A few years ago, the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion conducted a survey of the population, the main question of which was: "What is liberalism, and who is a liberal?" Most of the participants were confused by this question, 56% could not give an exhaustive answer. The survey was conducted in 2012, most likely, today the situation is unlikely to change for the better. Therefore, now in this article we will briefly consider the concept of liberalism and all its main aspects for the education of the Russian audience.

In contact with

About the concept

There are several definitions that describe the concept of this ideology. Liberalism is:

• political movement or ideology that unites admirers of democracy and parliamentarism;
• worldview, which is characteristic of the industrial, defending their rights of a political nature, as well as entrepreneurial freedom;
• theory, which absorbed philosophical and political ideas, which appeared in Western Europe in the 18th century;
• the first meaning of the concept was free-thinking;
• tolerance and tolerance for unacceptable behavior.

All these definitions can be safely attributed to liberalism, but the main thing is that this term denotes an ideology that affects the structure and states. With Liberalism is Latin for freedom. Are all the functions and aspects of this movement really built in freedom?

Freedom or restriction

The liberal movement includes such key concepts as about public good, individual freedom and equality of people within the policy and . What liberal values ​​does this ideology promote?

1. Common good. If the state protects the rights and freedom of the individual, and also protects the people from various threats and controls compliance with the implementation of laws, then such a structure of society can be called reasonable.
2. Equality. Many shout that all people are equal, although it is obvious that this is absolutely not true. We differ from each other in various aspects: intelligence, social status, physical data, nationality, and so on. But liberals mean equality in human opportunity. If a person wants to achieve something in life, no one has the right to prevent this on the basis of race, social and other factors . The principle is that if you put in the effort, you will achieve more.
3. natural rights. British thinkers Locke and Hobbes came up with the idea that a person has three rights from birth: life, property and happiness. It will not be difficult for many to interpret this: no one has the right to take a person’s life (only the state for certain misconduct), property is seen as a personal right to own something, and the right to happiness is that very freedom of choice.

Important! What is liberalization? There is also such a concept, which means the expansion of civil liberties and rights within the framework of economic, political, cultural and social life, it is also a process when the economy gets rid of the influence of the state.

Principles of liberal ideology:

• there is nothing more valuable than human life;
• all people in this world are equal;
• everyone has his inalienable rights;
• the individual and his needs are more valuable than society as a whole;
• the state arises by common consent;
• a person forms laws and state values ​​independently;
• the state is responsible to the person, the person, in turn, is responsible to the state;
• power must be divided, the principle of organizing life in the state on the basis of the constitution;
• only in fair elections can a government be elected;
• humanistic ideals.

These principles of liberalism formulated in the 18th century English philosophers and thinkers. Many of them never materialized. Most of them look like a utopia, to which humanity so vehemently strives, but cannot achieve in any way.

Important! Liberal ideology could be a lifeline for many countries, but there will always be some "pitfalls" that hinder development.

Founders of ideology

What is liberalism? At that time, every thinker understood it in his own way. This ideology absorbed completely different ideas and opinions of thinkers of that time.

It is clear that some of the concepts may contradict each other, but the essence remains the same.

The founders of liberalism we can consider the English scientists J. Locke and T. Hobbes (18th century) along with the French writer of the Enlightenment Charles Montesquieu, who was the first to think and express his opinion about the freedom of man in all spheres of his activity.

Locke laid the foundation for the existence of legal liberalism and stated that only in a society in which all citizens are free can there be stability.

The original theory of liberalism

The followers of classical liberalism gave more preference and paid more attention to the "individual freedom" of a person. The concept of this concept is expressed in the fact that a person should not obey either society or social orders. Independence and equality- these are the main steps on which the entire liberal ideology stood. The word "freedom" then meant the absence of various prohibitions, limits or vetoes on the implementation of actions by a person, taking into account the generally accepted rules and laws of the state. That is, the freedom that would not go against established dogmas.

As the founders of the liberal movement believed, the government should guarantee equality between all its citizens, but a person already had to take care of his financial situation and status on his own. Limiting the scope of governmental power was what liberalism, in turn, tried to achieve. According to theory, the only thing the state was supposed to provide for its citizens was security and policing. That is, the liberals tried to influence the reduction to a minimum of all its functions. The existence of society and power could only be on the condition of their general subordination to laws within the framework of the state.

The fact that classical liberalism still exists became clear when, in 1929, a terrible economic crisis arose in the United States. Its consequences were tens of thousands of bankrupt banks, the death of many people from starvation and other horrors of the state's economic recession.

economic liberalism

The main concept of this movement was the idea of ​​equality between economic and natural laws. Government intervention in these laws was prohibited. Adam Smith is the founder of this movement and its main principles:

• for the impetus of economic development, personal interest is needed;
• state regulation and the existence of monopolies harm the economy;
• economic growth must be promoted discreetly. That is, the government should not interfere in the process of the emergence of new institutions. Enterprises and suppliers operating in the interests of income and within the market system are subtly guided by an "invisible hand". All this is the key to competently meeting the needs of society.

neoliberalism

This direction was formed in the 19th century and implies new trend c, which consists in the complete non-interference of the government in trade relations between its subjects.

The main tenets of neoliberalism are constitutionalism and equality between all members of society in the country.

Signs of this current: the authorities should promote self-regulation of the economy in the market, and the process of redistributing finances should first of all take into account the low-income strata of the population.

Neoliberalism does not oppose state regulation of the economy, while classical liberalism denies this. But the regulation process should include only the free market and the competitiveness of subjects to guarantee economic growth along with social justice. The main idea of ​​neoliberalism – support of foreign trade policy and internal trade to increase the gross income of the state, that is, protectionism.

All political concepts and philosophical movements have their own characteristics, and neoliberalism is no exception:

• the need for government intervention in the economy. The market must be protected from the possible emergence of monopolies, and a competitive environment and freedom must be ensured;
• protection of principles and justice. All citizens must be involved in political processes to maintain the right democratic "weather";
• government should support different economic programs, associated with financial support for low-income social strata.

Briefly about liberalism

Why is the concept of liberalism distorted in Russia?

Conclusion

Now the question is, "What is liberalism?" will no longer cause dissonance among the respondents. After all, the understanding of freedom and equality is simply presented under other terms that have their own principles and concepts that affect different areas state structure, but remaining unchanged in one thing - only then the state will flourish when it ceases to restrict its citizens in many ways.

Introduction

The urgency of the problem. The state is the main institution, it organizes, directs and controls the joint activities and relations of people, social groups, classes and associations. The state is a form of organization of political power in society.

Today much is said and written about the crisis of a democratic state. The well-known French political thinker R. Aron writes in his book “Democracy and Totalitarianism”: “One can dream of an ideal constitutional regime without any imperfections, but one cannot imagine that all politicians are simultaneously concerned about the private interests they represent , and about the interests of the community as a whole, which they are obliged to serve; it is impossible to imagine a regime where the rivalry of ideas is free, and the press is impartial, where all citizens are aware of the need for mutual support in any conflicts” Aron R. Democracy and totalitarianism. - M.: Open Society Foundation, 1993. - S. 131 ..

Many experts state the fact that the current crisis of democracy has several manifestations. This is a crisis of statehood, a crisis of forms of participation and political activity, a crisis of citizenship. The well-known American political scientist S. Lipset notes that Americans trust in government, in everyone government institutions Mushinsky V. is steadily declining in the USA The ABC of Politics. - M.: Vanguard, 2002. - S. 54 ..

As for Russia, the formula of the crisis state of democracy, defined by R. Aron as “not yet”, is quite applicable to it. Indeed, in Russia there are no deep roots of democracy (people's power), not to mention liberal (constitutional) democracy, i.e. power of the people, respecting the rights of every person. Today in Russia there is a contradictory situation. On the one hand, it can be argued that democracy has taken quite deep roots in Russia. At the same time, many studies show that the alienation of citizens from politics and, above all, from the authorities is growing in Russia. They are still immeasurably more the object of politics than its subject. Those striving for power hear about the urgent needs of ordinary people only during election campaigns, but, having entered power, they immediately forget about them and their needs. The responsibility of the authorities for the results of their leadership and management of society is smaller than ever.

The purpose of the work is an analysis of the ratio of liberal and democratic state. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

· to study the features of the liberal state, its features;

Consider the features of a democratic state, its basic principles;

· identify similarities and differences between liberalism and democracy.

The concept of a liberal state, its features

The liberal (semi-democratic) regime was characteristic of developed countries in the 19th century. In the XX century. it has developed in a number of developing countries that have approached the developed ones ( South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand), as well as as a result of the elimination of the command-administrative system in the post-socialist countries of Eastern Europe (Russia, Bulgaria, Romania).

The significance of the liberal regime is such that some scholars believe that the liberal regime is not actually a regime for the exercise of power, but a condition for the existence of civilization itself at a certain stage of its development, even the final result, which ends the whole evolution of the political organization of society, the most effective form of such an organization. But it is difficult to agree with the last statement, since the evolution of political regimes and even such a form as the liberal-democratic regime is currently underway. New trends in the development of civilization, the desire of a person to escape from environmental, nuclear and other disasters give rise to new forms of defining state power, for example, the role of the UN is increasing, international rapid reaction forces are emerging, contradictions are growing between human rights and nations, peoples, etc. Theory of State and Law / Ed. A.V. Vengerov. - M.: Infra-N, 1999. - S. 159.

In the theory of state and law, political methods and methods of exercising power, which are based on a system of the most democratic and humanistic principles, are also called liberal. These principles primarily characterize the economic sphere of relations between the individual and the state. Under a liberal regime in this area, a person has property, rights and freedoms, is economically independent and on this basis becomes politically independent. In relation to the individual and the state, priority remains with the individual, and so on.

The liberal regime upholds the value of individualism, opposing it to the collectivist principles in the organization of political and economic life, which, according to a number of scientists, ultimately lead to totalitarian forms of government. The liberal regime is determined, first of all, by the needs of the commodity-money, market organization of the economy. The market requires equal, free, independent partners. The liberal state proclaims the formal equality of all citizens. In a liberal society, freedom of speech, opinions, forms of ownership is proclaimed, and space is given to private initiative. The rights and freedoms of the individual are not only enshrined in the constitution, but also become feasible in practice.

Thus, private property leaves the economic basis of liberalism. The state releases producers from its guardianship and does not interfere in the economic life of people, but only establishes the general framework for free competition between producers, the conditions for economic life. It also acts as an arbitrator in resolving disputes between them. In the late stages of liberalism, lawful state intervention in economic and social processes acquires a socially oriented character, which is determined by many factors: the need to rationally allocate economic resources, solve environmental problems, participate in the peaceful division of labor, prevent international conflicts, etc. Theory of State and Law / Ed. A.V. Vengerov. - M.: Infra-N, 1999. - S. 160.

The liberal regime allows the existence of the opposition, moreover, in the conditions of liberalism, the state takes all measures to ensure the existence of the opposition representing interests, creates special procedures for taking into account these interests. Pluralism, and above all, a multi-party system, are essential attributes of a liberal society. In addition, under a liberal political regime, there are many associations, public organizations, corporations, sections, clubs that unite people according to their interests. There are organizations that allow citizens to express their political, professional, religious, social, domestic, local, national interests and needs. These associations form the foundation of civil society and do not leave the citizen face to face with state power, which is usually inclined to impose its decisions and even to abuse its capabilities.

Under liberalism, state power is formed through elections, the outcome of which depends not only on the opinion of the people, but also on the financial capabilities of certain parties necessary for conducting election campaigns. Implementation government controlled based on the principle of separation of powers. The system of "checks and balances" helps to reduce the opportunities for abuse of power. Government decisions are taken by majority vote. Decentralization is used in public administration: the central government takes upon itself the solution of only those issues that cannot be resolved by the local authorities Tsygankov A.P. Modern political regimes. - M.: Open Society Foundation, 1995. - S. 153..

Of course, one should not apologise for the liberal regime, since it also has its own problems, the main ones among them are the social protection of certain categories of citizens, the stratification of society, the actual inequality of starting opportunities, etc. The use of this mode becomes most effective only in a society characterized by a high level of economic and social development. The population must have a sufficiently high political, intellectual and moral consciousness, legal culture. At the same time, it should be noted that liberalism is by far the most attractive and desirable political regime for many states. A liberal regime can only exist on a democratic basis; it grows out of a proper democratic regime.

The state more often than in a democratic regime has to resort to various forms of coercive influence, because the social base of the ruling elite is rather narrow. The low standard of living of numerous sections of society gives rise to marginality and a propensity for violent actions to achieve their social goals. Therefore, democratic institutions, including the legal opposition, function as if on the surface. public life, only weakly penetrating into the thickness of society.

The liberal state is characterized by such specific features Kudryavtsev Yu.A. Political regime: classification criteria and main types // Jurisprudence. - 2002. - No. 1. - S. 199.:

formalism of law and formal equality of rights; a liberal state is a formal legal state that does not recognize social and other differences between citizens;

· priority of individual rights and freedoms of citizens, non-interference in their private affairs, property rights and social relations. In England there is still no law limiting the working day;

Restriction of the multi-party system by the old ("traditional") parties. Exclusion of new parties from participation in power. The liberal states of the interwar period banned the activities of communist and sometimes social democratic parties, as well as the propaganda of socialist ideas in the press. These measures were taken in accordance with the laws on the protection of the constitutional order from propaganda for its violent overthrow. In many cases, it was about limiting democracy;

· the government of the parliamentary majority and the absence of a strong counterweight.

The ideology of the liberal state can be summarized in two well-known terms. One does not have an exact translation from French into Russian - laissez faire, which roughly means: do not interfere with the individual doing his own business. The second is very short: “The state is a night watchman” Butenko A.P. State: its yesterday's and today's interpretations // State and Law. - 1993. - No. 7. - S. 97 ..

The theoretical core of liberalism is: 1) the doctrine of the "state of nature"; 2) the theory of "social contract"; 3) the theory of "sovereignty of the people"; 4) inalienable human rights (life, liberty, property, resistance to oppression, etc.).

The main principles of liberalism are: absolute value; personality and its commitment to freedom, expressed in human rights; the principle of individual freedom as social: benefits, i.e. benefits; for the whole society; law as a sphere of realization of freedom, balancing the rights of an individual and other people, as a guarantee of security; the rule of law, not of people, the reduction of questions of power to questions of law; separation of powers As a condition for the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the subordination of political power to the judiciary; the rule of law as an instrument social control; the priority of human rights over the rights of the state.

The main value of liberalism is freedom. Freedom is a value in all ideological doctrines, but their interpretation of freedom as a value of modern civilization differs significantly. Freedom in liberalism is a phenomenon of economic sphere: Liberals originally understood freedom as the liberation of the individual from medieval dependence on the state and workshops. AT; In politics, the demand for freedom meant the right to act according to one's own will, and, above all, the right to fully enjoy the inalienable rights of a person, limited only by the freedom of other people. Once the focus of the liberals was such a restrictor of freedom as other people with equal rights, it followed that the idea of ​​freedom was supplemented by the demand for equality (equality as a requirement, but not an empirical fact).

The development of liberal principles is reflected in the diverse theories created by staunch supporters: liberalism. For example, the principle of individual freedom as a social benefit is reflected in the theories of the free market, religious tolerance, etc. the state was developed in the theory of the "state of the night watchman", according to which it is necessary to limit the scope and scope; activity of the state by the protection of human rights, his life, property, inaction; negative freedom ("freedom from" -- from oppression, exploitation, etc.); abstract freedom is like the freedom of man in general. any person; individual freedom: the most important type of freedom is the freedom of enterprise.

Despite the presence of common liberal values ​​and principles in the Western classical liberalism XVII-XVIII centuries. there have been serious disagreements in the interpretation of the list and hierarchy of inalienable human rights, including on the issue of their guarantees and forms of implementation. As a result, two currents arose: the bourgeois-elitist, defending the interests and rights of owners and demanding non-interference of the state in socio-economic relations, and the democratic, believing that since rights should be extended to everyone, the state needs to create conditions for this. Until the end of the XIX century. in liberalism, the first direction dominated, proceeding from their understanding of private property as an inalienable human right and defending the idea that political rights should be granted only to owners who will conscientiously manage the national wealth of the country and adopt reasonable laws, since for re -the results of his political activity they have something to answer: their property. Manchester school of classical liberalism in the first half of the 19th century. with its preaching of market determinism or the social Darwinist school of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, founded by G. Spencer, are typical examples of this trend. In the United States, the followers of these views held their positions until the 1930s.

The democratic trend in liberalism was developed by B. Franklin and T. Jefferson in the USA. Struggling for the realization of the "American dream", the liberal democratic government of the United States in the 60s. 19th century under President A. Lincoln, approved an act on the right of every American over 21 years of age to acquire full ownership of 64 g of land from the state fund, which marked the beginning of the success of the farmer's path in agricultural production. The democratic direction strengthened its positions and became the dominant form of liberalism in turn of the XIX--XX centuries During this period, it carried on an active dialogue with socialism and borrowed a number of important ideas from the latter. The democratic direction appeared under the name of "social liberalism".

For example, M. Weber spoke from the standpoint of social liberalism. Among the politicians who shared the convictions of social liberalism were D. Lloyd George, W. Wilson, T. Roosevelt. Social liberalism achieved particular success in the field of practical politics in the 1930s and 1940s, which accounted for the New Deal policy in the United States, developed back in the 1920s. D. Keynes as a theoretical model and implemented by F.D. Roosevelt. The model of "neo-capitalism", developed in the USA, was proposed and successfully used in the conditions of post-war devastation in Western Europe to restore the liberal-democratic foundations of life. In the second half of the XX century. social liberalism has become firmly dominant in the liberal tradition, so when someone calls himself a liberal today, you need to think that he shares the views not of two hundred years ago, but of the modern type of liberalism. Their essence is in the following Grachev M.N. Democracy: research methods, perspective analysis. - M.: VLADOS, 2004. - S. 34 ..

1. Private property has a private-public nature, since not only owners participate in its creation, multiplication, protection.

2. The state has the right to regulate private property relations. In this regard, an important place in liberal theory is occupied by the problem of state manipulation of the production and market mechanism of supply and demand and the concept of planning.

3. The liberal theory of industrial democracy develops the idea of ​​workers' participation in management (in production, supervisory boards are created for the activities of the administration with the participation of workers).

4. The classical liberal theory of the state as a "night watchman" is replaced by the concept of the "welfare state": each member of society is entitled to a living wage; public policy should promote economic stability and prevent social upheaval; one of the highest goals of public policy is full employment.

In the XX century. the people in the majority are employees, to lessen the painful consequences of their economic dependence and helplessness before the modern economy.

An important place in modern liberalism belongs to the concept of social justice, which is based on the principles of rewarding an individual for enterprise and talent, and at the same time taking into account the need to redistribute social wealth in the interests of the least protected groups.

LIBERALISM - general designation various forms 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-shche-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 in 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-was-whether un-conditional prior-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 only decide 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- the voice of 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.

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

Basic principles of liberalism

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

Review

Etymology and historical usage

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

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

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

Many initial attempts to implement liberal ideas were only partially successful and sometimes even led to the opposite results (dictatorships). The slogans of freedom and equality were picked up by adventurers. Sharp conflicts arose between supporters of different interpretations of liberal principles. Wars, revolutions, economic crises and government scandals provoked massive disillusionment with ideals. For these reasons, in different periods The word "liberalism" has different meanings. Over time, a more systematic understanding of the foundations of this ideology came, which became the foundation for one of the most widespread this moment 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 scope of the classical interpretation and includes many currents, between which there are deep contradictions and sometimes conflicts arise. These currents are reflected, in particular, in such a key document as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For the sake of terminology, in this article "political liberalism" means a movement for liberal democracy and against absolutism or authoritarianism; "economic liberalism" - for private property and against state regulation; "cultural liberalism" - for personal freedom and against restrictions on it for reasons of patriotism or religion; "social liberalism" - for equality of opportunity and against economic exploitation. Modern liberalism in most developed countries is a mixture of all these forms. In third world countries, "third generation liberalism" often comes to the fore - a movement for a healthy environment and against colonialism.

Political liberalism

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

economic liberalism

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

cultural liberalism

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

social liberalism

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

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, caring for children, the disabled and the elderly, helping victims natural Disasters, the protection of minorities, the prevention of crime, the support of science and the arts. This approach makes it impossible to impose large-scale restrictions on the government. Despite the unity of the ultimate goal - personal freedom - economic and social liberalism 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).

Third generation liberalism

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

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

Development of liberal thought

origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revolutionary liberalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debates within liberalism

Liberalism and Democracy

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

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

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

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

Economic liberalism versus social liberalism

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

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

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

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

War and Peace

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

The Great Depression

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

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

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

Liberalism versus totalitarianism

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

totalitarianism and collectivism

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

Historical causes of totalitarianism

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

The concept of an open society

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

Welfare and education

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

Personal freedom and society

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

Personal freedom and state regulation

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

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

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

Modern liberalism

Short review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contemporary critique of liberalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism of liberalism in literature

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

Liberalism in Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is a liberal?

In the most in general terms we can say that a person who is an adherent of this trend welcomes and approves the idea of ​​limited intervention of state bodies in 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).