The key idea of ​​liberalism is. Liberal ideology: concept, general characteristics. Freedom or restriction

From contemporary political ideologies liberal is one of the oldest. The term "liberalism" appeared rather late, by the 1940s. XIX century, but as a current of political philosophy, it existed at least since the XVII century. The emergence of liberal ideology was due to the beginning of the modernization of Western European society and the need to fight against the economic and political structures of feudalism. The most prominent ideologists of classical liberalism were J. Locke and D. Hume in England, C. Montesquieu, Voltaire and D. Diderot in France, I. Kant in Germany. The origin of the liberal tradition overseas is associated with the names of the "founding fathers" of the United States of America Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin.

Representatives of the classical liberal doctrine put forward a number of ideas that remained decisive at all stages of its development. First of all, this is the idea of ​​the absolute value of the human personality and the resulting equality of people from birth. Within the framework of the liberal doctrine, for the first time, the question of inalienable human rights was raised - the right to life, liberty, property. The state was understood as the result of a social contract, the main purpose of which is the protection of these rights. On this basis, the concept of the rule of law arose and the requirement was put forward to limit the volume and spheres of activity of the state, to protect citizens from excessive state control. Liberalism proceeded from the need to share power so that each of its branches would not have complete superiority over the others and would be a restraining limiter for them.

Along with political ideas, classical liberalism also declared a number of important principles in the field of economics. The economic doctrine of liberalism was also based on the demand for reduced government intervention and regulation. In practice, this meant the recognition of complete freedom of private initiative and private enterprise. According to one of the main ideologists of economic liberalism, A. Smith, the free interaction of individuals in their economic activities will eventually lead society to a state where the interests of all social strata are satisfied. It should be noted that the initial tendency of the coincidence of political and economic liberalism was not preserved in the future.

Historical experience has shown that the two fundamental values ​​of classical liberalism - freedom and equality - contradict each other. This contradiction was due to its further division. The left direction of liberalism was oriented towards the elements of egalitarianism characteristic of early liberalism, and was embodied in various variants of social liberalism aimed at implementing socio-economic reforms. The purpose of such reforms is to prevent acute socio-political conflicts that can destroy the existing society and pose a threat to the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. Another direction was more inspired by the ideas of economic liberalism, defending the priority of private property and private entrepreneurship.

After the Second World War, the real political influence of liberals in all developed countries fell. This was due both to the fact that the political ideas of liberalism were realized in practice in most civilized countries, and to the fact that the social democrats pressed the liberals in the political life. However, liberal political parties and organizations are still an influential force in some countries today. Since 1947 there has been a Liberal International headquartered in London. In the program documents of the Liberal International, adopted in 1947, 1967 and 1981, the basic principles of the political ideology of liberalism are fixed in relation to modern conditions. Liberals believe that there can be no political freedom where the state completely controls the economy, leaving no room for private initiative. But economic freedom is impossible if there is no political freedom and human rights are not respected. Liberals are in favor of a social market economy, which should combine economic efficiency and socially oriented goals. Much attention is paid to flexible tax policy. Taxes, according to liberals, should encourage entrepreneurial activity and ensure equality of opportunity. Modern liberal doctrine declares the need to ensure full employment, the elimination of poverty. But liberals categorically object to egalitarianism, they understand equality as equal opportunities for all for self-development and in order to make the maximum contribution to the development of society. The principle of respect for the human person and the family for liberals lies at the heart of society. They believe that the state should not assume powers that are contrary to the fundamental rights of citizens. Every citizen must have a sense of moral responsibility towards other members of society and take part in public affairs.

Today, liberals see the tasks of reforming society in strengthening the real power of parliaments, increasing the efficiency of the executive branch and parliamentary control over it, decentralizing power, legal protection of individual rights and human dignity, carefully balancing intervention and non-interference of the state in order to reconcile the interests of the individual with the interests of society. In the international aspect, liberals declare adherence to the principles of maintaining and strengthening peace and security, disarmament, unblocking regional and international conflicts, and developing relations between countries.

Liberalism as a political ideology in the XX century. had a strong influence on other ideological currents. The social democratic ideology absorbed many principles of social liberalism. The conservative ideology to a greater extent assimilated the ideas of economic liberalism. Liberalism in its pure form today has a rather limited influence in the countries of the West. Parties that remain faithful to the basic principles of liberal ideology and therefore avoid populist political technologies do not enjoy the support of the broad masses of voters. Supporters of liberal ideas are predominantly people with a high level of education, belonging to the upper strata of the middle class or to elite circles. The population as a whole is oriented towards supporting centre-left parties that adhere to either conservative or social democratic values.

Liberal ideas began to penetrate into Russia practically from the moment of their emergence in Western Europe and had a certain influence on the reform programs that they tried to implement in Russia from the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. (See Chapter XV). By the end of the 19th century, as the tsarist government revealed its inability to deeply reform Russian society and solve its pressing problems, liberalism became the ideological platform of a part of the opposition-minded intelligentsia. Unlike the socialists - supporters of radical revolutionary changes, the liberals advocated the reform of social relations within the existing political system, as well as its modernization. The ideal for many Russian liberals of the early 20th century. there was a constitutional monarchy on the English model, although the left wing of Russian liberalism did not exclude the possibility of a transition to a republican form of government. During this period, Russian liberal thought was represented by the names of prominent political figures and scientists who contributed to the further development of liberal concepts.

Original ideas about resolving the main antinomy of the liberal doctrine - equality and freedom - were expressed by the outstanding Russian jurist, sociologist, historian M. M. Kovalevsky. He substantiated the possibility of parallel development of equality and freedom. Based on specific examples of the development of law and politics, Kovalevsky argued that it is possible to overcome the contradiction between freedom and equality if one introduces the concepts of justice and solidarity instead of the concept of equality. The concept of solidarity corresponded to the basic principles of social liberalism, since it contained the idea of ​​protecting the individual and his rights, along with the assertion of the collectivist foundations of human existence. M. M. Kovalevsky believed that solidarity does not require people to give up freedom of self-determination and subjective rights. The freedom of self-determination of one person should not interfere with the freedom of self-determination of others, therefore, the concept of duties is associated with each subject of law.

Russian liberalism at the beginning of the 20th century. was not inferior to the Western one either in the theoretical level of understanding of social problems, or in specific programs for their solution. However, in Russia the liberals had a narrow social base, since the processes of modernization of Russian society were far from complete. No matter how educated the theorists of Russian liberalism were, no matter how substantiated their concepts and programmatic requirements, it still did not make it possible to overcome the gap between the liberals and the Russian people. That is why not liberalism, but socialism turned out to be the dominant political ideology that determined the activities of the most active opponents of the Russian autocracy.

The revival of the liberal political ideology in Russia took place in the context of the transformation of the Soviet political and economic system. In the early 90s. 20th century a group of young economists - supporters of neoliberal economic concepts - acted as reformers. The peculiarity of their activities was that they practically did not take into account the specifics of politics and political relations. The very term "liberalism" began to be interpreted more as an economic than a political category. Moreover, liberalism was identified with the economic principles of neoliberalism, the main supporters of which in the West were conservatives. An interesting fact: E. Gaidar, who headed the Democratic Choice of Russia (DRV) party, announced the intention of this party to join the International Democratic Union (IDS). Meanwhile, the MDS unites conservative parties in its ranks, while the Democratic Choice of Russia was considered the leading liberal party.

Among other things, those who positioned themselves in Russia in the early 90s. 20th century as liberals, they were poorly versed in Russian specifics. Their approaches to issues of both domestic and international politics were distinguished by schematism and utopianism. The negative social consequences of the reforms carried out under liberal slogans contributed to the discrediting of the very concept of "liberalism" among the broad strata of the Russian population. In order to revive the influence of the ideas of liberalism and the political forces that will be guided by these ideas, it is necessary to critically rethink the unsuccessful experience of the 1990s. 20th century Here one should not limit oneself to borrowing only the economic doctrine of liberalism, but take into account the whole variety of liberal concepts in Western countries, not forgetting to refer to the pre-revolutionary heritage of liberal domestic thought.

What were the main ideas of liberalism, you will learn from this article.

What is liberalism?

Liberalism arose during the crisis period of feudalism, the era of bourgeois revolutions of the 17th-18th centuries, and is associated with the struggle against feudal restrictions, the estate system, the absolutist state, the oppression of the aristocracy, and the spiritual domination of the church.

Liberalism is the leading trend of the 19th century with a non-partisan character, the social base of which was made up of representatives of the bourgeois middle class. There are 2 liberal traditions:

• Anglo-Saxon. Widespread in the US and UK. It was practical and international in nature.
• Continental European. Widespread in Italy, France, Germany. It was of a theoretical nature, since due to the dominance of feudal-absolutist political regimes, it was less used in practical life.

Liberal ideology was developed by: English scientists J. Locke, T. Hobbes, I. Bentham, A. Smith, French ideologists J. J. Rousseau, C.-L. Montesquieu, American D. Madison and T. Jefferson, German W. Humboldt and I. Kant, Ukrainian B. Kistyakovsky and M. Drogomanov.

The main ideas of liberalism briefly

• Freedom has several varieties. The most significant was the economic freedom of exchange, trade and competition.
• The principle of individualism prevailed. The value of society is made up of individuals. Individuals are self-sufficient and have basic rights to private property and freedom. They are considered the foundation of progress, which liberals perceived as the accumulation of wealth by the nation and the increase in private property.
• The state is a supra-social element that has a minimum of functions. They boil down to the protection of private property, the protection of state borders from an external enemy, and the maintenance of social order within the country.
• Political power is divided into 3 branches - executive, legislative and judicial.
• The liberals favored democratization and the development of parliamentarism.
• All people have the right to self-realization. Individual freedom is equal to political freedom with the right to freedom of life and private property.
• Protection of private life from the arbitrariness of the state.
• State administration is carried out with the help of the Constitution, which is the guarantor of the freedom of action of the individual within the legal framework.
• Liberals adhere to the principle of freedom of speech, thought, opinion and political pluralism.
• The sphere of activity of civil society and the state is strictly demarcated.
• The economy welcomes the freedom of group and individual entrepreneurial activity. Its self-regulation is carried out according to the laws of the free market and competition. Private property is declared inviolable, and the state does not interfere in the economic sphere.
• In the spiritual realm, all citizens have the right to confession, freedom of conscience, any type of religion, and the right to formulate their moral obligations.

In its classical, completed form, liberalism took root in the state system of the USA, Great Britain, France and other European states in the 19th century. At the end of this century, the decline of liberal ideology began, which turned into a crisis. At the end of the 30s of the twentieth century, the value orientations and attitudes of liberalism, called neoliberalism, were revised.

It is difficult for a citizen of any modern democratic society to imagine that just 100 years ago his ancestors did not have a good half of the rights and opportunities that everyone takes for granted today. Moreover, not everyone knows that many of the civil liberties that we are so proud of today are the most important values ​​of liberalism. Let's find out what kind of philosophical movement it is and what are its main ideas.

Liberalism - what is it?

This word is used as the basis for the formation of an ideology that considers the highest value of human society to be that its members have a number of rights and freedoms.

Adherents of these ideas believe that the independence of the individual should extend to all spheres of life. For this reason, cultural, social, economic and political liberalism is distinguished.

The main values ​​of the ideology under consideration are focused not on the welfare of society as a whole, but on each of its specific representatives. Thus, liberals believe that the good of every citizen automatically leads to the prosperity of the whole country, and not vice versa.

Etymology of the term and brief historical background

The word "liberalism", oddly enough, is related to the names of two well-known brands of hygiene products - Libero and Libresse. All these terms are derived from the Latin words liber - "free" and libertatem - "freedom".

Subsequently, the word "freedom" arose from them in many languages. In Italian it is libertà, in English it is liberty, in French it is liberté, in Spanish it is libertad.

The origins of the ideology under consideration should be sought in Ancient Rome. So, throughout the history of this empire between the patricians (an analogue of the nobility) and the plebeians (citizens of low birth, were considered the second grade), there were constant disputes about equality in rights and obligations before the law. At the same time, one of the emperor-philosophers in his writings on the political structure of society presented an ideal state as one in which all citizens are equal, regardless of origin.

Over the following centuries, periodically the most progressive politicians and philosophers came to the idea of ​​the need to reorient society towards the values ​​of liberalism. Most often, this happened at times when the citizens of the states were disappointed in the absolute monarchy (all power and rights belong to the nobility) or the management of society by the church.

The most famous thinkers who promote the values ​​and ideals of liberalism are John Locke, Charles Louis de Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and Adam Smith.

It is worth noting that all of the above figures were not always unanimous in their understanding of what exactly the ideology they propagate should be.

For example, one of the stumbling blocks was the issue of private property. The fact is that its presence was considered one of the main values ​​of society. However, in the XVIII-XIX centuries. most of the property in any state was concentrated with the ruling elite, which means that only they could fully enjoy all the rights and freedoms of the liberalist ideology. However, this was contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for all citizens.

By the way, there were disputes around almost every value of liberalism. So, the functions of power raised a lot of questions. Some thinkers believed that she should only monitor the observance of the law, without interfering in any processes.

However, such a position only played into the hands of those in power, for it annulled any state assistance to socially unprotected members of society. In addition, it created fertile ground for monopolization in business, which was contrary to the principle of a free market economy. By the way, in the United States (the first country in the world that decided to build its society on the basis of liberal values), non-intervention of the state in the development of economic processes led to the Great Depression. After it, it was decided to revise this principle and allow the authorities to exercise a regulatory function in the economic sphere. Paradoxically, just over 70 years later, the abuse of this right contributed to the 2008 crisis.

Why in the Russian Empire the word "liberal" had a negative connotation

As is clear from the etymology of the term "liberalism", this ideology advocates the provision of freedom to the individual. Why, then, in the Russian language, this term has a negative connotation?

The fact is that liberal-minded thinkers in almost all centuries protested against the unlimited rights of rulers and demanded that all citizens be equal before the law, regardless of their position and well-being.

They also criticized the idea of ​​the divine origin of power, believing that the head of state should serve for the benefit of his people, and not use it to satisfy his own ambitions and whims.

Naturally, such an attitude towards the ruling elite in many monarchical countries simply could not be perceived well. Because of this, in the XVIII century. in the Russian Empire and Great Britain, those in power negatively perceived liberal ideas, and the term itself was positioned as dangerous freethinking.

Paradoxically, 100 years later, the British Empire revised its views on this ideology, and the term acquired a positive meaning, as it does throughout the world.

But in Russia, despite the revolution of 1917 and the radical change in the social structure of the country, the name of the philosophical trend and ideology still has a negative connotation.

Core Values ​​of Liberalism

Having dealt with the meaning and origin of the term in question, it is worth finding out on what principles it is based:

• Freedom.
• Individualism.
• Human rights.
• Pluralism
• Nomocracy.
• Egalitarianism.
• Rationalism.
• Progressivism.

Liberty

Having learned about the fundamental values ​​of liberalism, it is worth considering each of them in more detail.

First of all, personality. This means that every member of society has the right to freely choose a profession, religion, lifestyle and clothing style, sexual orientation, marital status, number of children, etc.

Absolutely all people have the right to independence, without dividing them into races and classes. In other words, the freedom of each individual determines the freedom of the whole society, and not vice versa.

At the same time, theorists and practitioners of liberalism were well aware that the line between independence and permissiveness is extremely thin. And often the behavior that one considers permissible can cause irreparable harm to another. For this reason, the ideology under consideration implies the freedom of the individual within the framework of the law.

Individualism

Among other values ​​of liberalism is individualism. Unlike socialism, society here is not focused on trying to unite all citizens into collectives (trying to make everyone as identical as possible). Its goal is to strive to maximize the development of the creative individuality of everyone.

Rights

Also, in a liberal society, a citizen has a fairly wide range of rights. One of the main ones is the opportunity to own private property and business.

At the same time, it is worth remembering that if a person has a right to something, this does not mean that he necessarily has it.

The core values ​​of liberalism: nomocracy and egalitarianism

Despite the seeming conniving attitude towards the behavior of its citizens, the liberal ideology is quite balanced. In addition to many rights and freedoms, a person in a society (built on its basis) is responsible before the law. Moreover, absolutely everyone is equal before him: from the king / president / ruler to the poorest rootless citizen.

Among other important principles and values ​​of liberalism is the absence of a division of society into classes (egalitarianism). According to this, all citizens have not only equal rights and obligations, but also opportunities.

Thus, regardless of the family in which a child was born, if he has talent and strives to develop it, he can study and work in the best institutions of the state.

If the offspring of a well-born or wealthy family is mediocre, he cannot get a diploma from a good university and take an important position under the protection of his parents, but he will have only what he deserves.

It is worth noting that the beginnings of egalitarianism were still in the Roman Empire. Then this phenomenon was called "clientele". The bottom line was that rootless, but talented people (they were called "clients") could earn the patronage of noble families and even join them on an equal footing. By concluding a bilateral support contract with patrons, such citizens got the opportunity to make a political or any other career. Thus, talented citizens were given the opportunity to realize their abilities for the benefit of the state.

The Roman nobility (patricians) throughout history fought against the clientele, although it was she who contributed to the prosperity of the empire. When the rights of clients were limited, within a few decades the strongest state in the world fell.

It is interesting that a similar trend was subsequently observed more than once in history. If a society completely or at least partially abandoned elitism, it flourished. And when egalitarianism was abandoned, stagnation began, and then decline.

Pluralism

Considering the political values ​​of liberalism, it is worth paying attention to pluralism. This is the position that there can be several opinions on any issue at the same time, and none of them has superiority.

In politics, this phenomenon contributes to the emergence of a multi-party system; in religion - the possibility of peaceful coexistence of different denominations (super-ecumenism).

Rationalism and Progressivism

In addition to all of the above, adherents of liberalism believe in the triumph of progress and the opportunity to change the world for the better, using a rational approach.

In their opinion, the possibilities of science and the human mind are very great, and if all this is correctly used for the public good, the planet will flourish for many more millennia.

Having considered the basic principles and values ​​of liberalism, we can conclude that this ideology in theory is one of the most progressive in the world. However, despite the beauty of ideas, the implementation of some of them in practice does not always lead to the desired result. For this reason, in the modern world, the most progressive ideology for society is, although it is still far from perfect.

The formation of bourgeois states was carried out under the banner of the struggle for ideas and principles, which are usually called classical liberalism (from Latin - liberalis - free). The ideology of liberalism was historically the first political ideology.

Liberalism as an independent ideological movement was formed on the basis of the political philosophy of the English Enlighteners J. Locke (1632 - 1704), T. Hobbes (1588 - 1679), A. Smith (1723 - 1790) at the end of the 17th - 18th centuries.

Linking individual freedom with respect for fundamental human rights (the right to life, liberty, private property), as well as with the system of private ownership, liberalism based its concept on the ideals of free competition, the market, and entrepreneurship. The turning point in the development of liberalism should be considered the Great French bourgeois revolution. It was at this time that the ideological principles of liberalism began to be embodied in political practice.

The main ideas of liberalism. Central to the ideology of liberalism is the idea individual freedom and autonomy of the individual will. Under feudalism, the individual was completely suppressed and subordinated to the existing social order. Eminent thinkers of the time criticized this state of affairs. They argued that society is a mechanism consisting of autonomous and self-fulfilling individuals, and put forward and substantiated the doctrine of natural human rights to life, liberty, property. According to it, a person is an independent subject who knows for himself what is good and what is bad for him. J. S. Mill formulated this idea in the form of the following axiom: “Man himself knows better than any government what he needs,” and J. Locke wrote that the individual is “the master of his own person.”

On the whole, the liberal worldview tended from the very beginning to recognize the ideal of individual freedom as a universal goal. Moreover, the epistemological premise of the liberal worldview is the isolation of human individuality, the awareness of the responsibility of the individual for his actions both to himself and to society, the assertion of the idea of ​​the equality of all people in their innate, natural right to self-realization.

The principle of individualism in the ideology of liberalism is closely connected with the principle non-intervention. The idea of ​​non-interference was formed simultaneously and in close meaningful connection with the principle of individualism. Since the individual and his activity are the meaning-forming basis of society, it is he who has priority over social ties, and in order to be able to realize this priority, he must have sufficient immunity to external influences. Neither other individuals, nor the state, nor society as a whole should go beyond their naturally established boundaries and cross them, interfering in a person's life.

Non-intervention means nothing more and nothing less than the freedom of man to preserve his own particularity, to be himself. For this, a person needs the inviolability of his “small world”, which falls under the concept of private life. The point is that only this small world is determined by the individual and represents the individual himself in his realization.

One of the central tenets of liberalism is the absolute value of the human person and the original (“from birth”) equality of all people. This provision was directed against feudal orders based on class division and privileges. Putting forward this thesis, the economically strengthened bourgeoisie sought to occupy in society a position befitting its economic might. I. Kant, reflecting these sentiments, noted that a person is an end in itself and cannot be used as a tool to achieve any other goals.

In the political field Liberals consider law to be the highest value, freedom is proclaimed, independent of any criteria of the state system, the freedom to create all kinds of unions, parties, associations, organizations. Liberals called for limiting the functions of the state. They agreed to leave the state only the function of maintaining public order and external protection. The task of the state is to regulate relations between free citizens on the basis of strict observance of laws, which are designed to guarantee the freedom of the individual, the inviolability of property, the equality of all before the law, and other rights of man and citizen.

Since its inception, liberalism has defended a critical attitude towards the state, the principles of high political responsibility of citizens, religious tolerance and pluralism, and the idea of ​​constitutionalism. The core of liberal politics is antipathy to the growth and strengthening of the state, especially executive and administrative power.

In the economic field liberalism defended the ideals of free market exchange, personal entrepreneurial initiative, "fair competition", condemned any protectionism, opposed political interference in economic life.

The main slogan put forward by commercial and industrial circles is “freedom of action”, i.e. complete liberation of economic activity from state supervision. The latter was assigned the role of a “night watchman”, guarding private property, keeping order and law-abiding citizens. The very same private property was seen as a guarantor and measure of freedom. W. Von Humboldt wrote that the idea of ​​freedom develops only together with the idea of ​​property, and people owe the most energetic activity precisely to the feeling of ownership. J. Locke attributed private property, along with freedom and equality, to the number of natural rights and freedoms of a person.

In the social sphere liberalism proceeds from the "natural inequality" of people who, even under the same conditions, will certainly show different results. Liberals considered inequality as a natural biological, social and historical fact, due to the inequality of abilities, talents, hard work of people. In the works of many representatives of classical liberalism, equality was opposed to freedom, and the latter was identified with the ownership of private property.

Classical liberalism identifies two types of social evolution: natural, occurring in civil society, and artificial, implanted by the state from above. Things are going well where civil society is active and the state is passive. Democratic regimes function well when the engine is in civil society itself and the brake is in government. When a society is deprived of an internal motor and its activity is stimulated and directed by the state, then this is a direct path to despotism.

In the spiritual realm freedom of opinion was proclaimed - freedom of conscience, speech, press, social and national self-consciousness. But in all freedoms, preference is given not to the freedom of the collective, but to the freedom of the individual, the individual, which, from the point of view of liberals, is the best form of self-realization of individual individuals.

These ideas were adopted by a part of the political elite of the West, by social movements, which were then constituted into parties of a liberal persuasion. But the implementation of the liberal model showed that, by destroying class privileges, dividing the legislative, judicial, executive powers, creating legal guarantees for freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, equality of citizens before the law, classical liberalism led to the polarization of society, in which rights and freedoms became formal. Free market relations did not ensure social harmony and justice.

The limited possibilities of liberalism in curbing the processes of growing social inequality were revealed by the deep crisis of the first third of the 20th century (1929-1933), which required a certain modernization of the liberal political doctrine. The classical version was replaced by the idea of ​​a new, or social, liberalism (neoliberalism). The development of this variety of liberalism is associated primarily with the names of two English economists: J. Mill and John Keynes (1881 - 1946). The post-war decades were associated with the implementation of his economic concept of the "welfare state".

The central theoretical position of Keynesianism is the recognition of the decisive role of effective demand in ensuring economic growth. Keynes justified the need to abandon the "state-night watchman" and advocated the regulation of economic development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓