What is liberal politics. Liberal political views: history and modernity

What is liberalism? Each person will answer this question differently. Even dictionaries give different definitions of this concept. This article explains what liberalism is, in simple terms.

Definitions

There are several most accurate definitions of the concept of "liberalism".

1. Ideology, political movement. It brings together admirers of parliamentarism, democratic rights and free enterprise.

2. Theory, a system of political and philosophical ideas. It was formed among Western European thinkers in the XVIII-XIX centuries.

3. The worldview characteristic of the ideologists from among the industrial bourgeoisie, who defended the freedom of enterprise and their political rights.

4. In the primary sense - freethinking.

5. Excessive tolerance, condescension, conciliatory attitude towards bad deeds.

Speaking about what liberalism is, in simple words, it should be noted that this is a political and ideological movement, whose representatives deny revolutionary methods of struggle in achieving certain rights and benefits, advocate free enterprise, the implementation of democratic principles.

Basic principles of liberalism

The ideology of liberalism differs from other theories of political and philosophical thought in its special principles. They were formulated by scientists back in the 18th-19th centuries, and representatives of this trend are still striving to bring them to life.

1. Human life is an absolute value.
2. All people are equal among themselves.
3. The will of the individual does not depend on external factors.
4. The needs of one person are more important than the collective. The category "personality" is primary, "society" is secondary.
5. Every person has natural inalienable rights.
6. The state must arise on the basis of a general consensus.
7. Man himself creates laws and values.
8. The citizen and the state are responsible to each other.
9. Separation of power. Dominance of the principles of constitutionalism.
10. The government must be elected through fair democratic elections.
11. Tolerance and humanism.

Ideologists of classical liberalism

Each ideologist of this movement understood what liberalism was in their own way. This theory is represented by many concepts and opinions, which can sometimes contradict each other. origins classical liberalism can be seen in the works of S. Montesquieu, A. Smith, J. Locke, J. Mill, T. Hobbes. It was they who laid the foundations of a new trend. The basic principles of liberalism were developed back in the Enlightenment in France by C. Montesquieu. He spoke for the first time about the need for separation of powers and the recognition of individual freedom in all spheres of life.

Adam Smith substantiated what economic liberalism is, and also highlighted its main principles and characteristics. J. Locke is the founder of the theory rule of law. In addition, he is one of the most prominent ideologues of liberalism. J. Locke argued that stability in a society can only exist if it consists of free people.

Features of liberalism in the classical sense

The ideologists of classical liberalism focused on the concept of "individual freedom". Unlike absolutist ideas, their concepts denied the complete subordination of the individual to society and social orders. The ideology of liberalism defended the independence and equality of all people. Freedom was perceived as the absence of any restrictions or prohibitions on the implementation of conscious actions of the individual within the framework of generally accepted rules and laws. The state, according to the fathers of classical liberalism, is obliged to ensure the equality of all citizens. However, a person must independently worry about his financial situation.

Liberalism proclaimed the need to limit the scope of the state. Its functions should be reduced to a minimum and consist in maintaining order and ensuring security. Power and society can exist only under the condition of obedience to laws.

Models of classical liberalism

J. Locke, J.-J. Russo, J. St. Mill, T. Payne. They defended the ideas of individualism and human freedom. In order to understand what liberalism is in the classical sense, one should consider its interpretations.

1. Continental European model. Representatives of this concept (F. Guizot, B. Constant, J.-J. Rousseau, B. Spinoza) defended the ideas of constructivism, rationalism in interaction with nationalism, attached more importance to freedom within society than for individuals.
2. Anglo-Saxon model. Representatives of this concept (J. Locke, A. Smith, D. Hume) put forward the ideas of the rule of law, unlimited trade, were convinced that freedom is more important for an individual than for society as a whole.
3. North American model. Representatives of this concept (J. Adams, T. Jefferson) developed the ideas of inalienable human rights.

economic liberalism

This direction of liberalism was based on the idea that economic laws operate in the same way as natural ones. State intervention in this area was considered unacceptable.

A. Smith is considered the father of the concept of economic liberalism. His teaching was based on the following ideas.

1. The best incentive for economic development is self-interest.
2. State measures of regulation and monopoly, which were practiced within the framework of mercantilism, are harmful.
3. The development of the economy is directed by an "invisible hand". The necessary institutions must arise naturally without state interference. Firms and resource providers that are interested in growing their own wealth and operate within a competitive market system are allegedly directed by an "invisible hand" that contributes to the satisfaction of social needs.

Rise of neoliberalism

Considering what liberalism is, the definition must be given to two concepts - classical and modern (new).

By the beginning of the XX century. crisis phenomena begin to appear in this direction of political and economic thought. In many western European states ah there are strikes of workers, industrial society enters a period of conflict. Under such conditions, the classical theory of liberalism ceases to coincide with reality. New ideas and principles are being formed. The central problem of modern liberalism is the issue of social guarantees of the rights and freedoms of the individual. This was largely facilitated by the popularity of Marxism. In addition, the need for social measures was considered in the works of I. Kant, J. St. Mill, G. Spencer.

Principles of modern (new) liberalism

The new liberalism is characterized by an orientation towards rationalism and targeted reforms in order to improve existing public and political systems. Special place occupies the problem of comparing freedom, justice and equality. There is the concept of "elite". It is formed from the most worthy members of the group. It is believed that society can only triumph thanks to the elite and dies with it.

The economic principles of liberalism are defined by the concepts of "free market" and "minimal state". The problem of freedom acquires an intellectual coloring and is translated into the realm of morality and culture.

Features of neoliberalism

As a social philosophy and political concept, modern liberalism has its own characteristics.

1. State intervention in the economy is necessary. The government must protect the freedom of competition and the market from the possibility of monopoly.
2. Support for the principles of democracy and justice. The broad masses must actively participate in the political process.
3. The state is obliged to develop and implement programs aimed at supporting low-income strata of the population.

Differences between classical and modern liberalism

idea, principle	classical liberalism	neoliberalism
Freedom is...	Relief from restrictions	The possibility of self-development
Natural human rights	The equality of all people, the impossibility of depriving a person of his natural rights	Allocation of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights of the individual
	Elevation of private life and its opposition to the state, power should be limited	It is necessary to carry out reforms that will improve the relationship between the citizen and the authorities
State intervention in the social sphere	Limited	Useful and essential

The history of the development of Russian liberalism

In Russia already in the XVI century. understanding of what liberalism is. There are several stages in the history of its development.

1. Government liberalism. Arising in the highest circles Russian society. The period of governmental liberalism coincides with the reign of Catherine II and Alexander I. In fact, its existence and development covers the era of enlightened absolutism.
2. Post-reform (conservative) liberalism. Prominent representatives of this era were P. Struve, K. Kavelin, B. Chicherin and others. At the same time, zemstvo liberalism was being formed in Russia.
3. New (social) liberalism. Representatives of this direction (N. Kareev, S. Gessen, M. Kovalevsky, S. Muromtsev, P. Milyukov) defended the idea of ​​creating decent living conditions for each person. At this stage, the prerequisites for the formation of the Cadets Party were formed.

These liberal trends differed not only from each other, but also had many differences with Western European concepts.

Government liberalism

Earlier we examined what liberalism is (definition in history and political science, signs, features). However, authentic directions of this trend have been formed in Russia. A prime example is government liberalism. It reached the peak of its development during the reign of Alexander I. At this time, liberal ideas spread among the nobility. The reign of the new emperor began with a series of progressive changes. It was allowed to freely cross the border, import foreign books, etc. At the initiative of Alexander I, an Unofficial Committee was created, which was involved in the development of projects for new reforms. It consisted of close associates of the emperor. The plans of the leaders of the Unspoken Committee were to reform state system, the creation of a constitution and even the abolition of serfdom. However, under the influence of reactionary forces, Alexander I decided on only partial transformations.

The Emergence of Conservative Liberalism in Russia

Conservative liberalism was fairly common in England and France. In Russia, this direction has taken on special features. Conservative liberalism takes its origin from the moment of the assassination of Alexander II. The reforms that the emperor developed were only partially implemented, and the country still needed to be reformed. The emergence of a new direction is due to the fact that in the highest circles of Russian society they began to understand what liberalism and conservatism are, and tried to avoid their extremes.

Ideologists of conservative liberalism

In order to understand what post-reform liberalism in Russia is, it is necessary to consider the concepts of its ideologists.

K. Kavelin is the founder of the conceptual approach to this direction of political thought. His student, B. Chicherin, developed the foundations of the theory of conservative liberalism. He defined this direction as "positive", the purpose of which is to implement the reforms necessary for society. At the same time, all segments of the population must defend not only their own ideas, but also take into account the interests of others. According to B. Chicherin, a society can be strong and stable only if it is based on power. At the same time, a person must be free, since he is the beginning and source of all social relations.

The development of the philosophical, cultural and methodological foundations of this trend was carried out by P. Struve. He believed that only a rational combination of conservatism and liberalism could save Russia in the post-reform period.

Features of post-reform liberalism

1. Recognition of the need state regulation. At the same time, the directions of its activity should be clearly identified.
2. The state is recognized as the guarantor of the stability of relations between various groups within the country.
3. The realization that during the period of growing failures of the reformers, it becomes possible for authoritarian leaders to come to power.
4. Transformations in the economy can only be gradual. The ideologists of post-reform liberalism argued that it was necessary to monitor the reaction of society to each reform and carry them out with caution.
5. Selective attitude towards Western society. It is necessary to use and perceive only what meets the needs of the state.

The ideologists of this direction of political thought sought to embody their ideas through an appeal to mass values ​​that were formed in the process of the historical development of society. That is the purpose and distinguishing feature conservative liberalism.

Zemsky liberalism

Speaking of post-reform Russia, it is impossible not to mention what zemstvo liberalism is. This trend emerged in the late XIX - early XX centuries. At that time, modernization was taking place in Russia, which led to an increase in the number of intelligentsia, in whose circles an opposition movement was formed. In Moscow, a secret circle "Conversation" was created. It was his work that initiated the formation of the ideas of the liberal opposition. Zemstvo figures F. Golovin, D. Shipov, D. Shakhovsky were members of this circle. The Liberation magazine, which was published abroad, became the mouthpiece of the liberal opposition. Its pages spoke of the need to overthrow autocratic power. In addition, the liberal opposition advocated the empowerment of zemstvos, as well as their active participation in government.

New liberalism in Russia

The liberal current in the political thought of Russia acquires new features by the beginning of the 20th century. The direction is formed in an environment of sharp criticism of the concept of "rule of law". That is why liberals set themselves the task of justifying the progressive role of government institutions in the life of society.
It is important to note that in the XX century. Russia is entering a period of social crisis. Its cause, the new liberals saw the usual economic disorder and spiritual and moral catastrophe. They believed that a person should have not only the means of subsistence, but also leisure, which he will use for his improvement.

Radical liberalism

Speaking about what liberalism is, it should be noted the existence of its radical trend. In Russia, it took shape at the beginning of the 20th century. The main goal of this movement was the overthrow of the autocracy. A striking example of the activities of radical liberals was the Constitutional Democratic Party (the Cadets). Considering this direction, it is necessary to highlight its principles.

1. Downplaying the role of the state. Hopes are pinned on spontaneous processes.
2. Achieving your goals in various ways. The possibility of using coercive methods is not denied.
3. In the field of economics, only quick and deep macro-reforms are possible covering as many aspects as possible.
4. One of the main values ​​of radical liberalism is the combination of the experience of world culture and developed European states with the problems of Russia.

Contemporary Russian liberalism

What is modern liberalism in Russia? This question is still debatable. Researchers put forward different versions about the origin of this direction, about its principles and features in Russia.
Scientists identify some features of modern liberalism in Russia. Let's consider them in more detail.

1. Reasoning about the political system often goes beyond liberalism.
2. Substantiation of the need for the existence of a market economy.
3. Encouragement and protection of private property rights.
4. The emergence of the question of "Russian identity".
5. In the field of religion, most liberals are in favor of a tolerant attitude towards other faiths.

findings

There are many currents in the liberal direction of political thought today. Each of them has developed its own principles and special features. Recently, there has been a debate in the world community about what innate liberalism is, whether it exists at all. It should be noted that even the French Enlighteners argued that freedom is a right, but the understanding of its necessity is not available to everyone.

In general, it can be said that liberal ideas and transformations are an integral feature of modern life.

Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus

Belarusian State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics

Department of Humanities

discipline: "Fundamentals of the ideology of the Belarusian state."

On the topic: “Basic principles of liberalism. social liberalism”.

Done: Checked:

Student gr. 863001 Rudakovskiy N.K.

Zhitkevich Inna

Liberalism

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

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

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

The ideal of liberalism is a society with freedom of action for everyone, the free exchange of politically significant information, the limitation of the power of the state and the church, the rule of law, private property and the freedom of private enterprise. Liberalism rejected many assumptions that were the basis of previous theories of the state, such as the divine right of monarchs to power and the role of religion as the only source of knowledge. The fundamental principles of liberalism include the recognition of:

natural rights given by nature (including the right to life, personal liberty and property), as well as other civil rights;

equality and equality before the law;

market economy;

government accountability and transparency of state power.

The function of state power is thus reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure these principles. Modern liberalism also favors an open society based on pluralism and democratic government, while protecting the rights of minorities and individual citizens.

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

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

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. Modern liberalism has significantly expanded the scope of the classical interpretation and includes many currents, between which there are deep contradictions and sometimes conflicts arise. Modern liberalism in most developed countries is a mixture of all these forms. In third world countries, "third generation liberalism" often comes to the fore - a movement for and against a healthy environment.

Liberalism is distinguished by a number of features within different national traditions. Separate aspects of his theory (economic, political, ethical) are sometimes opposed to each other. Thus, there is a certain meaning in the conclusion of T. Spragens: "Liberalism as something unified has never existed, there was only a family of liberalisms." Apparently, we are dealing with a multitude of theories united by certain general principles, adherence to which distinguishes liberalism from other ideologies. Moreover, these principles allow for different interpretations, can be combined in a very bizarre way, and are the basis for the most unexpected, sometimes refuting arguments.

In my opinion, these principles include, firstly, individualism, the priority of the interests of individuals over the interests of society or a group. This principle received various justifications: from ontological concepts in which the individual person with his natural rights precedes society, to the ethical understanding of individuality as the highest value. It was embodied in different interpretations of the relationship between the individual and society: from the idea of ​​society as a mechanical sum of individuals realizing their own interests, to a more comprehensive approach, in which a person is considered as a social being, requiring both cooperation with other people and autonomy. . However, the idea of ​​the rights of the individual, from which the basic requirements for social order follow, undoubtedly underlies all liberal theories, distinguishing them from illiberal approaches.

Secondly, liberalism is characterized by commitment to the idea of ​​human rights and the value of individual freedom. Although the content of rights, as well as the interpretation of freedom in the course of long history liberal ideas have undergone significant changes, the priority of freedom as the main value for liberals has remained unchanged. Supporters of “classical” liberalism interpret freedom negatively, as the absence of coercion, and see its natural limitations in the equal rights of other people. They consider the equality of formal rights to be the only kind of equality compatible with freedom as a priority value. The rights of individuals are reduced by them to the sum of "fundamental rights", which include political freedoms, freedom of thought and freedom of conscience, as well as rights relating to the independence of the individual, backed by guarantees of private property. The New Liberals offer a positive understanding of freedom that complements freedom with equality of opportunity as a guarantee of the exercise of rights. Freedom in their understanding is real opportunity a choice that is not predetermined either by other people or by the circumstances of the life of the individual himself. In this regard, the “new liberals” push the boundaries of “fundamental rights” to include the most essential social rights.

But one way or another, the main premise of liberalism is the idea that each person has his own idea of ​​​​life, and he has the right to realize this idea to the best of his abilities, so society should be tolerant of his thoughts and actions, if the latter do not affect the rights of other people. Over its long history, liberalism has developed a whole system of institutional guarantees of the rights of individuals, which includes the inviolability of private property and the principle of religious tolerance, limitation of state intervention in the sphere of private life, backed by law, constitutional representative government, separation of powers, the idea of ​​the rule of law, etc.

Thirdly, an important principle characteristic of the liberal approach is rationalism, the belief in the possibility of a gradual, purposeful improvement of society by reformist, but not revolutionary measures. The liberal doctrine imposes certain requirements on the nature of the reforms being carried out. According to V. Leontovich, “the method of liberalism is the elimination of obstacles to personal freedom. Such elimination cannot, however, take the form of a violent upheaval or destruction... According to the liberal worldview, it is necessary to eliminate first of all the unlimited powers of state power... On the contrary, liberalism treats the subjective rights of individuals with the greatest respect... In general, the liberal state violent interference in the existing life relationships of people and any violation of habitual life forms are completely alien ... ”. This characteristic quite fully reflects the principles arising from liberal theory. Although, in practice, liberals have repeatedly retreated from them, since social transformations are always “violation of habitual life forms”, however, the imperative liberal reforms is the principle of minimal violation of existing individual rights.

Related to this is another feature of liberal methods - their "anti-constructivism": liberals usually support "social engineering" only to the extent that it removes barriers to the development of already established institutions and relations. Their goal is not to invent concrete projects of the "good society" and to put into practice some arbitrarily constructed models.

These, in our opinion, are the basic principles of liberalism. However, this list can be continued. However, no matter how detailed it is, it will always be possible to refer to some liberal concepts that do not fit into it. As E. Shatsky writes, “no matter what we say about the views allegedly characteristic of liberalism, it should be remembered that during its long history it served different goals and interests, adapted to different local traditions and used different theoretical languages. For this reason, any description that assumes a high level of generalization is bound to be incorrect. The same can be said about all “isms” with the exception of those that created dogmatic systems...”. Therefore, one should not see in the description proposed above a certain strict definition. Liberalism is not a system consisting of a once and for all given set of elements, but rather a certain area of ​​ideas that allows various combinations, but at the same time has quite definite boundaries.

social liberalism

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

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

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

LIBERALISM - a general designation of various forms of socio-political thought and practice of modern and modern times.

Rise-walking in their gen-ne-zi-se to rise-nick-shek in the 17th-18th centuries of the ra-cio-on-leaf and enlightenment cri-ti-ke of the Western -ropeian co-words-no-th community-st-va, ab-so-lu-tiz-ma and cle-ri-ka-liz-ma. The term “Liberalism” arose in the Spanish cor-te-s in 1810, denoting the faction of an-ti-ab-so-lu-ti-st-ori-en-ta-tion , and after this, would-st-ro ras-pro-country-nil-Xia on Ev-ro-pe.

For-mi-ro-va-nie ideo-logii li-be-ra-liz-ma.

Since the 17th century, the philosophical foundations of Liberalism include the ideas of ve-ro-ter-pi-mo-sti (that-le- rant-no-sti), in-di-vi-du-al-noy freedom, in-nya-that pre-zh-de everything as a protection of human-lo-ve -ka from the political pro-from-in-la, ver-ho-ven-st-va ra-tsio-nal-but justify-no-van-no-go right-va, right-le-niya with co-gla-this on-ro-da (in the theo-ri-yah general-st-ven-no-go-to-go-vo-ra - uch-re-zh-den-no-go-on- ro-house), the right to a part-st-own own-st-ven-nost, is-to-l-ko-van-nuyu at that time rather temper-st-ven-but and in-whether -ti-che-ski than yuri-di-che-ski and eco-no-mi-che-ski. These ideas, in a different way, are ak-tsen-ti-ro-van-nye, raz-vi-va-lis such-ki-mi thoughts-whether-te-la-mi, like T. Hobbes, J Locke, B. Spin-no-za, S. Pu-fen-dorf, P. Bayle, etc.

In the 18th century, Liberalism became ideological-lo-gi-che-sky and, in a certain sense, in a lytic way, partly op-re-de-lyaya so-fight co-der-zha-nie in-nya-tia Enlightenment. The efforts of the French physio-crats (F. Ke-ne, P. Mercier de la Riviere, A.R. J. Tur-go) and the Scottish pro-sve-ti-te -lei (D. Hume, A. Smith, J. Millar, A. Fer-gu-son) creates-da-et-xia political eco-no-miya, C. Mont-tes-kyo and its after-to-va-te-whether times-ra-ba-you-va-yut con-cep-tion times-de-le-niya authorities - one of the most important -lytic ideas of Liberalism. In the same tradition, as well as outside it, - U. Blacks-to-nom, I. Ben-ta-mom, from-tsa-mi-os-no-va-te-la-mi USA ( T. Jeff-fer-so-nom, J. Me-di-so-nom, A. Ga-mil-to-nom) - for-mi-ru-et-sya modern con-sti-tu-tsio-na -ism (based on the ideas of J. Locke and the historical experience of the English Revolution, in particular the Bill of Rights of 1689). Ch. Bek-ka-ria for-mu-li-ru-et the idea of ​​\u200b\u200b"gu-ma-ni-sti-che-sko-go" right, in the works of I. Kan-ta and I. Ben- ta-ma warehouses-dy-va-yut-sya-influencing to the present time theories of mo-ra-li - these are debt-ha (de-on-to-logia) and uti-li-ta-rism. The general appearance of Liberalism - under the influence, first of all, Vol-ter-ra and en-cyclo-lo-pe-di-stov (D. Di-d-ro, J.L d'Alembert, P. Gol-ba-ha, etc.) - pri-ni-ma-et more and more secular character, and in some of their manifestations-le-ni -yah Liberalism becomes-but-vit-xia atei-sti-che-skim.

Liberalism was the first those-th-no-things, in some way about-su-zh-da-lied and fore-was-hi-ha-ha-rak-ter-nye pro-ble-we of the modern society, at that time only for-mi-ro-vav-she-go-sya. In the 18th century, up to the French revolution of the 18th century, Liberalism pro-ti-in-standing-whether only different versions of tra-di-cio-na-lis-ma. Only later, in the course of this re-in-lu-tion and after it, and in the quality of re-actions on political victories and developments of early Liberalism, two other key currents of modern thought are formed - con-ser-vatism and socialism. So for-mi-ru-et-sya is the modulus of the modern world-ro-po-ni-ma-nia, many-times-but re-re-stray-vav-shy-sya in the 19th and 20th centuries, but not-from-me-but-storing-my-main components-po-nen-you.

The development of Liberalism in the 18th century in ro-di-lo and a lot of its forms. So, in the Scottish Enlightenment, it would-la from-reject-well-that idea of ​​\u200b\u200bgen-of-st-ven-no-go-to-go-in-ra, and es-te-st-ven- noe pra-in sve-de-but according to su-shche-st-vu to p-zi-tiv-no-mu pra-vu. Ve-ra in all-mo-gu-shche-st-vo and sa-mo-stand-tel-ness ra-zu-ma would-la kri-ti-che-ski pe-re-os-cape-le- on Scottish fi-lo-so-fa-mi, while the Liberalism of the Kantov-sko-go-th-for-mi-ro-val-sya in a direct-my-le-mi-ke with no- mi (before everything with D. Hume). “Not-from-foreign-well-give-we-rights” che-lo-ve-ka, who have become not only the cornerstone of some-some versions of Liberalism , but also its lytic sign (in the American and French re-in-lu-qi-yah), would it be with pre-zr-n-e-y-y-y-y-y. Ben-ta-mom "che-pu-hoi on ho-du-lyah." Ori-en-ta-tion on enlightened ab-co-lu-tism as the most-bo-lea-to-vat-ny, or yes, one-st-ven-but-possible -ny, in-st-ru-ment of real-li-for-tion of re-for-ma-tor-pro-programs about-ti-in-standing-whether the perception of go-su-dar-st -va as “not-ho-di-my-evil” and striving, if possible, “mi-ni-mi-zi-ro-vat” him (for example, by T. Pey-n and K. V. von Humboldt).

The main te-che-tions and pro-ble-we are co-time-men-no-go-whether-be-ra-liz-ma.

In conflicts within many different versions of Liberalism and between it and others, there are many -niya-mi (con-ser-va-tiz-mom, so-cia-liz-mom, na-cio-na-liz-mom, fun-da-men-ta-liz-mom, etc.) pro-is-ho-di-lo development of various forms of Liberalism, not-rarely with-holding-zh-tel-but changing-shih-sya so much that they lose -whether there is a similarity between me-f-du-fight and our own “great-ro-di-te-la-mi” from the era of Enlightenment. At the same time, there is a sim-bio-zy of some versions of Liberalism and other ideo-logical theories, for example, liberal socialism in the spirit of K. Ros-sel-li or L. Hob-how-sa, as well as posthumously pub- lished "Chapters on social cyan- lis-me" J.S. Mill-la, modern non-oli-be-ra-lism (L. von Mises, M. Fried-man, A. Schwartz, etc.) - according to su-sche-st-vu, only ra-di-kal -naya version of the ka-pi-ta-listic con-ser-va-tiz-ma, "li-be-ral-ny-tsio-na-lizm", rising to the idea -yam J. Mad-zi-ni about “mor-st-ven-noy to-tal-no-sti of the nation”, you-build-vae-mine in co-ot-vet-st-vie with uni- ver-sal-ny-mi price-no-stya-mi rights che-lo-ve-ka.

In general, you can de-pour five main the-che-li-be-ral-noy thoughts, which were created in the 20th century: 1) teachings, re-creation -from-in-dia-theories of general-st-ven-no-go-to-go-in-ra and es-the-st-ven-ny rights (J. Rawls, various versions of dis -kus-siv-noy eti-ki - Yu. Ha-ber-mas, etc.); 2) the concept of spon-tan-no-go in a row, continuing the traditions of the Scottish Enlightenment (F.A. von Hayek, W. Buck-li the Younger and others); 3) modern uti-li-ta-rism in its various versions (P. Singer, K. Er-row, G. Becker, F. Knight); 4) Ge-gel-yan-sky versions of Liberalism (B. Cro-che, R. Kollin-gwood, etc.); 5) prag-matism and non-op-rag-matism (J. Dewey, R. Ror-ty and others). You can also talk about the growing ec-lec-tic-ness of modern concepts of Liberalism, which, in the opinion of its critics (Ch.R Mills and others), is one of the reasons for his ba-on-li-za-tion. The political reason for this trend is seen by the cri-ti-ki in the fact that modern Liberalism is turning into a “prag-ma-ti-che- and so-cio-lo-gi-che-skoe "description of the me-ha-niz-mov func-tsio-ni-ro-va-nia of the western society, someone swarm we are no longer able to evaluate these mechanisms from the point of view of growth or decrease in freedom (J. Dunn).

The internal d-na-mi-ka of modern Liberalism is op-re-de-la-et-xia discussion-kus-siya-mi on the following key-tops. The first topic: should Liberalism, as its main goal, strive to og-ra-no-che-niyu with-well-well-give- of the power of any pra-vi-tel-st-va (F.A. von Hay-ek) or is it a second-degree-pen-question, decided in -ve-si-mo-sti from how Liberalism copes with its most important for-yes-whose - under viy, without some-ry not-possibility-to-free-real-li-for-the-tion of a person of his own abilities (T.H. Green )? In the center of these discussions - from-no-she-nie of the state-su-dar-stva and society, functions and to-let-ti-my scales action-tel-no-sti first-of-the-go ra-di obes-pe-che-niya free-bo-dy development in-di-vi-da and co-general-st-va lu -day. The second theme: should Liberalism be “value-but-st-but-neutral”, serve its kind of “pure” technical-no-what -you are in-di-vi-du-al-noy of freedom without-from-no-si-tel-but to those values ​​​​that are attached to free man-of-age (J. Rawls, B. Ak-ker-man), or he embodies op-re-de-lyon values ​​(gu-man-no- sti, co-gift-no-sti, right-wed-whether-in-sti, etc.), forget-ve-ing someone-ryh-va-for-not-tho-mo-go pa-lips-us-mi after-st-via-mi (W. Gal-ston, M. Wal-zer)? With the second sub-ho-de, neither “price-but-st-neu-trality”, nor moral re-la-ti-vism for Liberalism is accepted. The axis of these discussions is the normative content of Liberalism and its embodiment in the institutes of modern society. The third topic: how are we connected with lytic freedom and private property, go-in-rya shi-re - ka-pi- talism? Here, pro-ti-in-sto-yat Liberalism is eco-but-mi-che-sky and temper-st-ven-but-po-li-ti-che-sky. The essence of the first one can be re-given in the form of von Miese Liberalism: “Pro-gram-ma-li-be-ra-liz-ma, if you to break it down in one word, it would be read like this: property, i.e. private ownership of the means of pro-from-water-st -va ... All the other tre-bo-va-nia li-be-ra-liz-ma you-te-ka-yut from this fun-da-men-tal-no-go tre -bo-va-nia ”(Mi-ses L. von. Li-be-ra-lizm. M., 2001. P. 24). The essence of the morals-of-veins-but-is-it-che-th-th-th Liberalism consists in the fact that the connection of freedom and part of sti is not one-but-meaning-on and is not-la-is-not-from-me-no in different historical circumstances. According to B. Cro-che, freedom “should have the courage to accept the means of so-qi-al-no-go pro-gres-sa, someone rye ... are-la-yut-sya different-but-about-raz-us-mi and about-ty-in-re-chi-you-mi, ”and ras-smat-ri-vat free- the ny market is only as “one of the possible types of eco-no-mi-che-go in a row” (Croce B. My Philosophy and other essays on the moral and political problems of our time. L., 1949. P. 108).

Kha-rak-ter-naya for Liberalism is convinced-zh-den-ness in the possibility of co-op-shen-st-in-va-niya of any public institutions-tu-tu-tov in-lu-cha-et its incarnation only in a specific so-qi-al-noy practice-ti-ke, vector-to-swarm for-wee-sit from in -whether and or-ga-ni-for-tion of people. According to R.G. Da-ren-dor-fa, “there is no such state of being, in which li-be-ra-lism would be real-li-zo-van full-stu. Lie-be-ra-lism is always a process ... in the middle of someone-ro-go-go-to-follow-du-yut-sya new opportunities for pain -she-th number of people. Every time this process needs new impulses to give it energy” (Dahrendorf R. The future tasks of libera-lism: a political agenda. L., 1988. P. 29).

Li-be-ra-lism in so-qi-al-no-po-li-ti-che-practice-ti-ke.

The practical implementation of the ideas of Liberalism, at least since the end of the 18th century, has been pro-is-ho-di-lo on several levels: a) mass in the first place; b) political ideology and party programs; c) po-ly-tic in-sti-tu-tov - first of all, par-ties, na-zy-vav-shih and / or considered-shih-be-be-ral- us-mi, etc. li-be-ral-no-go-su-dar-st-va. At these levels, the fate of Liberalism is different.

In the 18th century, Liberalism was rather aware of the “front-di-ruyu-schey” of the a-hundred-kra-ti-her and the faces of free professions on -ras-tav-she-go kri-zi-sa "old-ro-go in a row" than the class-co-howl of the ideo-lo-gi-her bourgeois-joie-zi. Yes, the British ly-tic eco-no-mia, from-ra-zhav-shay spirit of for-mi-ruyu-sche-go-sya com-mer-che-so-go-s-s-s-va , all-ma restrained-zhan-but from-no-si-las to the middle classes. A. Smith in “Bo-gat-st-ve-na-ro-dov” (chapter 11) called for the community to vigilance in from-no-she-nii “merchants and pro-mysh-len-ni-kov”, always prone to “ob-ma-ny-vat and ug-not-thief”. At the European con-ti-nen-te, Liberalism is from-whether-from-the-covered dis-affection to “just-sto-lu-di-us” and complete non-ve -we-em in the ability to-ro-yes manage a co-battle or at least, how you-ra-pity-sya Sh. Mon-tes-kyo, ob-su-g-give po-ly-tic de la. From-no-she-nie to de-mo-kra-tii would-lo-is-key-chi-tel-but not-ga-tiv-nym, and yes, for example, from-tsy-os-no- va-te-whether of the American Republic-pub-li-ki, uch-re-g-give-shi pre-sta-vi-tel-noe right-le-tion, vi-de-whether its main thing is to-sto-in -s-in that it can “create a force that doesn’t depend on the pain-shin-st-va, i.e. from the self- sch-st-va ”(Ma-di-son J., Ga-mil-ton A. To the na-ro-du of the state of New York. No. 51 // Fe-de-ra-list. M., 1994, p. 349). In these conditions, it’s not necessary to talk about the presence of Liberalism at the level of mass co-creation, ho- he already and you-stepped into the ka-che-st-ve of lytic ideology.

Si-tua-tion me-nya-et-sya in the 19th century - ad-re-sa-ta-mi of Liberalism become-but-vyat-sya under-no-may-schayu-sya-bourgeois-az-ny environments -nie classes, in-tel-li-gen-tion, enlightened part of chi-new-no-che-st-va and new (small and medium) earth- le-vla-del-tsy, adapt-ti-ro-vav-shie-sya to the ry-night conditions of the ho-zyay-st-in-va-nia. The “golden age” of classical liberal parties is coming, an example of some can be considered the English Lie-be- ral party under the leadership of U.Yu. Glad-hundred-on, and par-la-men-ta-riz-ma as or-ha-on me-niy and in-whether on-ro-yes, putting-len-no-go in the center of the state mouth -roy-st-va. As Voltaire wrote, "pa-la-ta communities are the real-lin-na-tion ...".

However, in these conditions, even in these conditions, Liberalism remains ideo-lo-gi-it less-shin-st-va, and its re-al-noe pro-nick-but -ve-nie in not-with-vi-le-gi-ro-van-nye layers would be nothing. “Na-qi-ey”, presenting in par-la-men-te, it would be names, but it’s less-shin-st-together with less-shin-st, represented by con-ser-va-tiv-ny-mi par-tia-mi (all-general-of-bi-rater right - for persons older than 21 years old - yes - lo vve-de-no in We-li-ko-bri-ta-nii, this “ko-ly-be-li mi-ro-vo-go-li-be-ra-liz-ma”, only in 1928!). At the same time, the most re-shi-tel-naya op-po-zi-tion of the ras-shi-re-niyu from the bi-rational right-wa is-ho-di-la then precisely from li-be-ra-lov "man-che-ster-sko-go-tal-ka" (Man-che-ster became at that time the "hundred-face-tsey" of the ka-pi-ta-listic in -du-st-ri-al-noy re-vo-lu-tion): they feared that their own-st-ve-ness might be under threat from hundred-ro-we-not-haves, better-better through races-shi-re-nie from bi-racial right, influence on the activities of the state-su-dar -st-va. From-no-she-niya between Liberalism and de-mo-kra-ti-her os-ta-va-lis-stretch-wives-us-mi on the pro-ty-the-same-nii of everything XIX century. The modern “de-mo-kra-ti-che-ka-pi-ta-lism” is the product of a hard and long political struggle, in a swarm and li-be-ra-liz-mu, and de-mo-kra-tii had to go to serious mutual concessions.

In the 20th century, especially after the 2nd world war, there was an obvious decline in liberal parties, despite the fact that the ideas of Liberalism - the value of the market, the rights of a person-lo-ve-ka, “pro-tse-bad-noy de-mo-kra-tii”, etc. in-lu-chi-li uni-ver- sal-noe recognition. In Li-be-ral-nom in-ter-na-tsio-na-le (os-no-van in 1947), the parties of 46 countries were represented, but only one of them - Canadian Li-be-ral-naya par-tia - per-rio-di-che-ski hundred-but-vit-sya-great-ve-sche. Parties in Japan and Av-st-ra-lii, naming themselves-be-be-ral-us-mi and in a hundred-yang-but (like the first) whether -bo time from time-me-ni (like a second-paradise) to-ho-dy-shchi-sya in power, fak-ti-che-ski yav-la-yut-sya con-ser-va -tiv-ny-mi. Other liberal parties have practically no chance of coming to power. Modeling for the 19th century the English Li-be-ral-naya par-tia pre-kra-ti-la su-sche-st-vo-va-nie in 1988, merging with so-qi -al-de-mo-kra-ta-mi (against-against-no-ki merging "re-sta-no-vi-li" her in 1989, but her ly-tic weight co-ver -shen-but nothing-women). At the same time, almost all the influential parties of the Western countries became li-be-ral-us and it’s hard-but we’re different in the program from -but-she-nii. Serious ideological and strategic differences, but some of them, even before the 2nd World War, were saved -zh-du so-tsi-al-de-mo-kra-ta-mi and liberals, came to naught. Ra-di-kal-op-po-zi-tion from the left and right-va prak-ti-che-ski is-chez-la, in any case at the par-la-ment level -sko-th pre-sta-vi-tel-st-va. Do-ti-ka-re-re-sta-la be a “argument about ideas” and turn into ad-mi-ni-st-ri-ro-va-nie, an hour something like “cri-sis-ny me-nej-ment”. All this is from-ra-zha-et layer-living-sya in mass co-creation-on-ni con-sen-sus from-no-si-tel-but basic-li-be-ral- nyh values, vos-pri-no-may-my as a sa-mo-obvious fact and have become their own sort of ba-nal-no-stya-mi.

Li-be-ra-lism in eco-no-mi-ke.

Theo-re-ti-ki of classical Liberalism ut-ver-zhda-whether unconditional priori-ori-tet in-di-vi-du-al-ny rights to property and svo-bo-du you-bo-ra eco-no-mic in-ve-de-niya. According to A. Smith, moral life and economic activity should be based on directives from a hundred we are go-su-dar-st-va, and the free market is in the process of natural sa-mo-re-gu-li-ro-va-nia spo-so-ben dos -tych more pro-of-di-tel-no-sti than a market with a lot of og-ra-no-che-ny: “Each-to-mu-lo -ve-ku, as long as he doesn’t on-ru-sha-et for-to-new-right-whether-in-sti, pre-before-becoming-la-et-sya co-ver-shen-but free-bod-but pre-follow-to-vat, according to one’s own-ve-no-mu-ra-zu-me-tion, one’s in-te-re-sy and con-ku-ri-ro-vat with one’s own labor house and ka-pi-ta-lom with labor and ka-pi-ta-lom of another person and the whole class ”(Smith A. Is-sle-do-va -nie about the nature and the cause of the rich-gat-st-va on-ro-dov. M., 2007. P. 647). From-flock-vae-my pre-hundred-vi-te-la-mi of Liberalism (laissez-faire) includes in itself from-day-st-vie of state sub-si-diy and various bar-e-ditch for trading; the cost of that-va-ditch and services-meadow should-on-op-re-de-lyat-xia is-key-chi-tel-but ry-night-ny-mi-si-la-mi.

Os-no-howl eco-no-mi-ki is a “free private enterprise”. The main task of-yes-whose go-su-dar-st-va is considered to provide-ne-che-nie stable right-for-forks of the game - to follow co-blu-de -no-eat for-con-no-sti, pre-du-pre-g-give the possibility of-on-strength, support-to-hold-to-to-chi-vost de-neg- noy sis-te-we and provide-ne-chi-vat svo-bo-du markets; pre-la-ha-et-sya, that between-f-from-vet-st-ven-no-stu pra-vi-tel-st-va and in-di-vid-dov should be balance and go-su-dar-st-vo should solve only those problems-yes-chi, someone-rye cannot be you-half-not-we over-le-zha- shchy ob-ra-zom part-st-ny sec-to-rum.

The principles of the state re-gu-li-ro-va-nia of the ka-pi-ta-list-istic eco-no-mi-ki opi-sa-ny in the works of J.M. Kane-sa, L. Bren-ta-no, L. Hob-how-sa, T.H. Green, B. Olin and J. Dewey, who played a prominent role in spreading the ideas of Liberalism throughout the world.

Li-be-ra-lism in Russia.

Liberalism as an ideological tech-tion in Russia with the formation of mi-ro-val-sya in the 1830-1840s. In its foundations, first of all, the ideas of the theo-re-ti-kov of French Liberalism (F. Guizot, B.A. Kon-sta-na de Re-beck, A. de To-to-vi-la) and G.V.F. Ge-ge-la, what-whether-lo-re-re-os-think-to-pour the experience of philo-so-fii Enlightenment in application to Russia and propose to live a project of mod-der-ni-za-tion of the country, pre-la-gav-shi significant pre-ob-ra-zo-va-niya so-tsi-al -but-po-lytic sys-te-we. First of all, at first, Liberalism got the most-big-neck races-pro-countries in the university environment. Subsequently, he increased his influence along with the development of public institutions-tu-tov (circle-kov, volume-e-di -not-niy, n-chat-nyh from-yes-nyy, or-ga-nov me-st-no-go sa-mo-management, etc.).

In its history, Russian Liberalism has gone through a definite evolution. According to the opinion of Russian li-be-ra-lovs of the 1830-1890s (K.D. Ka-ve-lin, B.N. Chi-che-rin, S.M. So-lov-yov, A .D. Gra-dov-sky and others), the key force in the historical process in Russia was go-su-dar-st-vo; it is able to develop a common va-tel-no, and the emergence of a civil society is possible only with the active participation of the government authorities. In the power of this-whether-be-ra-ly, you-stu-pa-whether against revolutionary shocks, someone-rye, under-ry-vaya state mustache -toi, on-ru-sha-whether the natural course of development and could plunge Russia into anarchy. Theo-re-ti-ki of Russian Liberalism from-stai-wa-whether the evo-lu-qi-on-ny path of pre-ob-ra-zo-va-niy, someone would call on -step-pen-but expand the right-in-guarantements of political and civil liberties ka-zh-to-go-lo-ve-ka and with time - it’s ras-cal-you-vat on the must-ta-nov-le-nie con-sti-tu-qi-on-nyh rows in Russia. At the same time, Ka-ve-lin and Chi-che-rin considered-ta-whether-be-real-values-not-with-together-we-mi with a de-mo-cratic principle -qi-pom borderless ge-ge-mo-nii pain-shin-st-va, because the key-howl for-yes-whose right-in-go-su -dar-st-va in-la-ga-li from-flock-va-nie in-te-re-owls in-di-vi-da. These ideas were also characteristic for “li-be-ral-ny bureau-ro-kra-ts” (A.A. Aba-zy, A.V. Go-lov-ni-na , D.A. and N.A. Mi-lu-ti-nykh, etc.) in the years of pro-ve-de-niya of the so-called. Ve-li-kih reforms of the 1860-1870s. They from-la-ga-were influence-tel-us-periodic from-da-niya-mi (for example, zhur-na-la-mi “Vestnik Ev-ro-py”, “Rus -skaya thought ”, etc.), public associations-e-di-non-niya-mi (legal general-st-va-mi, general-st-va-mi gram-mot- no-sti, Literary Fund-house, etc.), zem-ski-mi so-b-ra-niya-mi and or-ga-na-mi of the city self-management-le-tion.

At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, the ideas of Liberalism changed as a result of the mod-der-ni-za-tion of the Russian society. New theo-re-ti-ki of Liberalism (V.M. Ges-sen, F.F. Ko-kosh-kin, P.N. Mi-lyu-kov, P.I. Nov-go-rod- tsev, etc.) is-ho-di-whether from mutually-ob-words-len-no-sti-li-be-ral-nyh and de-mo-cratic values-no-stey, which is required bo-va-lo ras-shi-re-niya trans-rech-nya ga-ran-ti-ro-van-nyh gra-y-yes-no-well free-bod, go-vo-ri-li oh right -ve-lo-ve-ka for a “decent life” (i.e., about the right to education, medical support, culture -ny do-sug, etc.), about the so-qi-al-noy function of self-st-ven-no-sti, someone-paradise must serve not only about it -la-da-te-lu, but also to all-to-mu-sche-st-vu. Such a conception is still pre-la-ha-la the active role of state power as re-gu-la-to-ra right-in-from- but-she-ny, and go-su-dar-st-vo, pre-ten-blowing-shche on you-ra-same-nie in-te-re-owls of pain-shin-st-va, must-but it would be de-mo-kra-ti-zi-ro-vat-sya and ga-ran-ti-ro-vat ly-tic rights to all their gra-zh-da-us. These ideas do-mi-ni-ro-va-li in the central organ-ga-nah of the periodical pe-cha-ti: ga-ze-tah “Russian Ve-do-mo-sti”, “ Bir-ve-ve-do-mo-sti”, “Right”, “Speech”, “Word”, “Morning of Russia”, “Vo-los Mo-sk-you” and etc., journal-on-lah "Vest-nick of Ev-ro-py", "Mo-s-kov-sky hedgehog-not-del-nick", etc.

Li-be-ral-ny ha-rak-ter but-si-lo Zem-stvo movement, some way-s-s-s-in-va-lo formalize - party-ty-nyh ob-e-di-non-ny: circle "Be-se-da" (1899-1905), So-yu-for os-bo-zh-de-ny ( 1903-1905), Soyu-for zem-tsev-con-sti-tu-tsio-na-listov (1903-1905). There was a pro-ve-de-na “Ban-ket-naya camp-pa-niya” of 1904 with the goal of bu-dit the Russian pra-vi-tel-st-vo to new re-for -mum - to the introduction of con-sti-tu-tion and political freedoms. In rezul-ta-te de-tel-no-sti of li-be-ral-nyh or-ga-ni-za-tsy managed to make connections between various circles ga-mi of the Russian society-of-st-ven-no-sti, you-ra-bo-tat ideo-logical-us-ta-nov-ki, someone-rye in the next-st-vie- whether in the OS-no-woo program-nyh do-ku-men-tov a number of political parties. Sa-mi parties on-cha-whether warehouse-dy-vat-sya after the publication of Ma-ni-fe-sta on October 17, 1905 (pro- gla-forces civil freedoms and the creation of a people's representative office in the form of the State Duma) in connection with not-about-ho-dimo-stu pro-ve-de-niya from a bi-racial campaign in Du-mu. In October 1905, the rise-nick-la Kon-sti-tu-tsi-on-no-de-mo-kra-ti-che-skaya par-tiya (par-tiya ka-de-tov; leader - P .N. Mi-lyu-kov), ob-e-di-nyav-shay side-ron-ni-kov of the left wing of Russian Liberalism: pre-hundred-vi-te-lei pro-professional su-ry (V.I. Ver-nad-sky, A.A. Ki-ze-wet-ter, L.I. Pet-ra-zhits-kiy, P.I. Nov-go-rod-tsev, M.Ya. Ost-ro-gorsky, V.D. Na-bo-kov and others), hell-in-ka-tu-ry (V.A. Mak-la-kov, M.L. Man-del-shtam, N.V. Tes-len-ko and others), Zem-sky dei-te-lei (brothers Pa-vel D. and Peter D. Dol-go-ru-ko-you , A. I. Shin-ga-rev, I. I. Pet-run-ke-vich, F. I. Ro-di-chev, Prince D. I. Sha-khovskoy, etc.). They are you-stu-pa-whether for the us-ta-nov-le-nie of the constitutional monarchy with the answer-st-ven-ny before the State Du-my pra-vi-tel -st-vom, pro-ve-de-nie shi-ro-kih so-qi-al-nyh pre-ob-ra-zo-va-niy, ras-calculate-you-wa-whether on account-re- di-tel-nye functions of the people's pre-sta-vi-tel-st-va, someone with the support of public opinion could go to the card-di-nal -nye-ly-tic re-forms, even without the sanction of them-pe-ra-to-ra. The most-bo-more half-but such a relationship to the evil-bo-day-about-the Russian political-li-ti-ki and the revolutionary movement from-ra-zi-moose in the collections Ve-khi (1909) and In-tel-li-gen-tion in Russia (1910). In November 1905, about-ra-zo-va-na party “So-yuz 17 October-rya” (leader - A.I. Guch-kov), representing right wing of Russian Liberalism. Ok-tyab-ri-sty (M.M. Alek-se-en-ko, V.M. Pet-ro-vo-So-lo-vo-vo, M.V. Rod-zyan-ko, N. A. Kho-myakov, S.I. Shid-lov-sky and others) you-stu-pa-whether for the introduction of a constitutional monarchy in Russia with the preservation of significant gender -but-my-im-pe-ra-to-ra, hoped for the possibility of a dialogue-lo-ha with the current authorities, party-ner-sky from -but-she-niya with someone could-could-let-pour-re-sewing a hundred-yav-shie before Ros-si-her pro-ble-we without so-qi-al -but-po-ly-tic-tri-se-ny. Pro-me-zhu-accurate in-zi-tion for-ni-ma-whether the party of li-be-ral-no-go center-tra: De-mo-kra-ti-che-re- party forms (M.M. Ko-va-lev-sky, V.D. Kuz-min-Ka-ra-va-ev, etc.), Mir-no-go update of couples -tia (P.A. Gei-den, M.A. Sta-kho-vich, D.N. Shipov, etc.), Party Progressives (I.N. Ef- re-mov, N. N. Lvov, E. N. Tru-bets-koy, etc.). They are on-the-flock-wa-whether on the new-le-nii of the political and right-in-howl life of Russia by way of the evolution of the traditional uk-la-yes and in a degree-pe-no-go-for-me-sche-niya of ar-ha-ich-nyh elements of so-qi-al-noy sis-te-we are co-time-men-us-mi.

Li-be-ral-nye parties of races-count-you-wa-whether pre-zh-de everything on par-la-ment-skuyu so-ti-ku. They play a key role in the activities of the State Duma of all four co-zy-vov, in 1915, the initiation-ro-wa-li created yes-tion “Pro-gres-siv-no-go block”, volume-e-di-niv-she-go op-po-zi-qi-on-noe pain-shin-st-in 4th Du-we, in the pe-ri-od of the 1st world-war-we for-nya-whether we-do-ing in the Zemsky soyuz, Soyu-ze go-ro -dov, Zem-go-re and in-en-but-pro-mouse-len-nyh-ko-mi-te-tah, some-rye ways-of-st-in-va-li con-co- whether-da-tion op-by-zi-qi-he-but on-stro-en-noy general-st-ven-no-sti. Li-be-ra-ly did-bi-li from-re-che-nia from the power of Emperor Ni-ko-lai II, after pa-de-nia sa-mo-der-zha-via in ho -de of the February revolution of 1917, sfor-mi-ro-va-li the first composition of the Provisional government-vi-tel-st-va, after-the-st-vii of their pre-st- vi-te-whether teaching-st-in-va-li in the ra-bo-those of all his co-hundreds. After the October Revolution of 1917 and the us-ta-nov-le-ny dik-ta-tu-ry more-she-vi-kov is-chez-la so-qi-al-naya and a lytic environment for races-pro-countries of liberal ideas in Russia.

Further development of a li-be-ral-noy thought about-is-ho-di-lo in the circles of the Russian emigration. Su-shche-st-ven-ny contribution outside the authors of the journal "No-vy grad" (I.I. Bu-na-kov-Fon-da-min-sky, N.A. Ber- dya-ev, S.I. Ges-sen, F.A. Ste-pun, G.P. Fe-do-tov, etc.), syn-te-for Liberalism and the principles of so-qi-al-noy of justice. Raz-ra-ba-you-vaya conception of christ-an-sky de-mo-kra-tii, they considered that pre-ob-ra-zo-va-nia in eco -no-micic sphere they don’t have self-mod-dov-leu-che-th value, but only must be able to niyu in-sti-tu-tov right-in-go-su-dar-st-va and civil society-st-va, oh-ra-no-che-nie right-va cha-st- noy own-st-ven-no-sti should not put under question the pri-mat of a person-lo-ve-che-personality.

In the post-Soviet period in Russia, li-be-real ideas were based-but-you-va-lied mainly on the end-chains-qi-yah not-windows-ser -va-tiz-ma and liber-ta-ri-an-st-va. Their sides-no-ki on-stai-va-li on mi-ni-mi-za-tion ro-li go-su-dar-st-va pre-zh-de everything in eco-but- the magical sphere, proceeding from the idea of ​​​​sa-mo-or-ga-ni-zuyu-schem-sya market, from-ri-tsa-li ha-rak-ter -nuyu for the modern European liberal thought-whether the concept of so-qi-al-no-go-su-dar-st-va.

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

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

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

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

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

4. Meliorism as a statement of the possibility of correcting and improving any social institutions. Meliorism does not necessarily coincide with the idea of ​​progress as a directed and deterministic process with which it was long time historically connected. Meliorism also allows different ideas about the relationship between conscious and spontaneous principles in changing society - in the range from the spontaneous evolution of Hayekado to Bentham's rationalist constructivism.

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

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

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

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

Who is a liberal?

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

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

Modern liberals

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

Russian liberals

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