Who invented liberalism. The main features of classical liberalism. neoliberalism

LIBERAL

LIBERAL

(lat. liberalis, from liber - civilly free). Free thinker, standing for a free form of government.

Dictionary foreign words, included in the Russian language. - Chudinov A.N., 1910 .

LIBERAL

lat. liberalis, from liber, civilly free. Free-thinking, standing for a free image of government.

Explanation of 25,000 foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language, with the meaning of their roots. - Mikhelson A.D., 1865 .

LIBERAL

free, free-thinking, consonant with liberalism.

Complete dictionary foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language. - Popov M., 1907 .

Liberal

1) related to liberalism, characteristic of it;

2) showing liberalism 3.

New dictionary of foreign words.- by EdwART,, 2009 .

Liberal

pertaining to a liberal, liberalism, peculiar to them.

Big Dictionary foreign words.- Publishing house "IDDK", 2007 .

Liberal

oh, oh, flax, flax ( fr. liberal lat. liberalis free).
1. full f. Related to liberalism. Liberal Party.
2. manifesting liberalism. L. knowledge assessment approach.
liberality- the same as liberalism.

Explanatory Dictionary of Foreign Words L. P. Krysina.- M: Russian language, 1998 .

Antonyms:

See what "LIBERAL" is in other dictionaries:

Cm … Synonym dictionary

liberal- oh, oh. liberal, eadj. 1. Rel. to liberal and liberalism (political current), expressing liberalism. BAS 1. The main .. parties in France are: Royalists Constitutional, Ministerial, Liberal, opponents of the hereditary line, ... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

LIBERAL, liberal, liberal; liberal, liberal, liberal 1. adj. towards liberalism; imbued with liberalism. liberal speeches. liberal reforms. Liberal talk. 2. only full. Name of some political organizations And… … Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

LIBERAL, oh, oh; flax, flax. 1. full Pertaining to liberalism (in 1 value). Liberal Party. L. worker. 2. Manifesting liberalism (in 2 values). L. approach to what n. | noun liberalism, and, wives. (to 2 values). Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

liberal- terribly liberal ... Dictionary of Russian Idioms

liberal- oh, oh; flax, flax 1) full. f. Pertaining to liberalism. Liberal Party. liberal newspaper. 2) Showing liberalism. Liberal approach to knowledge assessment. 3) outdated. Infused with liberalism. The secretary was liberal, even radical ... ... Popular dictionary of the Russian language

I adj. 1. ratio with noun. liberalism I, liberalization associated with them 2. Liberalizing. II adj. 1. Showing excessive tolerance, harmful indulgence, connivance. 2. Characteristic of liberalism [liberalism II 2.], ... ... Modern Dictionary Russian language Efremova

Liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, ... ... Forms of words

Conservative intolerant reactionary routine… Antonym Dictionary

Books

• liberal conservatism. History and Modernity, . The book contains a comprehensive analysis of the processes of the genesis, formation and evolution of Russian liberal conservatism as a system of ideas and politics, organization and tactics; his…
• Liberal redistribution of the agrosphere in Russia. Book 3. Market domestication of the Russian peasant, V. I. Staroverov, A. N. Zakharov. In a series of books under the general title Liberal redistribution of the agrosphere of Russia, the social, economic and political contradictions of the modern…

In 2012, through the efforts All-Russian Center public opinion survey (VTsIOM), a survey was conducted 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 it can be said that a person who is an adherent of this trend welcomes and approves the idea of ​​​​limited intervention government agencies c The basis of this system is based on a private enterprise economy, which, in turn, is organized on market principles.

Answering the question of who a liberal is, many experts argue that this is someone who considers political, personal and economic freedom the highest priority in the life of the state and society. For supporters of this ideology, freedom and the rights of every person are a kind of legal basis on which, in their opinion, the economic and social order should be built. Now let's look at who a liberal democrat is. This is a person who, while defending freedom, is an opponent of authoritarianism. according to Western political scientists, this is the ideal that many people aspire to the developed countries. 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 non-intervention of the state in privacy will inevitably lead to prosperity and improvement in 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 abuse in 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).

" and "liberal" come from the Latin liberalis and literally mean "having to freedom." When we are talking about a liberal as a supporter of a socio-political movement, it is assumed that this person stands on a platform that welcomes the deepening and development of political freedoms in the broadest sense of the word. Usually, liberal ideology unites supporters of democratic parliamentarism, as well as those who stand for freedom of private entrepreneurial activity.

In everyday life, the label "liberal" is most often given to those who show unnecessary and inappropriate tolerance for other people's behavior that violates generally accepted norms and rules. It is believed, for example, that excessive in the upbringing of the younger generation negatively affects the formation of the personality of a teenager. Often the public is asked to end liberalism against criminals and persistent violators social norms.

in politics

Who can be attributed to the liberals in the field of activity? We are talking about public figures who support and fully approve the idea of ​​limiting any interference of state structures in social relations. The main principles of the liberal system of values ​​were formed in those times when bourgeois relations based on free enterprise were born and strengthened in society.

The liberal considers personal, economic and political freedom to be the highest priority in social and political life. Rights and freedoms for a liberal become a kind of basis and starting point for the formation of a political position. According to liberal politicians, it is the free development of any social society that makes it possible to build a truly democratic state.

Liberal democracy is becoming the ideal of many Western politicians. However, today there is little left of the former free-thinking and free-thinking in it. The main emphasis of the Western liberals is placed not so much on the expansion of the actual freedoms of citizens, but on the removal of restrictions that hinder the development of the private sector. Political scientists and sociologists note that Western traditions are penetrating deeper into the economy, politics and culture of developing countries.

Contrary to popular belief that liberalism is something completely new, brought into Russian culture by trends from the West, liberal political views in Russia have a very extensive history. Usually, the arrival of these political views in our country is usually dated to the middle of the 18th century, when the first thoughts about freedom began to creep into the minds of the most enlightened citizens of the state. Most prominent representative M.M. Speransky is considered the first generation of liberals in Russia.

But, if you think about it, liberalism is a phenomenon almost as ancient as Christianity, and even as Greek word, denoting freedom, liberal political views, first of all, imply the value of this very freedom as the greatest gift that is in the power of man. And we are talking not only about internal but also the freedom of a citizen from the state. This implies the non-interference of the state in any private affairs of its citizens, the ability to freely express their political views, the absence of censorship and diktat on the part of the leaders of the country, and this is what both the ancient philosophers and the first adherents of Christianity preached.

By personal freedom, people who preach liberal views understand the freedom of self-realization, as well as the freedom to resist any force that comes from outside. If a person is internally not free, this inevitably leads to his collapse as a person, because external interference can easily break him. Liberals believe that the consequence of lack of freedom is an increase in aggression, the inability to adequately assess key worldview concepts such as truth, good, evil.

In addition, the liberals mean by themselves and which must be guaranteed by the state. Freedom of choice of residence, movement, and others are the foundations on which any liberal government must rest. At the same time, even the slightest manifestation of aggression is unacceptable for adherents of liberalism - any changes in the state should be achieved only in an evolutionary, peaceful way. Revolution in any form is already a violation of the freedom of some citizens by others, and, therefore, it is unacceptable for those who profess liberal political views. In Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the liberals lost precisely because they expected reforms from the government that would help transform the country without bloodshed. But, unfortunately, this path of development of the state was rejected by the monarchy, which resulted in a revolution.

Thus, if you bring summary, we can say that liberal political views - this is such a worldview of ideas and ideological concepts, which is based on an exclusive respect for freedom as the highest value. Political and economic rights citizen, the possibility of implementing free business activities throughout the country, the absence of total state control over its citizens, the democratization of society - these are the main features of liberalism as a political system of views.

To implement such a system, a clear division is necessary in order to avoid its concentration in the hands of individuals or oligarchies. Therefore, clearly defined and independent from each other executive, judicial and legislature- an integral attribute of any state that lives according to liberal laws. Considering this, and also the fact that in almost all democratic countries of the world, freedom and human rights are the highest value, we can safely say that it was liberalism that became the basis for the creation of modern statehood.

from lat. liberalis - free) - the name of the "family" of ideological and political currents, historically developed from rationalistic and educational criticism, which in the 17-18 centuries. Western European estate-corporate society, political "absolutism" and the dictates of the church were subjected to 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 and others) about spontaneous evolution social institutions, driven by the inevitable scarcity of resources, combined with the selfishness and ingenuity of people, connected, however, by "moral feelings"; utilitarianism (I. Betpam, D. Ricardo, J. S. Mill and others) with its program of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people”, considered as prudent maximizers of their own benefit; 5) "historical liberalism" in one way or another connected with Hegel's philosophy, affirming the freedom of man, but not as something inherent in him "from birth", but as, according to R. Collingwood, "acquired gradually insofar as a person enters into self-conscious possession of one's own personality through ... moral progress. In modified and often eclectic versions, these various philosophical foundations are reproduced in modern discussions within the “liberal family”. The main axes of such discussions, around which new groupings of liberal theories are formed, relegating to the background the significance of differences in philosophical foundations, are the following. Firstly, should liberalism as its main goal strive to “limit the coercive power of any government” (F. Hayek) or is this a secondary issue, decided depending on how liberalism copes with its the most important task- "maintaining the conditions without which the free practical realization of a person's 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 does it embody certain values ​​(humanity, tolerance and solidarity, justice, etc.), the departure from which and boundless moral relativism is fraught with the most pernicious consequences for him, including directly political consequences (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 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 different types of liberalism in all other respects is revealed if they are considered not from the side of their philosophical or political and program 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 referring to different philosophical ideas and putting forward different program settings in relation to the same market, “minimization” or expansion of the state, etc. In other words, the only general definition liberalism can only consist in the fact 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 loyalty 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 logically necessary and with those notions of an "atomized" society within which and on the basis of which it was initially established in the history of liberalism.

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

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

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

With this constellation of values-goals, liberalism declares itself as modern ideology different from earlier political doctrines. 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 the 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" makes no sense) and "the nature of good and evil depends on the totality of conditions existing in this moment(i.e., "correct" and "good" policies can only be defined as a function of a given situation). The change of these central questions determined the general outline of the liberal political thinking, outlined by the following lines-provisions: 1) in order for a state to take place, it must include all those whom this matter concerns, and not just virtuous or possessing some special features that make them suitable for political participation (as it is was, for example, 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 a democratic struggle against 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 in 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 community of life 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 the realization of the very possibility life together people in modern times. (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. Meaning and strategic goal 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. History of Liberalism. L., 1927; Wallerstein 1. After Liberalism. N. Y., 1995, pans 2, 3.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓