably, none in any country in the world there is no such numerous social force that would have hated her homeland so hard. Yes, Kurdish nationalists may not love Turkey, Irish - Great Britain, Breton - France, but Liberals are not representatives of some other community appropriate for their own, separate state. It seems like the same citizens who live, work, learn together with us, and sometimes even members of one family are.

But the hatred of Russia only increases, and together with the country they hate her patriots, and representatives of all those political trends, whose views in the liberal paradigm fit do not fit, and even ordinary alone - "For what vote for Putin," " For what they do not vote and so on.

In addition to the ideological core of politicized liberals, there are so-called liberals. As a rule, these are ordinary people who may not be associated with the opposition political movements of a liberal sense. But in his mentality, they are these largest liberals and also strive to passionately hate Russia.

It is they who are in their social networks jokes about Russia, memes and demotivators, love to compare Russia and other countries, and these comparisons are always not in favor of our country. We have everything bad for such "liberal workers": if the "liberal" woman, then even the Russian men for her all completely alkashi, sludge and impotent, if a man, then women are completely selling prostitutes and better to bring Papuan than to marry our girlfriend.

Monopoly on word

The most dangerous in the Russian "liberalism" is that now liberals monopolized the right to speak on behalf of the public. For some reason, under the "public opinion", we are now understood only by the position of Liberals. And so on any question - from abortions to gay parades, from privatization to migration.

In a certain sense, this is not surprising, as a significant part of representatives of intellectual professions, including journalistic, is affected by liberalism. Increased concentration of liberals - in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and there are also leading Russian media, which broadcast a similar position, issuing it for "public opinion".

The monopoly on the word is fueled by the colossal financial capabilities of liberals. Foreign and domestic oligarchic structures behind them. No patriotic and, moreover, the left force does not have such colossal financial resources that Liberals have. Hungry, hungry and sick leave the Russian prisons who were sitting there on the Natballs, anarchists, communists. But the liberals, thanks to the colossal grants, begin to live Nadayuchi, even fashionable clothing lines start.

Liberals today turn information in the media as beneficial to them. The only plus of recent years associated with the distribution of Internet technologies is the appearance of the patriotic segment of the mass media, which pretty swept the liberal monopoly on mass information.

In the 90s, no "tomorrow", "zipper", "lemon", "Russian orders" could not compete with "news", "Moscow Komsomol members" and so on. Financing was incomparable. Especially since Russian television was fully in the hands of Liberals. Today, the role of television has decreased noticeably, the young people look less and less, which means that the hope of a word of monopoly is growing.

Who is here the fifth column and who is her commander?

Expressing the interests of the global financial scores, the fifth column of Russian liberals uses not only generous financing. It has a colossal lobby in power structures and this is another main danger. Today, state propaganda is submitting "Liberals" exclusively as "heroes" of street battles in the marsh and other areas, or as network trolls, incremental to the criticizing Vladimir Putin.

In fact, around Vladimir Putin Liberals is no less, if not more than on the square. And these liberals are much more dangerous than streets, among which are just a lot of shames or missed people. In power structures, a large number of people focused on the West and Western values ​​are operating with Yeltsinsky times.

They also hate their country, their own people. Some officials who operate Russian higher rank officials are foreign names. What for? Why? Not because of hate whether Russia and the whole Russian and the desire to forever send their children to live abroad?

What is one social policy held by the Russian authorities! Is it not liberalism? When the market is placed in the first place, and about national interests prefer not to say (as something indecent). So what that in a specific village school is unprofitable? School and should not make a profit, but should teach future citizens, even in a particular village of their total of five of our people. How can unprofitable hospitals, kindergartens, libraries?

The same liberals in power calmly, following their multiculturalist ideology, bring migrants in huge quantities - people who have grown in alien culture. These are not the Soviet people who still grow in a single political system, albeit with their national flavor. These are the guys who did not participate in the Russian language school, raised in their countries in hatred towards Russia and Russian. But they are cheap labor and mass for the phased substitution of the indigenous population than our liberals and enjoy.

By the way, the head of the Russian state itself has not yet made a single demonstrative gesture that would testify to his own sampling with liberals. What is the active concern for the "Yeltsin Center", constant communication with the Yeltsinist "intelligentsia"? No matter how terrific, we oppose the Crimea or Syria, no matter how defending their economic interests, laying gas pipelines, no matter how rearmed, re-equipped the army, but in the first place should be the life of your own people.

The people should not be an experimental rabbit for all sorts of liberal experiments in the form of modernization of education, pension reform, and so on.

They privatized the right to express "public opinion", they speak on behalf of the "progressive public" and "Russian intelligentsia". At the same time, their views have nothing to do with the values ​​and worldviews of the majority of Russians. So who are they, liberals?

The origins of modern "liberalism"

Let's start with the fact that those people who today call themselves liberals and are also evaluated by the population, in fact, have a very indirect attitude towards liberalism as a classical political ideology. It is not by chance that many philosophers talk about "political death." And to perceive the liberals of modern Russia as the ideological heirs of John Locke and it is hardly worth it.

Classic Western liberals have been with all that patriots of their countries. They had their own views on the political and economic development of their countries, but never would ever come to work against the British Empire. Moreover, the external, and internal politics they carried out quite tough and national interests.

Life with a loaf to the west. Who are liberals?

Liberalism in modern Russia is a phenomenon of a completely different order. First, it rises with its roots not to the pre-revolutionary Russian liberalism, which wanted to limit autocracy and introduce certain freedoms.

The true mother of modern liberalism is the Soviet dissident, and then its most concern, the crazy part. After all, among the dissidents there were the same Marxists-Communists, there were nationalists and Orthodox conservatives, about which, by the way, today they prefer not to remember when they talk about Soviet political prisoners.

There were dissidents, wanted to make the Soviet Union much more radical "red" state, or to revive the Russian Empire. And our "Liberals" are the heirs of pro-American dissidents that bordered with real spies. They were ready to transmit any information not only by the "Voice of America", but also to those gloomy people who seemed by the Voice of America. These are they applauded the collapse of the Soviet Union, despite the disasters, which then fell into millions of people who lived in the post-Soviet space.

Life with a loaf to the west. Who are liberals?

In October 1993, the advocates of the "human rights" were launched, demanding to drown in the blood of the defenders of the House of Soviets. When ordinary people are pensioners, workers, military, students - stood on the barricades in the name of their homeland, stood under the most different flags - from the red flags of Anpilovtsev to the black and yellow-white stages of monarchists, - "Liberals" demanded to shoot these people, crush them

Tanks

. And then President Boris Yeltsin did this, though he did some more gently. By the way, were among thirsty blood and those who then came to the horror of a pair of pins on demonstrations on the Swamp Square.

But then, in the nineties, Liberals were little interested in chronic non-payment of wages on dying enterprises, the beggar of old people, who did not receive an insignificant pension, street children, the growth of drug addiction and prostitution. All this was explained by the fakes of the transition period, market therapy. Today, the liberals of any small conflict like building the park is inflated as a universal scale problem. Then they were silent.

Nelyubov to Russia as credo and pathology

The most abomination of those who call themselves liberals is that they sincerely hate their native state. Liberal can be born in Moscow or Votkinsk, Novosibirsk or Novoshakhtinsk, to be ethnically quite a Russian man, but at the same time he will hate Russia to the triums, to despise her, call the "rashka". Ukrainian Nazi, Dudaevets, Baltic Fascist, Even Igilovets - they will be even closer to him, he will sympathize with them.

A distinctive feature of Liberals is hatred for most Russian population. At the same time, they assign themselves the right to speak on behalf of this majority, calling themselves "public." But ordinary people of Liberals, considering themselves some kind of the highest casom dedicated, hate. How many times had to read in the network of their statements about the fact that the Russian people, they say, to blame for Putin himself, that he deserves his fate, that he is underdeveloped and cannot adopt the only correct liberal model.

Probably, none in any country in the world there is no such numerous social force that would have hated her homeland so hard. Yes, Kurdish nationalists may not love Turkey, Irish - Great Britain, Breton - France, but Liberals are not representatives of some other community appropriate for their own, separate state. It seems like the same citizens who live, work, learn together with us, and sometimes even members of one family are.

Life with a loaf to the west. Who are liberals?

But the hatred of Russia only increases, and together with the country they hate her patriots, and representatives of all those political trends, whose views in the liberal paradigm fit do not fit, and even ordinary alone - "For what vote for Putin," " For what they do not vote and so on.

In addition to the ideological core of politicized liberals, there are so-called liberals. As a rule, these are ordinary people who may not be associated with the opposition political movements of a liberal sense. But in his mentality, they are these largest liberals and also strive to passionately hate Russia.

It is they who are in their social networks jokes about Russia, memes and demotivators, love to compare Russia and other countries, and these comparisons are always not in favor of our country. We have everything bad for such "liberal workers": if the "liberal" woman, then even the Russian men for her all completely alkashi, sludge and impotent, if a man, then women are completely selling prostitutes and better to bring Papuan than to marry our girlfriend.

Monopoly on word

The most dangerous in the Russian "liberalism" is that now liberals monopolized the right to speak on behalf of the public. For some reason, under the "public opinion", we are now understood only by the position of Liberals. And so on any question - from abortions to gay parades, from privatization to migration.

In a certain sense, this is not surprising, as a significant part of representatives of intellectual professions, including journalistic, is affected by liberalism. Increased concentration of liberals - in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and there are also leading Russian media, which broadcast a similar position, issuing it for "public opinion".

The monopoly on the word is fueled by the colossal financial capabilities of liberals. Foreign and domestic oligarchic structures behind them. No patriotic and, moreover, the left force does not have such colossal financial resources that Liberals have. Hungry, hungry and sick leave the Russian prisons who were sitting there on the Natballs, anarchists, communists. But the liberals, thanks to the colossal grants, begin to live Nadayuchi, even fashionable clothing lines start.

Liberals today turn information in the media as beneficial to them. The only plus of recent years associated with the distribution of Internet technologies is the appearance of the patriotic segment of the mass media, which pretty swept the liberal monopoly on mass information.

In the 90s, no "tomorrow", "zipper", "lemon", "Russian orders" could not compete with "news", "Moscow Komsomol members" and so on. Financing was incomparable. Especially since Russian television was fully in the hands of Liberals. Today, the role of television has decreased noticeably, the young people look less and less, which means that the hope of a word of monopoly is growing.

Who is here the fifth column and who is her commander?

Expressing the interests of the global financial scores, the fifth column of Russian liberals uses not only generous financing. It has a colossal lobby in power structures and this is another main danger. Today, state propaganda is submitting "Liberals" exclusively as "heroes" of street battles in the marsh and other areas, or as network trolls, incremental to the criticizing Vladimir Putin.

Life with a loaf to the west. Who are liberals?

In fact, around Vladimir Putin Liberals is no less, if not more than on the square. And these liberals are much more dangerous than streets, among which are just a lot of shames or missed people. In power structures, a large number of people focused on the West and Western values ​​are operating with Yeltsinsky times.

They also hate their country, their own people. Some officials who operate Russian higher rank officials are foreign names. What for? Why? Not because of hate whether Russia and the whole Russian and the desire to forever send their children to live abroad?

What is one social policy held by the Russian authorities! Is it not liberalism? When the market is placed in the first place, and about national interests prefer not to say (as something indecent). So what that in a specific village school is unprofitable? School and should not make a profit, but should teach future citizens, even in a particular village of their total of five of our people. How can unprofitable hospitals, kindergartens, libraries?

The same liberals in power calmly, following their multiculturalist ideology, bring migrants in huge quantities - people who have grown in alien culture. These are not the Soviet people who still grow in a single political system, albeit with their national flavor. These are the guys who did not participate in the Russian language school, raised in their countries in hatred towards Russia and Russian. But they are cheap labor and mass for the phased substitution of the indigenous population than our liberals and enjoy.

By the way, the head of the Russian state itself has not yet made a single demonstrative gesture that would testify to his own sampling with liberals. What is the active concern for the "Yeltsin Center", constant communication with the Yeltsinist "intelligentsia"? No matter how terrific, we oppose the Crimea or Syria, no matter how defending their economic interests, laying gas pipelines, no matter how rearmed, re-equipped the army, but in the first place should be the life of your own people.

The people should not be an experimental rabbit for all sorts of liberal experiments in the form of modernization of education, pension reform, and so on.

This article on liberalism as a generally accepted core of political

ideology

. The use of the term in different countries has narrower interpretations, see

Liberalism in Russia

.

Liberalism (Fr. Libéralisme. ) - The ideology coming from the fact that the rights and freedoms of a separate person are a legal basis for public and economic order. Liberal parties call for the introduction and protection of civil liberties. In liberalism, the foundation is considered to be the right to freely dispose of themselves and its property.

Basic principles of liberalism

The ideal of liberalism is society with freedom of action for everyone, the free exchange of politically significant information, restricting the authorities of the state and the church, the rule of law, private property [one] and freedom of private entrepreneurship. Liberalism rejected many provisions that were the basis of the preceding state theories, such as the divine law of monarchs to the authorities and the role of religion as the only source of knowledge. Fundamental principles of liberalism include recognition: [2] [3]

The function of state power is reduced to a minimum necessary to ensure these principles. Modern liberalism also prefers to open society based on pluralism and democratic government, subject to the protection of minority rights and individual citizens.

Some modern flows of liberalism are more tolerant for state regulation of free markets for ensuring equality of opportunities to succeed, universal education and reducing the difference in the income of the population. Supporters of such views believe that the political system should contain elements of the social state, including the public benefit on unemployment, shelters for homeless and free health.

According to the views of the liberals, state power exists for the benefit of 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 leading. Today, the political system, which is most consonant with the beliefs of liberals, is a liberal democracy.

Overview

Etymology and historical use

The word "liberal" comes from the lat. liber. ("free") [four] . Tit Libya in the "History of Rome from the foundation of the city" describes the struggle for freedom between the classes of plebeian and patrician. Mark Azeri in his "reasoning" writes about the presentation "On the state, with a law equal to all, where equality and equal right to speech are recognized; Also about the uniform, which is only more honorad by the freedom of subjects. " In the era of the Italian revival, this struggle resumed between supporters of free cities - states and Pope. Nikcolao Makiavelli in his "reasoning about the first decade of Tita Libya" outlined the principles of republican rule. John Locke in England and thinkers of French Enlightenment formulated the struggle for freedom in terms of human rights.

In Russian, the word "liberalism" came at the end of the XVIII century from French (FR. Libéralisme. ) And meant "free-forming". The negative tint has still been preserved in the meaning of "excessive tolerance, harmful condescension, connivance" ("New Dictionary of the Russian Language" ed. T. F. Efremova). In english word Liberalism It also originally had a negative shade, but it lost it.

State seal of the French Republic. Rays coming from the head, taken from ancient Greek god

Helios.

.

The American war for independence led to the emergence of the first nation, which developed a constitution based on the idea of ​​a liberal state, especially the idea that the government leads the state with the consent of the leaders. The French bourgeoisie also tried to create a government based on liberal principles during the Great French Revolution. The authors of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, who were in opposition in relation to the Spanish absolutism were probably the first to use the word "liberal" to indicate supporters of political movement. Since the end of the XVIII century, liberalism has become one of the leading ideologies in almost all developed countries.

Many initial attempts to implement liberal ideas had only partial success and sometimes even led to opposite results (dictatorships). Freedom and equality slogans picked up adventurers. A sharp conflicts arose between supporters of various interpretations of liberal principles. Wars, revolutions, economic crises and government scandals provoked massive disappointment in ideals. By virtue of these reasons, in different periods in the word "liberalism" invested various meaning. Over time, a more systemic understanding of the foundations of this ideology have come, which have become a foundation for one of the most common political systems in the world - liberal democracy.

Forms of liberalism

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

Political liberalism

Political liberalism is the belief that individual individuals are the basis of law and society and that public institutions exist in order to facilitate the empower of real power, without enhancing in front of the elites. This belief in political philosophy and political science is called "Methodological Individualism". The basis is the idea that each person knows best that it is better for him. English Magna Carta (1215) presents an example of a political document in which some individual rights apply further than the prerogative of the monarch. The key point is the Public Agreement, according to which laws are issued with the consent of the Company for its good and the protection of public norms, and every citizen is subject to these laws. A special emphasis is made at the rule of law, in particular, liberalism comes from the fact that the state has sufficient power to ensure it. Modern political liberalism also includes the condition of universal election law, regardless of gender, race or property; Liberal democracy is considered the most preferred system.

Economic liberalism

Economic or classical liberalism stands for individual rights to property and freedom of contract. The motto of this form of liberalism is the "Free Private Enterprise". Preference is given to capitalism based on the principle of state non-interference in the economy (Laissez-Faire), meaning the abolition of state subsidies and legal barriers to trade. Economic liberals believe that the market does not need state regulation. Some of them are ready to admit government supervision over monopolies and cartels, others argue that market monopolization arises only as a consequence of state actions. Economic liberalism argues that the cost of goods and services should be determined by the free choice of individuals, i.e., by market forces. Some admit the presence of market forces even in areas where the state traditionally retains a monopoly, for example, security or legal proceedings. Economic liberalism considers economic inequality, which arises due to unequal positions when concluding contracts, as a natural result of competition, subject to the lack of coercion. Currently, this form is most pronounced in libertarianism, minarchism and anarchism and capitalism are other varieties. (See also Neoliberalism, Liberalization.)

Cultural liberalism

Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of personality related to consciousness and lifestyle, including issues such as sexual, religious, academic freedom, protection against state intervention in privacy. As John Stewart Mill said in Essay "On Freedom": "The only goal that serves as an excuse for the intervention of some people, individually or collectively, in the activities of other people, is self-defense. To show power over a member of a civilized society against his will is permissible only in order to prevent other harm. " Cultural liberalism to some extent objects to state regulation of such areas as literature and art, as well as issues such as research activities, gambling, prostitution, voluntary agreement for sexual relations, abortion, use of contraceptives, euthanasia, consumption Alcohol and other drugs. The Netherlands are likely to today are the country with the highest level of cultural liberalism, which, however, does not preplace the multiculturalism in the country and politics.

Social liberalism

Social liberalism arose at the end of the XIX century in many developed countries under the influence of utilitarianism. Some liberals perceived, partly or completely, Marxism and the socialist theory of operation and concluded that the state should use its power to restore social justice. Such thinkers like John Dewey or Mortimer Adler explained that everything Individuals, being the basis of society, to implement their abilities should have access to basic needs, such as education, economic possibilities, protection against fearful large-scale events outside their control. Such positive rights that are provided by society are qualitatively different from classical negative rights, providing which requires other non-interference. Supporters of social liberalism argue that without guarantee of positive rights, the fair implementation of negative rights is impossible, since in practice the low-income population sacrifice its 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 from the government to provide social protection to the population (at the expense of taxes) to create conditions for the development of all talented people to prevent social rebounds and simply "for a common good."

Liberal International Logo, World Federation of Liberal Party

There is a fundamental contradiction between economic and social liberalism. Economic liberals believe that positive rights inevitably violate negative and therefore are unacceptable. They see the function of the state limited, mainly issues of ensuring legality, security and defense. From their point of view, these functions and so require a strong centralized state power. On the contrary, social liberals believe that the main task of the state is to socially protect and ensure social stability: the provision of nutrition and dwellings in need, health, school education, retirement, childcare, disabled and elderly, relief victims, minority protection, preventing Crime, support for science and art. This approach makes it impossible to introduce large-scale restrictions on the government. Despite the unity of the ultimate goal - personal freedom - economic and social liberalism radically diverges in the means to achieve it. Right and conservative movements are often inclined in favor of economic liberalism, speaking against cultural liberalism. Left movements, as a rule, focus on cultural and social liberalism.

Some researchers indicate that the opposition of "positive" and "negative" rights is in fact is imaginary, since public costs are also required to ensure "negative" rights (for example, the content of the property of property protection).

Third generation liberalism

The liberalism of the third generation was the consequence of the post-war struggle of the third world countries with colonialism. To date, it is more related to certain aspirations than with legal norms. His goal is to fight against the concentration of power, material resources and technologies in the group of developed countries. Activists of this flow make focus on Collective The right of society to the world, for self-determination, on economic development and access to the universal property (natural resources, scientific knowledge, cultural monuments). These rights refer to the "Third Generation" [five] and reflected in Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Defenders of collective international human rights also pay close attention to issues of international ecology and humanitarian aid.

In all of the above formations of liberalism, it is assumed that the balance of government and individuals should be between the responsibility of the government and that the function of the state should be limited by the tasks that cannot be performed properly by the private sector. All forms of liberalism are aimed at legislative protection of human dignity and personal autonomy, and all argue that the abolition of restrictions on individual activities contributes to the improvement of society.

Development of liberal thought

Sources

See also liberalism in Christianity

The desire for personal freedom was characterized by representatives of all nations in all centuries. Bright examples are the city-polisy cities from ancient Greece to European with principle - "The Air of the City is free", the political system of which included many elements of the legal state and democracy combined with freedom of private entrepreneurship.

Liberalism rests on its roots in humanism, which during the Renaissance challenge challenged the power of the Catholic Church (which was the result of the revolution: the Netherlands Bourgeois Revolution), the English glorious revolution (1688), during which Vigi approved their right to choose the king, and others. Last It became the forerunner of the view that the supreme power should belong to the people. Full liberal movements arose in the Epoch of Enlightenment in France, England and Colonial America. Their opponents were absolute monarchy, mercantilism, orthodox religions and clericalism. These liberal movements were also the first to formulate the concept of personal rights on the basis of constitutionalism and self-government through freely chosen representatives.

John Lokk

The idea that free personalities can be the basis of a stable society, nominated John Locke. His "Two Treatise on the Board" [6] (1690) formulated two fundamental liberal principles: economic freedom as the right to personal possession and use of property and intellectual freedom, including freedom of conscience. The basis of his theory is the introduction of natural rights: for life, personal freedom and private property, which was the forerunner of modern human rights. Entering into society, citizens conclude a public contract, according to which they refuse their authority in favor of the government to protect their natural rights. In her eyes, Locke defended the interests of the English bourgeoisie, in particular, he did not distribute the freedom of conscience to Catholics, but human rights on peasants and servants. Locke also did not approve democracy. Nevertheless, a number of provisions of his teachings have formed the basis of the ideology of the American and French revolutions.

In continental Europe, the doctrine about the universal equality of citizens before the law, even the monarchs should be obeyed, developed Charles Louis Montcape. The main tools for restricting the state-owned Montquiece considered the separation of authorities and federalism. His followers, economists Jean-Baptiste Say and detest de Traci were the passionate popularizers of the "harmony of the market" and the principle of non-interference of the state in the economy. From thinkers of the Epoch of Enlightenment, two figures were the greatest impact on the liberal thought: Voltaire, who performed for the constitutional monarchy, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, who developed the doctrine of natural freedom. Both philosopher in different shape defended the idea that the natural freedom of personality can be limited, but it is impossible to destroy its essence. Voltaire emphasized the importance of religious tolerance and the inadmissibility of torture and humiliation of human dignity.

Jean Jacques Rousseau

In the treatise "On a public contract" (1762), Rousseau gave a new understanding of this concept. He noticed that many people turn out to be part of society, no property, i.e., a public contract simply enshrines ownership of its actual owners. In order for such an agreement to be legitimate, in exchange for its independence, a person should receive goods that only society can provide him. One of these benefits of Rousseau considered the education that allows people to best realize their abilities, and at the same time makes the people of law-abiding citizens. Other blessings are collective republican freedom, which personality acquires through identifying himself with a nation and national interests. Thanks to this identification, an educated person himself restricts his freedom, as it becomes in its interest. The will of the nation as a whole can be implemented only under the condition of self-determination of peoples. Thus, the public contract leads to national consent, national will and national unity. These ideas have become a key element of the National Assembly Declaration during the Great French Revolution and the views of such liberal American thinkers as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Along with French enlighteners, David Yum, Immanuel Kant and Adam Smith introduced an important contribution to liberalism. David Yum argued that the fundamental (natural) laws of human behavior dictate moral norms that cannot be restricted nor suppose. Under the influence of these views, Kant gave ethical substantiation of human rights without references to religion (as it took place before him). According to his teachings, these rights are based on the a priori laws of mind.

Adam Smith

Adam Smith developed the theory that moral life and economic activity are possible without directives from the state and that the most strongly those nations in which citizens are free to show their own initiative are the most stronger. He urged to end the feudal and mercantile regulation, with patents and arising due to the protection of the state with monopolies. In the "theory of moral feelings" (1759), he developed the theory of motivation, which leads personal material interest in consent with the unregulated public order. In the work "Study of the nature and the causes of the wealth of peoples" (1776), he argued that under certain conditions, the free market is capable of natural self-regulation and is able to achieve greater productivity than the market with many restrictions. The government he cast a solution to the tasks that it is impossible to lift the profits with thirst, for example, the prevention of fraud or unlawful use of force. His theory of taxation was that taxes should not harm the economy and that the interest rate should be permanent.

Revolutionary liberalism

The idea that ordinary people should deal with their affairs without dictates from monarchs, aristocracy or church, remained mostly theory to the American and French revolutions. All the later revolutionaries, liberals, to one degree or another, followed by these two examples. At the same time, it should be noted that an important historical role also played by the adoption by the England parliament in 1689 as a result of the "glorious revolution" of Bill on rights, which became one of the first documents legally approved by human rights.

Thomas Jefferson

In colonial America Thomas Pain, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams convinced their compatriots to rebel in the name life, personal freedom and desire for happiness - Almost quotation of Locke, but with one important amendment: Jefferson replaced the word "property" by the Locke "The desire for happiness." Thus, the main goal of the revolution was the republic based on personal freedom and the Board with the consent of the managed. James Madison believed that in order to ensure effective self-government and the protection of economic minorities, a system of counterweights and expenses is necessary. She was reflected in the US Constitution (1787): Balance between the federal and regional authorities; separation of authorities to the executive, legislative and judicial branches; Two-pet parliament. Civil control was introduced over the army, and measures were taken to return officers to civil life after the service. Thus, the concentration of power in the hands of one person has become almost impossible.

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

Maximilian Robespierre

The first few years in the leadership of the country dominated liberal ideas, but the government was unstable and could not effectively defend themselves from the numerous enemies of the revolution. The Jacobinians, headed by Robespierre, concentrated in their hands almost all the complete power, suspended the action of proper legal procedures and launched a large-scale terror, whose victims were many liberals, including Robespierre himself. Napoleon I Bonaparte held a deep legislative reform, which reflected many ideas of the revolution, but subsequently canceled the republic and declared himself an emperor. The side effect of Napoleonic military campaigns was the spread of liberalism throughout Europe, and after the occupation of Spain - and throughout Latin America.

Independence Angel (Mexico City)

The revolution was significantly strengthened by the position of liberals throughout the world, which were transferred from proposals to uncompromising requirements. Mostly, they sought to create parliamentary republics on the site of the existing absolute monarchies. The driving force of this political liberalism was often economic motives: the desire to put an end to feudal privileges, guilds and royal monopolies, restrictions on property and to freedom of contracts.

Between 1774 and 1848 Several revolutionary waves passed, and each subsequent wave did an increasing emphasis on the rights of citizens and self-government. Instead of simple recognition of personal rights, all state power provided a derivative of natural law: either by virtue of human nature, or as a result of the public contract ("consent leading"). On the change of family property and the feudal tradition, according to which the obligations of the parties are determined by personal devotion, the ideas about voluntary consent, a commercial contract and individual private property. The idea of ​​the sovereignty of the people and that people are able to independently take all the necessary laws and put them in execution, has become the basis of national self-consciousness and went beyond the scope of educational teachings. Similar desire for independence from external The domination in the occupied territories or in colonies was the basis of the national liberation struggle. In some cases (Germany, Italy), this was accompanied by an association of small states into large, 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 has been added to the list of liberal values.

Discussions inside liberalism

Liberalism and democracy

Initially, the ideas of liberalism and democracy not only differed significantly, but were contrary to each other. For liberals, the basis of the Company was a person who possesses property, seeks to defend it, and for which it cannot be acute the choice between the survival and preservation of its civil rights. It was implied that only owners form civil society, participate in the public contract and give the government agreement to ensure that it is the rule. On the contrary, democracy means the process of forming power based on most Total People, including the poor. From the point of view of Liberals, the dictatorship of the poor represented a threat to private property and guaranteeing freedom of personality. From the point of view of democrats, deprivation of poor election law and the possibility of submitting their interests in the lawwriting process was the form of enslavement.

Many bright liberals (J. Locke, J. Madison, etc.) were opponents of democracy, which, in particular, was reflected in the initial texts of the constitutions of a number of states in the United States, where the voting law was linked to the property value, and in the Constitution of the United States on this right mentioned. Many popular leaders in the people, such as Abraham Lincoln, resorted to anti-liberal measures (introduced censorship, taxes, etc.) concerns from liberals related to democracy, especially intensified after the Great French Revolution. In particular, therefore, French liberals generally supported Napoleon's Bonaparte, who, although he was an opponent of the accountability of power (and even more democracy), however, contributed to the implementation and promotion of a number of essential liberal ideas.

Aleksis de Tokville

The work of Alexis de Tokville "Democracy in America" ​​(1835) was the turning point, in which he showed the possibility of society, where personal freedom and private property coexist with democracy. According to Tokville, the key to the success of such a model called "Liberal Democracy" is equality of opportunities, and the most serious threat is the sluggish intervention of the state in the economy and grow civil liberties.

After the revolution of 1848 and the state coup, Napoleon III (in 1851), the liberals became increasingly recognizing the need for democracy to fulfill liberalism to fully. At the same time, part of the supporters of democracy continued to deny the possibility of a fair society built on private property and the free market, which led to the emergence of a social democracy.

The ideas of F. Bastia and other liberal opponents of democracy were reborn into the political philosophy of libertarianism. Libertarian philosophy is the heir to classic liberalism based on the ideas of freedom, rights and property. Supporters [Who? ]Libertarianism actively criticizes modern democratic liberalism, indicating the impossibility of combining democracy and property rights, as well as the impossibility of proper assurance of rights and freedoms in the absence of property.

Economic Liberalism against Social Liberalism

The industrial revolution significantly increased the well-being of developed countries, but aggravated social problems. Progress in medicine has led to an increase in the life expectancy of the population, the result of which has become an excess of labor and the fall in salaries. After in the XIX century, workers in many countries received the voting law, they began to use them in their own interests. A sharp increase in the literacy of the population was led to a surge of society's activity. Social liberals demanded legislative measures against the exploitation of children, safe working conditions, minimum wages.

Classic liberals consider such laws as an unfair tax on life, freedom and property, which restrains economic development. They believe that social problems society can solve in itself, without government regulation. On the other hand, social liberals prefer quite large government so that it could ensure equality of opportunities, protect citizens from the consequences of economic crises and natural disasters.

John Stewart Mille

Wilhelm von Humboldt in the work "ideas for the experience of determining the boundaries of the state" justified the value of freedom by the importance of individual self-development in order to achieve perfection. John Stewart Mill has developed the ideas of this liberal ethics in his work "On Freedom" (1859). He adhered to utilitarianism, making focus on a pragmatic approach, a practical desire for common blessing and improving the quality of life. Although Mill remained within the framework of classical liberalism, the rights of the individual in his philosophy retreated into the background.

By the end of the XIX century, most Liberals concluded that freedom requires creating conditions for the implementation of its abilities, including education and protection against excessive operation. These findings outlined Leonard Teloni Hobhaus in Liberalism, in which he formulated the collective right to equality in transactions ("fair consent") and recognized the validity of the reasonable state intervention in the economy. In parallel, part of the classic liberals, in particular, Gustav de Molinari, Herbert Spencer and Oberon Herbert, began to adhere to more radical views close to anarchism.

War and Peace

Another subject of discussion, starting from the end of the XIX century, was the attitude to the wars. Classic liberalism was a fierce opponent of military intervention and imperialism, speaking for neutrality and free trade. Treatise Hugo Grota "On the right of war and the world" (1625), in which he outlined the theory Fair war As self-defense funds, there was a desk book of liberal. In the US, insulatingism, until the end of the First World War, was official foreign policy, as Thomas Jefferson said: "Free trade with everyone; Military Alliances with anyone. " However, President Woodrow Wilson, instead, put forward the concept of collective security: confronting countries aggressors with the help of a military alliance and preventive resolution of conflicts in the League of Nations. The idea at first did not find support in Congress, which did not allow the United States to enter the League of Nations, but was revived in the form of the UN. Today, most liberals are opponents of the unilateral announcement of war by one state to another, with the exception of self-defense, but many support multilateral war under the UN or even NATO, for example, in order to prevent genocide.

The Great Depression

Franklin Roosevelt

The Great Depression of the 1930s shaved the faith of the American Public in Classic Liberalism [7] And many have concluded that unregulated markets cannot provide prosperity and prevent poverty. John Dewey, John Meinard Keynes and President Franklin Roosevelt advocated the creation of a more complex state office, which would continue to remain a stronghold of personal freedom, but at the same time they would protect the population from capitalism costs.

John Meinard Keynes, Ludwig Joseph Brentano, Leonard Treloni Hobhaus, Thomas Hill Green, Bertil Olin and John Dewey described how the state should regulate the capitalist economy to protect freedom and at the same time avoid socialism. Thus, they made a leading contribution to the theory of social liberalism, which had a significant impact on the liberals around the world, in particular, to the "liberal international", which emerged in 1947, supporters of neoliberalism objected to them, according to which the Great Depression was the result of excessive state regulation Market. Economists of the Austrian and Chicago Schools (Friedrich Auguston Background Hayek, Ludwig von Misa, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, etc.) indicate that the Great Depression was preceded by large-scale monetary expansion and artificial understatement of interest rates that distorted the investment structure in the economy. In the work "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962), Friedman calls the main reasons for the Great Depression fixed binding of the dollar course to gold, regulation of the banking system, tax increases and the issue of money for paying public debt.

In 2008, due to the economic crisis, the discussion between supporters of neoliberalism and social liberalism again aggravated. Began to sound appeals to return to socially directed policy on the redistribution of income, protectionism and the implementation of Keynesian measures [8] .

Liberalism vs Totalitarianism

See also Totalitarianism

The XX century was marked by the emergence of ideologies, directly opposing himself liberalism. In the USSR, the Bolsheviks have begun to eliminate the remains of capitalism, while in Italy, fascism appeared, which, according to the leader of this movement, Benito Mussolini, was a "third way", denying both liberalism and communism. In the USSR, private property for the means of production was prohibited for the sake of achieving social and economic justice. Governments in Italy and especially in Germany denied the equality of people in rights. In Germany, this was expressed in propaganda of racial superiority. The Aryan race, under which the Germans and some other German peoples were understood, over other peoples and races. In Italy Mussolini, the rate was made to an idea of ​​the Italian people as a "state-corporation". Both communism and fascism sought to state economic control and centrally regulation of all aspects of society. Both modes also approved the priority of public interests over private 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 determine himself 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 of opponents of liberalism, which indicate the significant differences between the fascist, Nazi and communist ideologies. However, F. von Hayek, A. Rand and other liberal thinkers insisted on the fundamental similarity of all three systems, namely: they are all based on state support for some Collective interests to the detriment of interests, goals and freedoms of a separate citizen. It may be of interests Nation - Nazism, State Corporations - fascism or interests " Workers masses "- Communism. In other words, from the point of view of modern liberalism, fascism and Nazism, and communism there are only extreme forms of collectivism.

Historical causes of totalitarianism

Many liberals explain the growth of totalitarianism in that during the decline, people are looking for a decision in dictatorship. Therefore, the debt of the state should be the protection of the economic well-being of citizens, the balancing of the economy. As Isaiah Berlin said: "Freedom for wolves means death for sheep." Neoliberals adhere to the opposite point of view. In his work "Road to slavery" (1944) F. von Hayek argued that excessive state regulation of the economy could lead to the loss of political and civil liberties. In the 30s and 40s, when the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, following the advice of the prominent British economist J. Keynes, took a course on state regulation, Hayek warned about the dangers of this course and argued that economic freedom is a prerequisite for the preservation of liberal democracy. Based on the teachings of Hayek and other representatives of the Austrian Economic School, there was a course of libertarianism, which sees in any state intervention in the economy a threat to freedom.

Concept of open society

One of the most influential critics of totalitarianism was Karl Popper, who in his work "Open Society and his enemies" (1945) defended the liberal democracy and the "Open Society", where the political elite can be removed from power without bloodshed. Popper argued that since the process of accumulating human knowledge is unpredictable, the theory of ideal government management does not matter, therefore the political system must be flexible enough so that the government can smoothly change its policy. In particular, society should be open to many 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 claims that the best protection against totalitarianism is the cost-effective and educated population with broad civil rights. Representatives of this current, such as J. K. Galbreit, J. Rowls and R. Domarendorf, believed that to grow the level of personal freedoms it is necessary to train them to enlighten them, and the path to self-realization lies through the development of new technologies.

Personal freedom and society

In the postwar years, a significant part of the theoretical developments in the field of liberalism was devoted to issues of public selection and market mechanisms to achieve a "liberal society". One of the central places in this discussion is the Errow Theorem. It states that there is no such procedure for streamlining social preferences, which is determined for any combination of preferences, does not depend on individual preferences on unauthorized issues, free from imposing one person to the whole society and satisfies the Pareto principle (i.e., what Optimally for each individual, it should be most preferably for the whole society). The consequence of this theorem is Liberal paradox According to which it is impossible to develop a universal and fair democratic procedure for choosing a government, which would be compatible with unlimited freedom of personal choice. Such a conclusion means that in its pure form, neither the market economy nor the welfare economy is not sufficient to achieve an optimal society. Especially since it is not clear what " Optimal Society ", And all attempts to build a catastrophe (USSR, Third Reich) ended this society. Another side of this paradox is the question of what is more important: accurate following procedures or equality in rights for all participants.

Personal freedom and government regulation

One of the key concepts of classical theory of freedom - property. According to this theory, a free market economy is not only a guarantee of economic freedom, but also a prerequisite for personal freedom of each [nine] .

Supporters of freedom denied not planning at all, but only such state regulation that replaces the free competition of owners. In the history of the 20th century there was a number of bright examples when the refusal of the principle of inviolability of private property and replacing the free competition by state regulation in the name of social security and stability led to significant restrictions on personal freedom of citizens (Stalin's USSR, Maoist China, DPRK, Cuba, Nazi Germany etc.). Having lost the right to private property, citizens very soon lost and other major rights: the right to choose a place of residence (registration), the place of work (collective farms) and forced labor for the appointed state (usually low) salary. This was accompanied by the introduction of totalitarian ideology and the strengthening of the repressive law enforcement bodies. A significant proportion of the population was forced to free work in conclusion. [nine] [ten]

Modern liberalism

Short review

To date, liberalism is one of the leading ideologies in the world. Concept of personal freedom, self-esteem, freedom of speech, universal human rights, religious tolerance, inviolability of personal life, private property, free market, equality, legal state, government transparency, restrictions on state power, the supreme power of the people, the self-determination of the nation, enlightened and reasonable state policy got the wider distribution. Liberal-democratic political systems include such different cultural and level of economic well-being of the country, like Finland, Spain, Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Canada, Uruguay or Taiwan [eleven] . In all these countries, liberal values ​​play a key role in the formation of the new goals of society, even despite the gap between ideals and reality.

The list of modern political directions within liberalism is in no way exhaustive. The most important principles that are most often mentioned in party documents (for example, in the "Liberal Manifesto" of 1947) were listed above.

Due to the fact that in Western Europe and North America, most political flows express solidarity with the ideals of political liberalism, there was a need for a narrower classification. Right liberals make focus on classical liberalism, but at the same time object to a number of provisions of social liberalism. They are adjacent to conservatives that are separated by political liberal values ​​traditional in these countries, however, they often condemn the individual manifestations of cultural liberalism as contrary to the norms of morality. It should be noted that historically conservatism was an ideological antagonist of liberalism, however, after the end of World War II and discredit authoritarianism, moderate trends were played 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 privatization supporters.

Actually, "liberals" in the United States is called socialists and generally left, while in Western Europe this term refers to libertarians, and the left liberals are called social liberals.

Libertarians believe that the state should not interfere with personal life or entrepreneurial activities, except for the protection of freedom and property of others from the encroachment. They maintain economic and cultural liberalism and oppose social liberalism. Part of the libertarians believe that, for the realization of the rule of law, the state should have sufficient strength, others argue that providing legality should be carried out by public and private organizations. In foreign policy, Libertarians are usually opponents of any military aggression.

As part of economic liberalism, the ideological course of neoliberalism was addressed. This current is often considered as a purely economic theory, outside the context of political liberalism. Neoliberals are striving for non-interference state in the country's economy and to the free market. The state is given a function of moderate monetary regulation and tools to gain access to external markets in cases where other countries will repair obstacles to free trade. One of the defining manifestations of neoliberal economic policies is privatization, the bright example of which were reforms held in the UK office Margaret Thatcher.

Modern Social Liberals, as a rule, belong to the centrists or social democrats. The latter acquired a significant impact, especially in Scandinavia, where a number of protracted economic recessions aggravated the issues of social protection (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 the law and levolybral forces led to effective laws and transparent governments that reliably protect the civil rights of people and the ownership of entrepreneurs. Attempts to lead the country too far towards socialism led for social democrats to loss of power and subsequent liberalization. Therefore, today prices are not regulated in Scandinavia countries (even at state-owned enterprises, with the exception of monopolies), banks are private, and there are no obstacles to trade, including international. Such a combination of liberal and social policies led to the implementation of a liberal-democratic political system with a high level of social protection. Similar processes occur in other European countries, where Social Democrats, even coming to power, hold enough liberal policies.

The main objectives of their policies, liberal parties most often consider the strengthening of liberal democracy and the legal state, the independence of the judiciary; control over the transparency of the government's work; Protection of civil rights and free competition. At the same time, the presence of the word "liberal" in the name of the party in itself does not allow to determine whether its supporters are right-mattered liberals, social liberals or libertarians.

Public liberal movements are also distinguished by a great variety. Some movements are in support of sexual freedom, free sale of weapons or drugs, for expanding the functions of private security structures and transmit part of the police functions. Economic liberals often advocate a single income tax rate or even replacement of income tax with the peripheral, for the privatization of education, health care and the state system of pension provision, for the transfer of science to self-sufficient financing. In many countries, liberals are overcome by the abolition of the death penalty, disarmament, rejection of nuclear technologies, environmental protection.

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

Since 1947, the company "MON PELLERIN", uniting economists, philosophers, journalists, entrepreneurs, supporting the principles and ideas of classical liberalism.

Modern criticism of liberalism

Proponents of collectivism do not absolitize the importance of individual freedom or right to private property, instead making emphasis on a collective or society. The state is sometimes considered as the highest form of the collective and the expressant of his will.

Left supporters of rigid state regulation as a political system prefer socialism, believing that only state supervision over the distribution of income can provide universal material well-being. In particular, from the point of view of Marxism, the main disadvantage of liberalism is the uneven distribution of material goods. Marxists claim that in the Liberal Society the real power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of people who control financial flows. In the conditions of economic inequality, equality before the law and equality of opportunities, according to Marxists, remain utopia, and the true goal is to legalize economic exploitation. From the point of view of liberals [nine] , hard state regulation requires restrictions in the amount of salary, in choosing a profession and place of residence, and ultimately leads to the destruction of personal freedom and totalitarianism (see above).

In addition, Marxism also critically refers to the liberal theory of the public contract due to the fact that the state is considered in it as a separate subject. Marxism reduces confrontation between society and the state to the confrontation between classes based on the attitude towards the means of production.

Right ethnics believe that outside the economic sphere, civil liberties lead to indifference, egoism and immorality. The most categorical fascists who argue that rational progress does not lead to a more humane future, as liberals believe, and on the contrary, to the moral, cultural and physical degeneration of mankind. Fascism denies that a person is the highest value and instead calls for the construction of such a society in which people are deprived of the desire for individual self-expression and fully subordinate their interests of the Nation's tasks. From the point of view of fascists, political pluralism, declaration of equality and the restriction of the state of state are dangerous, since they open up opportunities for the dissemination of sympathies to Marxism.

Communitarianism (AMITAY Etija, Mary Ann Glendon, etc.), which recognizes individual rights, is engaged in a softer criticism of liberalism, which recognizes individual rights, but toughly links them with duties towards society and allows them to restrict if they are implemented for the state account.

Modern authoritarian modes [12] , relying on the popular leader in the people, often carry out propaganda in order to discredit liberalism among the population [thirteen] [14] . Liberal regimes are accused of undemocratic due to the fact that voters make a choice among political elites, and do not choose representatives from the people (i.e., for yourself) [15] . Political elites are puppets in the hands of the only backstage group, which at the same time holds control over the economy. The abuse of rights and freedoms (demonstration of radical organizations, the publication of offensive materials, deprived of the soil judicial claims, etc.) are presented as systemic and planned hostile promotions. Liberal regimes accused of hypocrisy: that they advocate the restriction of the state's intervention in the life of their country, but at the same time they interfere with the internal issues of other countries (as a rule, refer to the criticism of human rights violations). The ideas of liberalism are arranged by utopia, which is fundamentally impossible to implement, unprofitable and contrived Rules of the game, which countries of the West (first of all, the United States), are trying to impose in the world (for example, in Iraq or Serbia).

At the opposite to the ethnists, the side of the political spectrum, anarchism denies the legitimacy of the state for any purpose [16] . (The overwhelming majority of liberals recognize that the state is necessary to ensure the protection of rights).

Left opponents of economic liberalism object to the establishment of market mechanisms in those areas where they were not before (see liberalization). They believe that the presence of losers and the emergence of inequality as a result of competition causes significant harm to the entire society. In particular, inequality arises between the regions within the country. The left also indicate that historically political regimes based on classical liberalism in its pure form turned out to be unstable. From their point of view, the planned economy is able to protect against poverty, unemployment, as well as ethnic and class differences in health and education.

Democratic socialism as ideology seeks to achieve some minimal equality at the level End result , not just equality of opportunities. Socialists support the ideas of a large public sector, the nationalization of all monopolies (including housing and communal sphere and the extraction of essential natural resources) and social justice. They are supporters of public financing of all democratic institutions, including the media and political parties. From their point of view, liberal economic and social policy creates prerequisites for economic crises. [17] .

These demosocialists differ from the adherents of social liberalism, which prefer significantly less intervention from the state, for example, by regulating the economy or subsidies. Liberals also object to the equalization of the result, in the name of meritocracy. Historically, the platforms of social liberals and demosocialists closely adjacent to each other and even partially overlapped. Due to the fall in the popularity of socialism in the 1990s, modern "Social Democracy" began to move more and more from democratic socialism towards social liberalism.

The right-wing opponents of cultural liberalism seize in it a danger to the moral health of the nation, traditional values ​​and political stability. They consider admissible so that the state and the church regulate the privacy of people, they fured them from immoral actions, brought up in them the love of shrines and the Fatherland.

One of the critics of liberalism is the Russian Orthodox Church. In particular, Patriarch Kirill in his speech in Kiev-Pechersk Lavra on July 29, 2009 [6] He conducted parallels between liberalism and the blurring of the concepts of good and evil. The latter is fraught with the fact that people will believe the antichrist, and then the apocalypse will come.

In matters of international politics, the human rights problem enters the conflict with the principle of non-interference in the sovereign issues of other countries. In this regard, the world federalists deny the doctrine of the sovereignty of national states in the name of protection against genocide and large-scale violations of human rights. American neoconservatives are adhered to similar ideology, which call for aggressive and uncompromising spread of liberalism in the world, even the price of a quarrel with US authoritarian allies [18] . This course actively supports the use of military force for its goals against hostile US countries and justifies these violations of the principles of international law. Neoconservatives are approaching the ethnicists, since they are supporters of a strong state and high taxes to cover military spending.

A separate criticism is subject to the protection of minority rights, according to a number of researchers, part of the conflict with the rights of other people [19] . According to this argument, instead of the protection of human rights and freedoms, liberalism has passed to the protection of the rights of prisoners, sexual minorities, indispensable and other categories of citizens, whose rights are precisely because they are questioned by social institutions, which are included in the conflict with the rights of other people.

Criticism of liberalism in literature

At the beginning of the XXI century, with the growth of globalism and transnational corporations, anti -topias directed against liberalism began to appear in the literature. One of these examples serves Satira Australian writer Max Barry "Government Jennifer", where the power of corporations is brought to the absurd.

Notes

  1. Intellectual property refers to private property, if it is not an universal property and if it does not contradict the freedom of speech. Some libertarians reject the concept of intellectual property as a form of monopolizing the free market.
  2. Liberal manifesto / lane. from English The Bureau of Fredrian Freedrich Naumanne. Oxford, April 1947.
  3. Locke J. Two treatise on the board
  4. Gross, p. five.
  5. The term "third-generation human rights" introduced Karel Vasak in 1979, the Czech lawyer and the First Secretary of the International Human Rights Institute in Strasbourg.
  6. Locke John Two treatise on the board // Works = English. Two Treatises ON GoverNMENT . - М.: Thought, 1988. - P. 137-405. (Inaccessible link from 28-03-11 (635 days))
  7. Economic works F. Hayek
  8. Valentine I. Year 2008: death of neoliberal globalization
  9. 1 2 3 Hayek F. A. , Road to slavery. - M.: "New Publishing House", 2005. - 264 p. - ISBN 5-98379-037-4. http://www.libertarium.ru/l_lib_road.
  10. Hayek F. A. Putting self-addiction: mistakes of socialism. - M.: "News" with the participation of the Catallaxy Publishing House, 1992. - 304 p. - ISBN 5-7020-0445-0 (Russian). http://www.libertarium.ru/l_lib_conceit0.
  11. Freedom House: Freedom In The World 2007 (eng.)
  12. Zakaria F. The Rise of Illiberiaal Democracy // Foreign Affairs. NOVEMBER, 1997 [1] (eng.) (Inaccessible link from 28-03-11 (635 days))
  13. A. Khamenei: The era of Western capitalism approached the end. October 14, 2008 [2]
  14. Zakaria F. Culture Is Destiny; A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew // Foreign Affairs. March-April, 1994. [3] (eng.)
  15. Schmitt K. The spiritual and historical state of modern parliamentarism // Schmitt K. Political theology. M.: Kangon-Press, 2000. ISBN 5-93354-003-X
  16. Borovaya A. Public ideals of modern humanity. Liberalism. Socialism. Anarchism. M.: Logos, 1906. [4]
  17. Kagarlitsky B. List of victims
  18. New American Century. Statement of principles. [five] (eng.)
  19. Anatoly Belyakov Liberalism
Sound-icon.svg.

This sound file was created based on the version of the article for

November 25, 2010

And does not reflect edits after this date.

cm. Also other audio stories

Sound-icon.svg.

This sound file was created based on the version of the article for

November 26, 2010

And does not reflect edits after this date.

cm. Also other audio stories

Sound-icon.svg.

This sound file was created based on the version of the article for

November 26, 2010

And does not reflect edits after this date.

cm. Also other audio stories

Sound-icon.svg.

This sound file was created based on the version of the article for

December 20, 2010

And does not reflect edits after this date.

cm. Also other audio stories

Sound-icon.svg.

This sound file was created based on the version of the article for

December 20, 2010

And does not reflect edits after this date.

cm. Also other audio stories

Sound-icon.svg.

This sound file was created based on the version of the article for

December 20, 2010

And does not reflect edits after this date.

cm. Also other audio stories

Sound-icon.svg.

This sound file was created based on the version of the article for

December 20, 2010

And does not reflect edits after this date.

cm. Also other audio stories

Literature

Classic work

  • Liberalism // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 tons and 4 extra). - Spb. , 1890-1907.
  • Bentam I. Introduction in the foundation of morality and legislation. - M.: ROSPEN, 1998. - 415 with ISBN 5-86004-166-7
  • Berlin I. Philosophy of Freedom. Europe. - M.: New Liter. Lookout., 2001. - 448 with ISBN 5-86793-132-3
  • Hamilton A., Madison J. and J. J. Festist (Inaccessible link from 28-03-11 (635 days))
  • Gobbs T. Leviafan, or Matter, the form and power of the state of church and civil
  • Kant I. Basics of moral metaphysics
  • Keynes D. General Employment Theory, Percentage and Money
  • Locke J. Two treatise on the board
  • Mises L. Background. Liberalism in classical tradition (Inaccessible link from 28-03-11 (635 days))
  • Mill J.S. about freedom
  • Rousseau J. J. On the public contract, or principles of political law
  • Smith A. Research on the nature and causes of wealth of peoples
  • Tokville, A. De. Democracy in America. - M.: Progress, 1994. - 554 with ISBN 5-01-004496-x
  • Hayek F. A. Background. Road to slavery

General literature

see also

Links

Добавить комментарий