The main signs of liberalism. Who is the liberal and what principles he adheres to

For the first time, the term "liberalism" (from Lat. Liberalis is free) was used in Spain in 1811 in Spain. In the future, this term entered all European languages. The ideas of liberalism were actively developed and defended themselves with such thinkers as J. Lokk, T. Gobbs, A. Smith, Sh. Montesquiene, I. Kant, T. Jefferson, B. Konstan, A. De Tokville, I. Bentam, J. Art. Mill and others. As an ideological and political phenomenon, liberalism originated on the basis of the ideas of enlightenment at the end of the XYII - the beginning of the XYIII centuries. In the early stages of its development, he was the most important means of struggle led by the bourgeoisie of the "third estate" against the existing absolutist orders. Therefore, its content was directly related to the needs and interests of the emerging bourgeoisie. From the very beginning, the principles of personal freedom were laid in the foundation of liberalism, its high intrinsicness and the right to self-realization, as well as recognition of its responsibility to society. Freedom was understood as liberals as freedom from state, church and other forms of social control. Based on these prerequisites, economic and political installations of liberalism were formed. In the field of economics, the idea of \u200b\u200bpersonality freedom was interpreted by liberals as freedom of private entrepreneurship and market. They consistently advocated the liberation of economic activities from state regulation, for providing maximum spaces for a private initiative. Economic freedom, according to Liberals, is the basis of civil and political freedoms. The principle of freedom in the political sphere was interpreted by liberals as freedom from state restrictions. On the basis of this installation, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe "Night Storage State" was formulated, the essence of which was that the state should be endowed with the most minimal and necessary functions that ensure the protection of the order, the legality and protection of the country from external danger. It was noted that civil society should have a priority over the state, which can be achieved on the basis of the principles of constitutionalism and parliamentarism. The liberals defended the ideas of the rule of law as means of restricting the state and the separation of the authorities as a tool for monitoring the Company over the state. Speaking against the estate privileges, they emphasized the idea of \u200b\u200bthe equality of citizens to the laws, which should be more likely the nature of the prohibitions, and not the prescriptions. Such ideas of liberalism created theoretical basis for the formation of a legal state. By the beginning of the twentieth century, in the countries of the West, liberalism was in a rather complicated position. The development of the free market and entrepreneurship from the idea turned into reality. But it turned out that it turned out that no limited game of market forces in the conditions of social unprotection of workers did not bring most of the society or welfare or freedom. In such a situation, confidence in traditional liberal values \u200b\u200bsharply fell and the revision of the most important provisions of classical liberalism began. Under the influence of the current situation, as well as the development of the working and social democratic movement in the Liberal Arsenal, the ideas of social justice appeared, state support for the poor, eliminating the extremes of property inequality, etc. As a result, liberalism evolved in "Social liberalism (neoliberalism)" decisive The role in approval of neoliberalism as one of the most important reformist ideologies of the twentieth century was played by the Socialist Revolution in Russia and the global economic crisis of the early 1930s, which set the question of the need to rethinking such postulates of classical liberalism as unlimited individual freedom and freedom of competition. Of particular importance were the ideas of the English economist J. Keynes (1881 - 1946), which developed a state regulation model aimed at a sharp expansion of the state invasion of the economy and a significant limitation of its market began. The Keynesian model also provided a significant expansion of consumer demand for the population on the basis of a significant increase in government spending, the creation of social guarantees for the poor in the field of medicine, education, employment, pension provision, etc. In practice, the idea of \u200b\u200bneoliberalism was first implemented in the "New Year" President F. Roosevelt, elected in 1932. Its government began to actively carry out the policy demonopolization of the economy and its state regulation is carried out. Unemployment benefits were introduced, trade unions were legalized, collective agreements were to conclude between workers and entrepreneurs. In the future, such processes have embraced almost all industrialized countries. The main difference between neoliberalism from classical liberalism is to recognize the active role of the state in regulating the economy and conducting social policy. The idea of \u200b\u200bhis removal from economic and social processes was to understand that the state should be fully facilitated by the cessation of social conflicts and smoothing excessive social inequality based on the support of the poorest and socially unprotected sectors of society. It was recognized that such a policy can be conducted by the state only on the basis of its active influence on economic processes. Under these conditions, Liberals, like Social Democrats, began to defend ideas available to all citizens of medical care, free school and higher education, expanding the system of social security, etc. They were also adherents of the idea of \u200b\u200bprogressive taxation, believing that major owners should bear its share of responsibility for the social stability of society. As a result of the implementation of such policies in the West, a new state model was created, named by the "state of universal benefits." However, in the 70s, he began to lose its influence and neoliberal ideology, which, while maintaining loyal to the basic principles of freedom and market entrepreneurship, absorbed a number of ideas unusual for it (emphasis on social equality of citizens, recognition of the need for state intervention in the economy and social life of society et al.), powered by a violation of its internal integrity and consistency. The crisis phenomena of the economy of the 70s, accompanied by the crisis of the "state of universal well-being", was largely a consequence of the policies that parties of neoliberal orientation were conducted. As a result of the fall of their popularity, they were forced to give the state power to the parties that conducted neoconservative policies. However, in the future, liberalism again joined the way of rethinking its leading principles. It was, in particular, was recognized by the need to return to the principles of stimulating market mechanisms while reducing the regulatory role of the state.

Inheriting a number of ideas of ancient Greek thinkers Lucretia and Democritus, liberalism as an independent ideological course was formed on the basis of the political philosophy of English educators D, Locke, T. Gobbs, A. Smith at the end of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Tied the freedom of personality with respect to the fundamental human rights, as well as the system of private property, liberalism laid the ideals of free competition, market, entrepreneurship.

Liberalism - This is an ideology that proclaims the recognition of the political and economic rights of an individual within the framework of laws, which are a generalization of natural needs and inalienable people's rights to life, freedom, property, security, order. Liberalism provides such a device of society and powerful mechanisms when free competition and the market limit the role of the state in society.

The main, system-forming principles of liberalism are the following:

1) natural equality of people;

2) the presence and guarantee of the inalienability of such human rights such as the right to life, freedom, property;

3) the rule of law, its obligation for everyone;

4) the contractual nature of the relations of the state and citizens, providing for their mutual responsibility;

5) Democratic political regime, providing all citizens equal rights to elect and be elected;

6) the presence of a developed civil society and guarantees of non-interference in privacy;

7) Constitutionalism, providing for the limitation of legislative and executive power through, above all, the system of separation of the authorities, the mechanism of checks and counterweights, establishing limits and "clear" procedures for the activities of lawmakers.

The main problems of liberal ideology have always been the definition of a permissible degree and nature of state intervention in the privacy of individual, combining democracy and freedom, loyalty to the specific Fatherland and universal human rights.

Attempts to solve these issues led to the emergence of numerous internal flows in liberalism. So, in the XX century. Along with traditional liberalism, directions attempted to combine its basic values \u200b\u200bwith a total support for the state, or with socially oriented ideas, approved by the greatest responsibility of society for the welfare of all people than a separate individual, or with ideas that denied the social orientation of the state's activities ("Conservative liberalism ") etc.

Strengthening elements of state ideology and social goals, which adapted the traditional values \u200b\u200bof liberalism to the economic and political realities of the second half of the XX century, made it talk about his historically renewed form - neoliberalism. The most important advantage of the political system here was proclaimed justice, and governments - orientation on moral principles and values. The ideas of consensus managers and managed, the need to participate in the masses in the political process, the need for the mass participation in the political process, the democratization of managerial decision-making procedures.

Unlike the previous tendency, mechanically determining the democraticity of political life for the majority, began to give preference to the pluralistic forms of the organization and the implementation of state power. Moreover, R. Dal, Ch. Lindblums and other neoplars believe that the weaker the rule of the majority, the more corresponds to the principles of liberalism. True, representatives of the Pravoliberal currents (F. Hayek, D. Escher, Olson) believe that with pluralism, the mechanisms of expropriation are able to formed by most rich minority, and this may jeopardize the fundamental principles of liberalism.

At the same time, the orientation preserved in neoliberalism (political activity, enterprise, freedom from prejudice, etc.), traditional attitude towards morality as a particular person (which helps to strengthen not all connections and relations In society, and at times the danger of the atomization of society is also carried) limit the electoral base of these ideas in modern conditions.

On the other hand, it is the basic values \u200b\u200bof liberalism that caused a fundamental change in massive political views in many countries of the world, formed the basis of many national ideologies, neoconservatism and a Christian-democratic ideology. A variety of political participation, democratic elitism, etc. developed on a liberal basis.

Liberalism - school in international studies, which is the opposite of realism in the principal provision. The origins of this direction in the works of J. Locke, I. Kant, A. Smith, J. S. Mill. The founder of this school is considered Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), the president of the USA, one of the founders of the League of Nations. Representatives of this school are also called idealists, and school itself - idealistic. Idealism was especially common in 1919-1939 and represented an attempt through international institutions, primarily the League of Nations, to ensure peace and cooperation between states.

An idealistic approach distinguishes from other approaches a pronounced ethical position. It proceeds from the optimistic idea of \u200b\u200bthe nature of man as a substantial to moral improvement, a peaceful hostel, for the sake of a common good to give up the policy of strength and desire for dominance. The idealists sought to create a harmonious, deprived military conflict model of international relations. To the fore, they set international cooperation, the legal resolution of conflicts, the regulation of relationships between nations through international organizations, discussing controversial problems in the negotiations. The policy factor in politics was not as high as realist, more efficient means of influence were considered economic and legal levers. Liberals proceeded from the fact that the interaction of states on the world stage to preserve peace and economic prosperity must be regulated by intergovernmental organizations and international regimes (jointly developed members of the world community with rules, norms, procedures in the specific sphere of international relations, for example, in trade, financial policy and etc.). States in the liberal approach, although they are recognized by the main participants in international relations, but not the only. It is emphasized that along with them there are intergovernmental (UN, OSCE, etc.) and non-governmental organizations (human rights, environmental, humanitarian, transnational corporations, etc.).

In the 1980s school arises neoliberalism but (or structural liberalism) which continues classic liberalism, but takes into account new reality of the global political process: a comprehensive interdependence, developing interstate cooperation, integration, creation of global community. Neoliberalism pays special attention to the relationship between policies and economics. Due to the interdependence of the states, the possibilities for their cooperation through international organizations should increase, and the influence of anarchy to the international environment to weaken.

Within neoliberalismand several directions arose, concepts that sometimes consider both independent conceptual schools. Their number applies first of all the concept complex interdependence. Her representatives are American political scientists Robert Keokhin and Joseph Nai. In this concept, international policies are analyzed from the point of view of the participation of many political actors in it - not only states, but also non-governmental organizations (there are more than 10,000 in the world today), including influential transnational corporations. Party, church, trade unions and other organizations were actively involved in political life. The state has ceased to be the only actor on the world scene, moreover, the main subject of international policies in favor of international organizations is loss. Recognition of the diversity of actors, species and channels of interaction between them led to the fact that in the study of world politics now instead of the concept of international (and in essentially intergovernmental) relations began to be used transnational relations. The model of transnational relations, in which the role of non-state actors is emphasized, formulated R. Keokhin together with J. Ham, and the concept of comprehensive interdependence is often referred to transnationalist or globalistic, school.

According to the theory of interdependence, all political actors have a greater or lesser extent affect international policies. They are interested not only in economic cooperation, but also in combining efforts to solve common, global problems, such as environmental protection, arms restrictions, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc. The position of any country depends on its relations with other states and from the international system in Overall. Due to the growing interdependence of various countries, the distinction between the internal and foreign policy state is becoming increasingly relative: not only foreign policy depends on the inner, but also internal from external, and increasingly. The multilateral dependence of states makes the forceful resolution of conflicts, while cooperation, cooperation creates conditions for peace and prosperity, say transnationalists.

(From Latin liberalis - free) first appeared in the literature in the 19th century, although as a course of socio-political thought, he was formed much earlier. The ideology arose in response to the powerful position of citizens in the conditions of an absolute monarchy.

The main achievements of classical liberalism are the development of the "Public Agreement Theory", as well as the concepts of the natural rights of the individual and the theory of separation of the authorities. The authors of the "Public Agreement theory" were D.Lock, Sh. Montesquieu and Zh.-zh. Rousseau. According to her, the origin of the state, civil society and the right is based on a convention between people. The public contract implies that people partially refuse sovereignty and transmit it to the state in exchange for ensuring their rights and freedoms. The key principle is that the legitimate management body must be obtained with the consent of the managed and it has only the rights that citizens delegated to him.

Based on the specified signs, supporters of liberalism did not recognize the absolute monarchy and believed that such power corrupts, because She has no limiting start. Therefore, the first insisted on the feasibility of separation of the authorities to the legislative, executive and judicial. Thus, a system of checks and counterweights is created and there is no space for arbitrariness. This idea in the writings of Montesquieu is described in detail.

Idea liberalism developed the principle of natural inalienable rights of a citizen, including the right to life, freedom and property. Our possession does not depend on belonging to any class, but is given from nature.

Classic liberalism

At the end of the 18th and early 19th century, a form of classical liberalism was formed. His ideologists include Bentama, Mill, Spencer. Supporters of classical liberalism were not public at the head of the corner, but individual interests. Moreover, the priority of individualism defended them in a radical extreme form. This distinguished classic liberalism from the form in which he existed initially.

Another important principle was antipaterinalism, which suggested the minimum state intervention in privacy and the economy. The participation of the state in economic life should be limited to creating a free market of goods and labor. Freedom was perceived by liberals as a key value, the main guarantee of which was private property. Accordingly, economic freedom possessed the highest priority.

Thus, the basic values \u200b\u200bof classical liberalism were the freedom of personality, the inviolability of private property and the minimum state participation. However, in practice, such a model did not contribute to the formation of a universal good and led to social bundle. This led to the spread of a neoliberal model.

Modern liberalism

In the last third of the 19th century, the new current is beginning to be. Its formation is due to the crisis of liberal teaching, which went to the maximum rapprochement with a conservative ideology and did not take into account the interests of the widespread layer - the working class.

As a leading dignity of the political system, justice and consent and managed are proclaimed. Also neoliberalism sought to reconcile the values \u200b\u200bof equality and freedom.

Neoliberals no longer insisted that a person must be guided by selfish interests, but should contribute to the formation of a common good. And although individuality is the highest goal, but it is possible only with a close relationship with society. The man began to be perceived as a social being.

In the early 20th century, the need for state participation in the economic sphere was obvious for a fair distribution of goods. In particular, the states of the state treated the need to create a system of education, the establishment of minimum wage and monitoring the conditions of labor, the provision of benefits for unemployment or illness, etc.

In contrasts, they are the libertarists who talked for the preservation of the basic principles of liberalism - free entrepreneurship, as well as inviolability of natural freedoms.

Liberal politics defends the will of each person. After all, it is the latter in this case that it has the highest value. Laws are established as a fair foundation of the economy and order among people. The Constitution plays an important role, within the rules of which the state and the church have the right to influence public processes.

Basic features and features

For liberal ideology, characteristic:

• equality of all citizens and the chance to influence political processes;
• the ability to speak freely in public, to be determined with religion, vote honestly for a particular candidate for elections;
• non-privacy, trade and entrepreneurship are unlimited;
• the law has the supreme force;
• citizens are equal, influence, wealth and position do not matter.

Wide extension of ideas

Nowadays, liberal ideology is very popular. In the modern world, freedom plays a very important role. Attention pays a sense of personal advantage, universal rights of people. There must be an inviolable person and private property. The market should remain free, to religious choice need to be treated.

When the liberal-democratic ideology reigns, the state of the legal, government is transparent, the power of the people above the rulers. The good ruling force is the one that is an expressive of the opinions of people, they are regulated and managed. Not only the head of the country rules a man, but also a person - his own land.

The state with liberal ideology has those common features that are now observed in Finland, Estonia, Cyprus, in Uruguay, Spain, Slovenia, Canada and Taiwan. Here the values \u200b\u200bof the will and freedom are given a dominant role. It is on their foundation that new goals of the country are being built.

Different traits in separate territories

North America and Western Europe are distinguished by the fact that there are political trends in conjunction for the power of the people. The liberal ideology of the "right-wing" representatives are more inclined to classical views on the state in the state.

Here the influence of conservatives, tending to the formed models and schemes, is well traced. They are alien to social and cultural progress, which can shake the established rules of morality.

Previously, rivalry was observed between the adherents of traditions and fighters for freedom, but when the Second World War ended, authoritarianism was discredited. The leading role was moved by moderate trends, whose ideas were expressed in the desire for softer regimes of conservatism and Christian democracy.

The second half of the 20th century was marked by the fact that the liberal ideology suffered from the rooted desire to preserve private property and privatization. Old customs should have been adjusted.

In the United States of America, the values \u200b\u200bof liberal ideology reached the people through the socialists, as well as through the "left" currents of this political direction. Western Europe is characterized by differences in the actions of its public organizations. "Left" There are social policy in the struggle for freedom of the people.

The liberal party in Europe promotes non-interference in personal affairs and in entrepreneurship. Such actions can only be carried out when the freight and property of some citizens should be protected from others.

Support for cultural and economic flows, in which liberal ideology is moving. Social orientation is not supported. Upon desire to implement the rule of law, the authorities have enough power. Some people adhere to the opinion that private and public organizations are quite enough to ensure order. Armed movements consider the most recent and unacceptable way to solve problems in the case of military aggression.

Differences in directions

When economic interests are observed, the liberal party can align in separate flows. The economic schemes of work that do not affect politics are considered. The state should ensure maximum freedom to develop business and trade, without interfering with this process to flow.

Only moderate control of the monetary system can be made, an international market is available. The obstruction in foreign economic activity is not carried out by the authorities. Any initiative, on the contrary, is encouraged. Conduct the privatization procedure. A sample of such a control showed Margaret Thatcher, holding a number of reforms in the UK.

Effect on the application of ideas in practice

Nowadays, Liberals can be attributed to the centrist trends or to the Social Democratic. In Scandinavia, such management models are very popular. There were economic decals, because of which the issues of protection of society were especially aggravated. The population suffered from unemployment, inflation and bad pensions.

Social Democrats has increased taxation, the state sector in the economy was played a major role. For a long time, "right" and "left" political forces fought for the Board.

Due to this, effective laws have appeared, the government has become transparent, now it is engaged in the protection of civil rights to human and property entities.

In our time in Scandinavia, the state does not regulate the pricing policy. Banks manage private companies. Trade is open to everyone who wants to participate in an honest competitive struggle on both the local and international markets. The Liberal Democratic Policy System was implemented. The level of social protection has become extremely high. Other European countries are characterized by the flow of similar processes. There, Social Democracy is mixed with the liberal policy of the Board.

Proclamation of rights and freedoms

The main goals of liberal currents - to strengthen the democratic, giving the people the will of views. The state should take the right to provide an independent system of legal proceedings. The transparency of the work of ruling structures should be monitored. Protection of civil rights and provide space for competition.

It is very important to understand when it comes to a particular party, whether it applies to the social liberals, libertarians or the right sector.

The society also promotes the ideas of equality and freedom by the most diverse ways. Some support free selection of sex life, the right to sell drugs and weapons, expand the powers of private security organizations that part of the authority of the police can be transmitted.

In the context of the economy, a steady income tax is supported or its change on the pillow. Trying to privatize educational institutions, the procedure for providing pensioners, health care. Science wants to make connected with self-over sponsoring. A number of states are characterized by the fact that the Liberal Party seeks to abandon the death sentence, disarming the troops, reject the development of nuclear weapons, care about the environment.

Union of nations

All sharper are disputes around multiculturalism. Ethnic minorities should divide the values \u200b\u200bof the people who are considered fundamental. The majority of the population having some roots should protect the rights of small communities. There is also such an opinion that the speedy integration between minorities should occur to preserve the nation in integrity.

Organizations and associations

Since 1947, Mont Pelerin Society has been underway to combine economic, entrepreneurial, philosophical minds, journalism figures for the maintenance of ideals that preach the classical wrestling for freedom.

Nowadays, this policy is promoted by a liberal intermenimal, which combined 19 organizations based on Oxford Manifesta. As of 2015, there are 100 members in education, including the free Democratic Party of Germany, "Apple" in Russia and so on.

Thinking out loud

From her first person

Brief history of liberalism. Subtleties of perception. Quite interesting and at the same time impressive arguments about Who is WHO?I recommend to increase the educational level.

What is the difference between liberal from Liberast?

Andrew (). Written in collaboration with A. Leghead

Recently, one of my good familiar and colleague, a sensible person shared such an interesting dialogue. He asked one extremely aggressive to liberals of the interlocutor: "And you can clearly answer - who is this liberal?" That in response washed something and squeezed: "Liberal is ... Liberast." Let's try to figure out what the difference is to continue not to give such stupid answers.

Liberal is a supporter of liberalism. What is liberalism? The easiest way is to answer, based on the name: This is an ideology that protects freedom. But the key question is - WHOSE Freedom I. WHAT KIND freedom? There is no freedom at all, as no man at all. Liberalism is the ideology of protecting certainly certain freedoms and those who are an allecent of these freedoms. Let's try to figure out what.

To the history of the question

Historically, three stages of formation of liberalism ideology can be distinguished.

First stage Takes its origins from the XVIII century. Then in England, for the first time, a party originated, the adherents of which were later to call themselves with liberals. It was - Attention! - Representatives of a large bourgeoisie that has confluenced with major landowners-Landlords. The interests of Landlordov expressed another party - conservatives, who together with liberals have formed the world's first bipartisan system: both of these parties, replacing each other, ruled on the British Islands over a hundred years - until the beginning of the 20th century.

At that time, the United Kingdom, ahead of other countries in an industrial coup, was economically and politically leading power of the world. Since the ideas of the dominant class of dominant countries are dominant in exploiting societies, then liberalism (like his twin brother - conservatism) has spread throughout the capitalist world throughout the nineteenth century. The bourgeoisie of many countries, and especially the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, turned into a liberal "faith", seeing an alternative to "violence and arbitrariness" - both on the right, in the face of monarchy absolutism, and on the left, in the face of the Jacobin, who is considered at the same scarecrow, As now "Stalinism". Many people took any struggle for freedom for liberalism. Our compatriot V.G. Belinsky wrote even: "For me, liberal and a person - one, absutistist and whip - one." Liberals in such a sense considered themselves revolutionaries of France in 1830, and Latin America - until the beginning of the 20th century.

Second phase In the history of liberalism is associated with late bourgeois revolutions: from the European 1848 to the Russian 1905-1917. By that time, Revolutionaries-Democrats were already departed from Liberals, which were still utopian. The liberals of the "second call" are usually representatives of the bourgeois and small-bourgeois intelligentsia. Speaking against the "old order", for reforms or, in the extreme case, the "revolution from above", they most feared the revolution of the People's, Workers and Peasant. The classic example of the Liberals of the "Second Wave" is Russian Cadets ("Party of People's Freedom"). The ideal of such populiberalism Lenin summed up: "The compound of freedom (not for the people) with bureaucracy (against the people)." In all revolutions, the then Liberals suffered political collapse, since there were alien and labor people, and the mass of the bourgeoisie, who preferred more "solid" dictatorial power.

Finally, third stage In the history of "liberal idea" - neoliberalism (approximately from the 70s of the twentieth century to the present). This is the ideology of transnational corporations opposing to regulating their activities by the national state (not only socialist or national democratic, but also national capitalist). At first glance, they are "anti-states" than not even former liberals, but rather anarchists. But, looking more attentively, it is not difficult to see that neoliberals are not at all against the punish-repressive functions of the bourgeois state in relation to the people (which just caused the greatest protest of anarchists and often condemned even the previous liberals). Neoliberals are for the coagulation of the economic and especially social functions of the state, leaving for him the punitive. How else to impose with most society a clearly anti-people, antisocial and anti-national program?

Thus, there are significant differences between the liberals of the three "appeals", and it is a pity that in the current Russia they all are accepted to smear with one paint (for example, in Latin America, the departure rightly see the main enemy not in the "liberalism" in general, namely in neoliberalism) . But they have both shares.

Who is Liberal?

If you try to briefly determine liberalism, then this is an ideology guarding the interests of private property. The center of attention of liberalism is not at all the person, namely the owner (as if it would not matter who he is - the owner of a shop or a large corporation). The freedom protected by them is freedom of ownership and owners; Political and all other freedoms, strictly speaking, can only have them. It is quite logical that the liberals of the first two appeals provided for political rights Property qualifications: for the right to be elected - above, for the right to elect - below, but the proletarians and other poor people who did not have any property did not have any rights on this scheme. For example, in the "Democratic" republics of Latin America of the XIX century, the right to vote on average ... 1% (one percent!) Population. And it is expanding this right later, with other ruler, with different views.

I.e, liberalism is an ideology of private property. Accordingly, Liberal is a supporter of the supremacy of private ownership. In order to take away from themselves, reproaches those who do not understand what private property is and may be indignant, as if I am against personal ownership of toothbrushes and panties, I will only say that private and personal property are fundamentally different and personal property is not private. But this is a question that requires separate consideration.

A similar ideology has an important consequence - everything that is outside of private property, and especially since it can break it, perceived as hostile. For example, the Argentine President-Liberal Bartolome Mithra, sending punitives against rebellious Indians and Gaucho Polisoltariyev, called "not to regret their blood" and "make the fertilizer of the fields." The people of the neighbor Paraguay - then "Country-izgoy" with the state-capitalist regime - Mitre and its allies destroyed interest on 80. Is it really different from the Hitler's "Ostroit Plan" or from what the NATO interventionists are creating with Iraq, Libya, Syria ?

Who is Liberast?

And here we go to the one who is "Liberast." Liberast is the most aggressive, chauvinist form of settling and broadcasting liberalism (in our days - neoliberalism). I would say the fascidating form of neoliberalism.

For liberals, a friend and brother is another owner, only themselves and other owners they consider worthy people. Those people who turn out to be outside the property (and those on the calibration turn out to be the overwhelming majority) are perceived as a working material as a means for property and owner. Those liberals who consider immunity by people of the second grade, short-sighted, and are liberals. Liberalism, brought to its logical completion, to Apogi, is a form of social "racism". If in the classic fascism of exclusion criterion is belonging to a particular race, then in liberalism, such criterion turns out to be belonging (possession or information) to property (often both criteria in practice are the same - take at least "breeding and colorages" in the perception of chambers of the European Choosing Ukraine "). Those liberals that broadcast such views in the most aggressive form, and turn out to be liberas.

Of course, liberals and "softer" are found. They do focus on criticism of all repressions (in our case - from Leninsky to Putin), bureaucratic arbitrariness, militarism, clericalism (church intervention in secular affairs), and recently the most corruption. Antisocial measures are criticized by the authorities, sometimes they definite even "their" ultra-liberas for such proliferations. All of this they can, as events show in a number of countries, attract part of the labor people to their side. No one is delighted with repression, bureaucracy, corruption, etc. But for some reason, from supporting the people of even such, "honest", the liberals of this people very soon becomes no better, but worse.

Liberal rhetoric as shirma

And not surprisingly. After all, all those manifestations of bureaucracy, militarism, corruption and other ulcers, against whom they try to raise the people, they fell from the sky. Can the state in his own sense (F. Engels), remaining alienated from society, to be quite different? Can the people, until he is able to free himself from class exploitation, seriously control the state power "from below"? And, finally, it means that this is "not good", the state does not fulfill the functions of socially necessary - first of all the socio-economic, which is vital for the workers and which neoliberals are attempted? Hello thinking, it is impossible not to answer all these questions negatively.

What does it follow? What does not need to deal with arbitrariness, corruption and other? It is necessary, of course. But in a smart, in the measure of real forces, soberly realizing that during the capitalism of all these angry, you can only go a little, but it will not be possible to eliminate without a revolutionary transition to a qualitatively new society. And then this is a long and difficult thing. And who promises the "one ingestion of seven broods" is just demagogue. If he combines that with the exception of private ownership, which is also characteristic even the best of liberals - in modern conditions, it will only clear the path to the fascist "liberastam". He wants it or not.

A few years ago, the All-Russian Center for the Study of the public conducted a survey of the population, the main issue of which was: "What is liberalism, and who is such a liberal?". Most of the participants, this issue was misleading, 56% could not give an exhaustive answer. The survey was held in 2012, most likely, today the situation has hardly changed for the better. Therefore, in this article, we will briefly consider the concept of liberalism and all its main aspects for educating the Russian audience.

In contact with

About the concept

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

• political flow or ideology uniting fans of democracy and parliamentarism;
• the worldview, which is characteristic of industrial, defending their rights political nature, as well as entrepreneurial freedom;
• implementing the philosophical and political ideas of the theory, which appeared in Western Europe in the 18th century;
• the first meaning of the concept was liberty;
• tolerance and tolerance of unacceptable actions.

All these definitions can be safely attributed to liberalism, but the main thing is that this term denotes the ideology affecting the device and the state. FROMlatini liberalism translates as freedom. Is all functions and aspects of this flow are really built on freedom?

Freedom or limit

Liberal movement includes such key concepts as good benefit, Freedom of personality and equality of people As part of politics and. What liberal values \u200b\u200bpromotes this ideology?

1. Common good. If the state protects the rights and freedom of personality, and also protects people from various threats and monitors compliance with the execution of laws, such a device of society can be called reasonable.
2. Equality. Many shout about the fact that all people are equal, although it is obvious that it is completely wrong. We differ from each other in different aspects: intelligence, social status, physical data, nationality and so on. But liberals imply equality in human capabilities. If the person wants to achieve something in life, no one has the right to prevent this on the basis of racial, social and other points . The principle is such that if you come to make efforts, you will achieve more.
3. Natural rights. British thinkers Locke and Hobbes came to the idea of \u200b\u200ba person's accessories of three rights from birth: to life, ownership and fortune. It is not difficult to express this for many: no one has the right to take life from a person (only the state for certain misconduct), property is considered as the personal right of ownership of anything, and the right to happiness is the very freedom of choice.

Important! What is liberalization? There is also a concept that means expanding civil liberties and rights in the framework of economic, political, cultural and social life, this is the 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;
• each has its inalienable rights;
• personality and its needs more valuable society as a whole;
• the state arises according to the general agreement;
• laws and government values \u200b\u200ba person forms independently;
• the state is responsible in front of a person, a person in turn - before the state;
• the government should be divided, the principle of organizing life in the state based on the Constitution;
• only in fair elections can be elected by the government;
• humanistic ideals.

These principles of liberalism formulated in the 18th century English philosophers and thinkers. Many of them have not implemented. Most of them seem to be utopia, to which mankind is so like, but it cannot be achieved.

Important! Liberal ideology could be a rescue circle for many countries, but there will always be any "pitfalls" hindering development.

Founders of ideology

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

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

Foreigners of liberalism You can consider English scientists J. Lokki and T. Gobbs (18th century), along with the French writer, the Epoch of Employ, Charl, Montesquie, who was the first to think and expressed his opinion on the freedom of a person in all areas of his activities.

Locke marked the beginning of the existence of legal liberalism and stated that only in a society in which all citizens are free, there may be stability.

Initial theory of liberalism

Followers of classical liberalism were more preferred and paid more attention to the "individual freedom" of a person. The concept of this concept is expressed in the fact that personality should not obey or society or social orders. Independence and equality- These are the main steps on which all liberal ideology stood. Under the word "freedom" then understood the lack of various prohibitions, limits or veto for the implementation of the personality, given the generally accepted rules and laws of the state. That is, that freedom, which would not be challenged the established dogmas.

As the founders of the liberal movement believed, the government should guarantee equality between all its citizens, but a person had to take care of his material situation and status. The restriction of the sphere of government government was the fact that liberalism tried to achieve in turn. According to theory, the only thing that the state should have ensured - is Security and protection of order. That is, the liberals tried to influence the minimum of all its functions to a minimum. The existence of society and power could only be subject to their general subordination to the laws within the state.

It is still clear that the classic liberalism is still clear when in 1929 the terrible economic crisis arose in the United States. His consequences were tens of thousands of bankrupt banks, the death of many people from hunger and other horrors of the economic downturn state.

Economic liberalism

The main concept of this flow was the idea of \u200b\u200bequality between economic laws and natural. The intervention of state power in these laws was prohibited. Adam Smith - the founder of this currentand its basic principles:

• for a push of economic development, a personal interest is needed;
• state regulation and the existence of monopolies harms the economy;
• the growth of the economy needs to be promoted. That is, the government should not interfere in the process of the emergence of new institutions. Enterprises and suppliers acting in the interests of income and within the market of the market imperceptibly sends a "invisible hand." All this is the key to competent satisfaction of the needs of society.

Neoliberalism

This direction was formed in the XIX century and implies a new tendency in, which is in complete non-interference of the government in trade relations between its subjects.

The main principles of neoliberalism are Constitutionalism and equalitybetween all members of society in the country.

Signs of this course: Power should contribute to self-regulation of the economy in the market, and the process of redistribution of finance must first take into account the low-income population layers.

Neoliberalism does not oppose the state regulation of the economy, while classic liberalism denies it. But the process of regulation should include only the free market and competitiveness of subjects for the collateral of economic growth along with social justice. The main idea of \u200b\u200bneoliberalism - Support for foreign trade policyand internal trading to increase the gross income of the state, that is, protectionism.

All political concepts and philosophical movements have its own characteristics, and neoliberalism has not exceeded:

• the need for state intervention in the economy. The market must be protected from the possible advent of monopolies, and the competitive environment and freedom are provided;
• protecting principles and justice. All citizens must be involved in political processes to maintain the necessary democratic weather;
• the government should support existence different economic programsassociated with financial support for social layers with small income.

Briefly about liberalism

Why in Russia distort the concept of liberalism

Output

Now the question is: "What is liberalism?" No longer calls the disturbed dissonance. After all, the understanding of freedom and equality is simply presented under other terms that have its own principles and concepts affecting different areas of the state device, but remaining unchanged in one - only then the state will flourish when it will cease to limit their citizens in many respects.