The main features of classical liberalism. neoliberalism. Classical and modern liberalism Classics of liberalism

Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine

Donetsk National Technical University

abstract

in political science

on the topic of:

"Classical and Modern Liberalism"

Performed

Art. gr. TKS06b

Lomovtseva A.V.

Accepted by: Rogozin N.P.

Donetsk

Plan

Introduction………………………………………………………………………....3

Classical liberalism……………………………………………………...3

Modern Liberalism…………………………………………………….10

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..15

List of used literature………………………………………………………16

Introduction

The topic I have chosen is relevant and very interesting. Liberal ideology has a long history and has undergone various changes during its existence. Most of the classical liberal principles are today perceived as "universal human values" or "natural human rights". Among them are such as the idea of the self-worth of the individual and his responsibility for his actions; the idea of private property as a necessary condition for individual freedom; the principles of the free market, free competition and free enterprise, equality of opportunity; a system of separation of powers, checks and balances; the idea of a rule of law state with the principles of equality of all citizens before the law, tolerance and protection of the rights of minorities; guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual (conscience, speech, assembly, creation of associations and parties); universal suffrage, etc. It is difficult to imagine modern European civilization without most of these values. And the fact that these values and rights are no longer always identified with their liberal source only speaks of all the significance that liberal ideology has in modern human culture. The relevance of the topic is also determined by the fact that liberalism, proclaiming the freedom and rights of citizens, contributes to their involvement in the political process.

The purpose of this essay is to study the main ideas of liberalism, the features of its development, as well as a comparison of classical and modern liberalism.

First of all, let's consider the very concept of "Liberalism" - (from the Latin word liberalis - free) in its literal sense - freethinking, free-thinking, - a philosophical, political and economic theory, as well as an ideology that proceeds from the position that individual human freedoms are the legal basis of society and the economic order. There are classical and modern liberalism (neoliberalism). Let's take a closer look at these two types.

classical liberalism

By the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, that form of liberalism had developed, which was later called "classical". Usually it is associated in England with the activities of the circle of “philosophical radicals”, based on the works of I. Bentham, D. Ricardo, T. Malthus, J. Mill, and later G. Spencer, as well as with the ideas of the “Manchester school” of economic liberalism (R. Cobden, D. Bright), and in France - with the work of B. Constant, F. Bastiat.

“Philosophical radicals” abandoned the concept of natural law and the social contract (to a large extent - under the influence of its criticism in the works of D. Hume and E. Burke) and justified the rights of individuals based on the naturalistic ethics of utilitarianism. The latter sees the roots of what people consider good or bad, respectively, in pleasure or pain. “Nature,” wrote I. Bentham, “has given humanity under the rule of two masters - suffering and pleasure. They alone can indicate what we should do and what we will do.”

Bentham's utilitarian (hedonistic-Epicurean) formula - "what gives me pleasure is good, what increases my pain is bad" formed the basis of the philosophy of individualism, which was used in their theories by many generations of ideologists. “By nature, a person cannot act otherwise than guided by considerations of utility, that is, the desire for pleasure and the aversion to suffering. Society

Nothing but the sum of individuals who provide services to each other, for the benefit of one person is ensured by the actions (or inaction) of another, while each takes care of his own interests. Spencer "sharply emphasized that the happiness of the individual, the development of his individual talents and abilities, and not the public good, are the goal of his actions, further strengthening the individual character of the theories of utilitarianism, remaining within its framework"".

However, people, according to the theory of "classical liberalism", are intelligent enough to realize the need to comply with the norms of the hostel, allowing everyone to effectively achieve their goals.

Consequently, the “public interest” was interpreted by the “classical liberals” not as the interest of some community standing above the individual, but as the sum of the interests of the individual members that make up society. The liberal principle of individualism, the priority of interests over social ones, was defended by them in the most extreme form, as an ontological principle.

In classical liberalism, the idea of anti-paternalism is substantiated, the essence of which is that each person is the best judge of his own interests. And consequently society must provide its citizens with the greatest freedom compatible with the equal rights of others. At the same time, freedom is interpreted negatively, as the absence of coercion, as personal and civil freedom, as the inviolability of the sphere of private life. It is this side of freedom that seems to be the most significant: political freedoms by the liberals of the early 19th century. regarded as a guarantee of personal and civil rights.

"Philosophical radicals" believed that, based on the idea of utility as the main imperative of people's actions, social harmony is determined by reasonable "rules of the game", rational and equal for all, giving individuals the opportunity to most effectively take care of their own interests. The main obstacle to the creation of such rules is the modern state, which represents the “selfish” interests of the aristocracy and the clergy. The “philosophical radicals” were active propagandists of the parliamentary reform, on the eve of which there was at that time

The greatest freedom, compatible with the equal rights of others, provided with reasonable "rules of the game", established and supported by the state - this is the creed of "classical liberalism".

The concept of freedom occupies a special place in the liberal doctrine, because from the very beginning the liberal worldview tended to recognize the ideal of individual freedom as a universal value. This freedom was generally understood as freedom from political, ecclesiastical and social control by the state since the time of J. Locke.

In Mill's interpretation, the establishment of freedom is not an end in itself, but a necessary condition for establishing the harmony of the interests of society and the interests of the individual. "A person is responsible for his actions to society only in so far as the manner of his actions concerns other persons. As long as a person's course of action concerns only himself personally, his freedom of action must by law be considered unlimited. Man is an unlimited master over himself, over his body and his soul.

The guarantee of freedom is not only protection from state interference in the private life of people, but also from the opinion prevailing in society. “As a result of the lack of freedom of opinion, people not only do not know the basis of what they recognize as truth, but this truth itself loses all meaning for them. In general, on almost all significant life issues, the truth lies mainly in reconciliation, the harmony of opposites. Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression is necessary for the mental well-being of people.

Spencer considers freedom as the ability of a person to desire something for himself more than for others, it means the absence of any kind of obstacles. It must be measured by the number of restrictions imposed on him, they are necessary, this is indisputable, but their number should be strictly necessary only in order not to harm others. This is an expression of the human essence given to him by nature, and this is the main thing. Spencer, in a series of articles later republished under the general title Man Against the State (1884), called for a return to true liberalism. Freedom, according to Spencer, "is not determined by the nature of the state machine to which he is subject, whether it be representative or not, but by the comparatively smaller number of restrictions imposed on him." The negative understanding of freedom in Spencer's works has acquired an extremely individualistic connotation, which gives reason to some researchers to attribute his work not to classical liberalism, but to later neoclassical.

The economic program of "classical liberalism" was most clearly manifested in the movement for free trade in England, directed against the so-called "Corn Laws", which established protective duties on imported grain. According to the leaders of the "Manchester School" who led this movement, the protectionist duties that contributed to the increase in the price of bread are nothing more than an illegal tax levied on the poor in favor of the English landlords. The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was seen as a great victory for economic liberalism in England.

The liberals of the classical period attached great importance to substantiating the role and functions of the state. The state, Bentham believed, is necessary in order to protect and protect the personal interests of the individual and the interests of society as a set of individual interests.

"The greatest happiness largest number people" is ensured not only by the free play of personal interests, but by their adjustment by the state, if necessary.

According to Mill, there are certain areas of society where the state has the right to intervene, for example: the protection of children and the mentally ill, the regulation of labor relations, state control over the activities of joint-stock and voluntary partnerships, state special assistance, organization of events that are beneficial to the whole society. Mill's merit is that 150 years ago he tried to define the boundaries of state intervention and areas, the control over the activities of which by the state is necessary.

19th century liberals form the main activity of the state.

For Bentham, this is protection against external and internal enemies, restriction of property rights, assistance in case of physical misfortunes, and so on. For Mill, this is protection from violence and deceit, management and regulation of property, control in society. He concludes that this question - about the functions of the state and about what spheres of human activity its power should extend - existed in the past, exists in the present, and "when there are strong tendencies for changes in the system of state power and legislation in search of means improvement of the life of mankind, interest in discussing this problem will increase rather than decrease. And he turned out to be right.

In the views of the liberals of the XIX century. there is a certain consensus on the law, because only he (the law), in their opinion, is a means of achieving well-being and happiness in society. Liberal Reflections

(especially English ones) played a role in the development of problems of political power already in the political science of the 20th century. Yes, according to

K. Deutsch, under the influence of Bentham's ideas that the adopted laws should be associated with benefits, G.

Lasswell, in which, along with power, not only respect, honesty, affection, skill, enlightenment, but also well-being and wealth appear.

In relation to the principle of separation of powers among the liberals of the classical period, there are several approaches. The French liberals developed the idea of Ch.-L. Montesquieu and Immanuel Kant on independent branches of government. In English liberalism, the very principle of the separation of powers was not so clearly and concretely formulated. But the very idea of the separation of powers, in one aspect or another, undoubtedly found its sufficient expression in Bentham, Mill, Spencer.

As N.N. Deev, Bentham, in his model of the state structure, rejected the principle of separation of powers as limiting the power of the people. Indeed, the theory of the separation of powers in the form in which it was formulated, for example, by Sh.-L. Montesquieu, he denied. However, the very idea of the need for separation of powers was not alien to him. He offers his own systematization of "the constituent parts of political authorities, for example:" the power to command people ...", "the power to the things of society", "the power of division into types, classes ...", "impelling power", "... the power on the things of others...", "direct power over persons, which is the basis for other authorities. " In fact, they can all be reduced to legislative and judicial.

As for the executive power, Bentham does not specifically analyze it (the term itself, in his understanding, means the subordination of all types of legislative power as fundamental), although this "submission" is undoubtedly present in his reasoning. At the same time, Bentham promotes the idea of the need to control all the "components of political power" one after another, of the division of power into local and central. All these problems are reflected in such works by Bentham as "Discourse on the Civil and Criminal Law", "Catechism of Parliamentary Reform", "On the Judicial System", "Experiments on the Tactics of Legislative Reform", where this idea found its expression already in its practical plan and form.

Developing the ideas of Jeremiah Bentham, John Stuart Mill raises the question of the need to control the activities of officials and their responsibility for the work performed. Along with this, another important problem arises that English liberals raise - bureaucracy in society, its place and role. They came to the conclusion that it is impossible to do without a managerial apparatus in public life, but they also pointed to the negative consequences that may arise.

Already in their reflections there is little optimism, although in England at that time the administrative apparatus did not reach the scale that on the continent. Mill, speaking from the standpoint of an individual who opposes the state and its administrative machine, emphasized the danger associated with the concentration of all initiative in the hands of the bureaucracy. "The only defense against political slavery (to which the bureaucratization of society leads - L.M.) is the containment (bridling) of the ruling persons by spreading education, activity and public spirit among the ruled."

The process of the emergence of bureaucracy in Spencer is studied in connection with the analysis of the military and industrial type of societies. The development of production always requires management, he argues, and the only means of combating bureaucracy is the improvement of human character, which is possible only in conditions of "peaceful labor, subject to the rules of a well-regulated social life."

""On the whole, it can be said about the state that for the English liberals it is only a means of achieving happiness for the individual," as indicated above. "And liberalism considered the best form of government to be precisely the representative system, as providing an effective combination of the interests of society with the interests of the individual and the best management of public affairs."

Great attention to the English liberals of the XIX century. focus on women's voting rights. For example, according to Mill, a woman needs to create initially equal conditions with a man, since she can make a significant contribution to the development of society.

On the basis of the law of equal freedom for all solves this problem and

Spencer. Equal rights should apply to people of both sexes.

Liberalism of the 19th century advocated universal suffrage, but imposed certain restrictions on it. Bentham and Mill already have a tendency to understand that the idea of representative power itself is contradictory: on the one hand, it must express the will of all citizens, but on the other hand, the people themselves cannot govern efficiently and effectively. The census system should play its positive, in their opinion, role here: the most worthy and educated should be elected to the governing structures, and the dark, unenlightened mass, which has no spiritual development, cannot choose worthy people to govern the state. In fact, in 19th century England, the basis for the creation of the concept of elites in the future is being formed. As for Spencer, he connects the formation of the representative system with the development of industrialism. One of the conditions for its existence, he considered the voluntariness of people for the purpose of cooperation and the equality of the rights of individuals.

In principle, however, democratic government as the most perfect form of representative power, Spencer points out, can only be carried out when a perfect person is identified. Thus, for the English liberalism of the XIX century. the idea of representation is perhaps the most important in the system of analysis of problems of power. It helps to understand the essence of the relationship between the individual and the state, which is especially valuable for liberalism as a whole.

As for another value of liberalism - equality, then, according to English liberals, it can lead to the suppression of various individual abilities. Therefore, they oppose this idea to the idea of equal opportunities, which will allow a person to realize himself to the fullest.

An important place in the theory of classical liberalism is occupied by the use of positivist methods of studying social reality.

So Mill and Spencer were united with O. Comte, as the founder of positivism, by the desire to abandon speculative reasoning about society, to create a "positive" social theory that would be as scientifically justified and generally valid as natural science theories.

According to D. Easton, the liberals of the XIX century. fell into positivism, unable to overcome its vagueness. But it was positivism that preserved liberalism for many years, revealing the essence of politics sociologically. For instance,

W. Bedzhgot, who was one of the first among the liberals of the XIX century. in England was able to appreciate positivism as scientific method the study of society.

If in England the main problems that preoccupied liberals in the first half of the 19th century centered around the economy, then for their counterparts on the Continent, the main problem was the political guarantees of civil liberties. Since only if there are laws that ensure political freedoms, a prosperous society is possible.

""... the happiest, most moral and most peaceful people is the one that most closely adheres to the principle: despite the imperfection of mankind, all hope is still in the free and voluntary actions of persons within the limits of law. Law or force may not be used for anything other than the administration of universal justice."

The ideas of "classical liberalism" had an undeniable influence on the history of Europe in the first half of the 19th century. At the same time, some of the provisions attributed to this form of liberal doctrines were not only never put into practice, but were formulated in theory much more mildly than is commonly believed. This concerns, first of all, the idea of a “night watchman” state, whose mission supposedly comes down to establishing and maintaining law. "Classical liberalism" did advocate the minimum functions of the state, but never limited the latter to the area of law (although it considered this area as the main concern of the state). The government must take on what individuals and private associations cannot handle. It should encourage the development of industry and thus create jobs, encourage private philanthropy for the benefit of those who cannot provide for themselves by legislative measures, mitigate the negative effects of commerce, cultivate a spirit of mutual assistance in society. According to A. Smith, the benefits of free enterprise will be guaranteed only if the state provides civic virtues, and therefore it should, in particular, take care of elementary education for the poor. And the utilitarian doctrine of Bentham placed on the state a number of responsibilities that caused this theorist to be reproached for excessive “social engineering”. For example, we find in him the idea that the restriction of property rights is one of the tasks that the state must solve. But if persons have equal property, the total mass of happiness will be the greater, the greater the equality in the distribution of wealth.

Thus, insisting on the reduction of the functions of the state,

"classical liberalism" was far from thinking of limiting its mission to the sphere of law.

The “three pillars” of “classical liberalism” were individual freedom, understood as freedom from external coercion, market relations based on the inviolability of private property, and a minimal state. This liberalism idealized the market relations between small entrepreneurs that characterized early capitalism: the free market seemed to be the basis of a “good society” in which responsible, self-reliant citizens interact for their own benefit and the common good. However, in practice, free competition did not lead to the harmonization of social relations and the triumph of meritocratic principles: it turned out that in the absence of control, market mechanisms lead to the polarization of social contrasts, and the principle of merit is not always the basis of remuneration. The "weak" sides of "classical liberalism" tried to liquidate the representatives of neoliberalism.

Modern liberalism

In the last third of the XIX century began to take shape new type liberalism, often referred to in the literature by different terms: "neoliberalism", "social liberalism", "liberal reformism". It appeared as a response to a severe crisis of liberal ideology. It arose when the "movement party" of the 19th century became the "status quo party", largely relegating to the background the interests of the most significant political movement of that time - the workers' movement. The origins of this crisis lay in the sharpening of the antagonism between ""equality"" and ""freedom"". Its deepening occurred when the "third estate" disintegrated and the working class emerged as an independent political force. The liberal movement, focusing on the ""decent"" middle class and ceasing to include forces opposed to the status quo, eventually went over to the side of its former enemies, moving closer to the conservative ideology.

Not all ideologists of liberalism were satisfied with this situation.

J.St. Mill, T. Green, J. Hobson, L. Hobhouse, J. Dewey - they all claimed to remake the form and change the content of the doctrine of liberalism.

The political ideology of liberal reformism as a whole is characterized by an orientation towards social reform, the desire to reconcile equality and freedom, an emphasis on the ethics of society and the specific social good of the individual, the realization that the ideal of political freedom of a person not only does not deny, but also involves measures to protect the individual from circumstances that he is powerless to resist, upholding the idea of the consent of all and emphasizing the neutrality of liberal politics.

Neoliberalism proclaims justice as the most important advantage of the political system, and governments are guided by moral principles and values. The political program is based on the ideas of the consent of the governed and the rulers, the need for the participation of the masses in the political process, the democratization of the procedure for making political decisions, and pluralistic forms of organizing and exercising state power began to be preferred.

Despite the large differences in value orientations between classical and new liberalism, there is a deep continuity that allows us to attribute these two ideological currents to one liberal political and philosophical paradigm.

Continuity between the “classical” and “new” liberal theory became possible due to a significant revision of the socio-philosophical foundations of liberalism at the beginning of the 19th century, associated mainly with the work of J.S. Mill.

Starting his literary and political activity as

"Philosophical radical", Mill subsequently revised the concept of the relationship between the individual and society, formulated by his predecessors. He showed the inconsistency of the theory of motivation they proposed: a person, according to Mill, does not have to be an egoist, on the contrary, a truly human essence is manifested in caring for other people, moreover, it is actions aimed at the benefit of others that bring the highest pleasure. A person is able to show both egoistic and altruistic qualities, however, the latter do not arise on their own, but are formed by the practice of interaction and cooperation with other people. Society's task is to encourage such practices.

Being not only a biological, but also a social being, a person depends on society in the formation and satisfaction of his needs. And although a certain measure of autonomy, independence from other people and social institutions is a condition for the development of an individual, self-improvement is impossible outside of society. Considering the development of individuality as the highest goal that makes people happy, Mill was convinced that this goal can be realized only through the realization of the close relationship between the interests of each individual with the benefit of the people around him and all of humanity. Thus, in order to create conditions for a person to maximize his potential, it is necessary, on the one hand, to ensure his personal freedom and protect him from the tyranny of public opinion, and on the other hand, to provide him with the opportunity to actively participate in social life, reorganizing political and economic institutions accordingly. .

Mill was one of those who filled the principle of individualism central to liberal philosophy with new content. He tried to move away from the notion characteristic of "classical liberalism" that society is a mechanical sum of individuals pursuing selfish goals and interests. In his understanding, a person is a social being, and social progress is associated with the development of institutions that bring up “social” qualities in him. Consequently, rivalry and competition are not the only possible form of human coexistence, people are capable of realizing their higher, “social” interests, and therefore, of cooperation and interaction, of making decisions based not on momentary self-interest, but on a long-term miscalculation of interests, related to the welfare of others.

Thanks to Mill, the concept of "individualism" received a new ethical content associated with the recognition highest value unique human "I", the right of a person to develop all his strengths and abilities. It was the concept of individuality as the highest value that was considered by Mill as the main argument in favor of his famous “principle of freedom”, according to which “the only goal that justifies the legitimate use of power against a member of a civilized society against his will is the prevention of harm to other people.

His own good, whether physical or moral, is not the basis for such interference.... The only kind of actions in which a person is responsible to society are actions that affect other people. In everything that concerns him alone, he is rightfully absolutely independent.” According to Mill, this principle is designed to provide a person with the relative autonomy necessary for the development of individuality, to protect against "collective mediocrity." And at the same time, the English philosopher attached great importance to responsibility, which he considered as the flip side of freedom.

Mill's ideas paved the way for the subsequent change in liberal theory. According to L.T. Hobhouse, "he alone filled the gap between the old and the new liberalism."

The “new liberal theory” was based on the positive concept of freedom, developed by Oxford University professor T.Kh.

Green, who relied on the traditions of German idealistic philosophy.

Green, following Hegel, viewed history as a struggle for the moral improvement of man, realized in attempts to create social institutions capable of providing conditions for the realization of the intellectual and moral capabilities of people. He insisted on an organic understanding of society as a whole, formed by interdependent parts. The right to freedom is a social right, it

Green, follows from the fact of belonging to society. Freedom, in his understanding, means not just the absence of restrictions, but “the positive ability or opportunity to do something or enjoy something that deserves our efforts and attention, on an equal basis with others”3. Freedom does not give a person the right to limit the possibilities of others: people should have equal opportunities for self-improvement. Based on this, Green argued that the goal of society is to create conditions for a decent existence for each of its members. In this regard, liberals should reconsider their attitude towards the state: the law does not necessarily restrict freedom, it can expand it, eliminating what hinders it.

At the beginning of the twentieth century. the need for state regulation of the socio-economic sphere became obvious to a significant part of the liberals both in England and on the continent. By this time, the completion of the doctrine of “new liberalism”, associated with the names of L.T. Hobhouse and J.A. Hobson in England, J. Dewey in the USA, and others. Hobhouse sought to counter Spencer's social Darwinism with the

Millem the idea that society exists thanks to the mutual assistance of its members and that its progress is associated with the transition from competition to cooperation. The New Liberals also embraced Green's concept of "positive freedom." “We ... can say,” wrote Hobhouse,

That the task of the state is to provide conditions for the development of the mind and character ... The state must provide its subjects with the opportunity to get everything they need to become full-fledged citizens.

Thus, the "new liberalism" resolutely abandoned the classical doctrine of "laissez-faire", radically reconsidering the attitude towards free competition and the functions of the state. “Former liberalism considered the independent and competitive economic activity of individuals as a means to achieve social welfare as an end,” wrote J. Dewey. “We need to reverse that perspective and see that a socialized economy is a means to secure the free development of the individual as an end.” At the same time, in the political sphere, priority is given to the democratic form of statehood: "" ... democracy implies that the individual is the initial and final reality. It recognizes that in its entirety the meaning of personality can be known by the individual only as it is already presented to him in an objective form in society. Based on these ideas, the “new liberals” substantiated a program of measures designed to ensure social rights, without which freedom and a decent life are impossible. This program included the creation of a public education system, the establishment of a minimum wage, the control of working conditions, the provision of sickness and unemployment benefits, and so on.

Funds for these reforms should be raised through progressive taxation.

The "new liberals" have revised the classical theory of property.

The source of all rights, in their opinion, is society, and if income does not correspond to a person's contribution to the common good, then part of it can be appropriated by the state through taxes and redistributed to social needs. Improving the living conditions of the poorest strata, according to L.T. Hobhouse, will be beneficial to society as a whole, as it will lead to the expansion of the domestic market and will contribute to economic growth.

The “new liberalism” program was an alternative to radical socialist theories and was supposed to contribute to the mitigation of conflicts and the peaceful transformation of “capitalism of the era of free competition” into a society with a “social economy” based on private property and regulated market relations.

Philosophical and socio-political concepts that substantiated this program, in the 20-30s. 20th century were supplemented by the economic theory developed by J.M. Keynes and his followers. Keynes proposed specific mechanisms for influencing the capitalist market, which, in his opinion, could prevent crises of overproduction and stimulate economic growth. In addition, the measures envisaged by him to stimulate effective demand and maintain “full employment” were supposed to remove the sharpness of social conflicts. Works

J.M. Keynes and his students had a significant impact on the practice of state regulation of the economy, which began to take shape during the First World War. In the 30s. his ideas were embodied in

"New Deal" T. Roosevelt. And during the Second World War and the period that followed it, the measures proposed by Keynesian and neoliberal programs became an integral part of the economy of developed capitalist countries.

Neoliberals proceed from the idea of an autonomous self-fulfilling individual who has certain needs, including those who need interaction with other such individuals for their development. They generally do not base their reasoning on arguments stemming from certain moral demands on society or the notion that human life is determined by social imperatives. Each person has his own life plan and the right to carry it out. The right to a dignified existence is an individual, not a collective right. Social democratic concepts are based on an organic view of society, arguments related to the moral requirements of society (social justice, equality, etc.) and the idea of collective rights. However, the practical implications of both concepts are largely similar. In other words, having different roots and appealing to different arguments, neoliberals and social democrats substantiate the need for approximately the same social functions and institutions.

In modern times, the arsenal of neoliberal concepts has been replenished with authoritative philosophical works by J. Rawls, J. Chapman, R. Dvorkin, W. Galston, J. Shklyar and others. , which put forward the principle of justice, which made it possible to justify the neoliberal practice of the "welfare state". J. Rolls suggested new way argumentation of liberal values, which, according to many critics, is a major contribution to the reconstruction of liberal theory.

Conclusion

In the course of this study, the features of the development of liberalism from the moment of its inception at the end of the 17th century to the present day were identified, its stages were identified, a comparative historical analysis of the views of representatives of each of the trends of liberalism on political power was carried out, similarities and differences in their views were shown.

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

Today, liberalism, as a socio-political trend, is a powerful intellectual movement.

List of used literature

Gadzhiev K.S. Political science. M., 1994.

classical Liberalism as a political regime (2) Abstract >> State and law

Mode in contemporary Russia. Chapter 1. Liberal Regime: Concept and Features §1.1. Concept and principles classical liberalism Political...

Classical or traditional liberalism

Liberalism and neoliberalism as a political ideology

Liberalism (lat.) - pertaining to freedom: free, free-thinking, freethinker. As a political ideology, liberalism is a system of ideas about the priority of freedom and human rights and political mechanisms for their provision. It is one of the most common worldview and socio-political movement in the modern world, proclaiming the freedom of the individual and other civil and political rights of the individual and limiting the scope of the state. This is a very dynamic, mobile and many-sided ideology. Its content changes and is modified over time, responding to new challenges of historical time.

There are two main historical forms of liberalism: classical or traditional liberalism and neoliberalism, that is, new, updated liberalism. Neoliberalism has many varieties, which can be combined into two main ones: left (or social) liberalism and right (or conservative) liberalism (see Figure 1). The most radical in terms of limiting the role of the state, the modern form of right-wing liberalism, gravitating towards traditional liberalism, is called "libertarianism".

· Time formation of ideology - 17th - early 19th century.

· class character- this is a bourgeois ideology (or rather, the ideology of the oppressed classes of that time and, above all, the emerging bourgeoisie).

· Orientation- against the absolutism that prevailed in that historical period, as well as against the official religious ideology and morality, which justified the complete political dependence of a person on the autocracy of the monarch.

· Homeland of liberalism– Europe and the USA, and also, partially, Russia. It was first proclaimed as a state-building program in the USA (1776) and in France (1789).

Founders of classical liberalism:

In England: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679); John Locke (1632-1704); Adam Smith (1723-1790); John. Stuart Mill (1806-1873); Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) and others.

In France: Charles Louis Montesquieu (1689-1775); Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778); Benjamin Constant (1767-1830); Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) and others.

In Germany: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and others.

IN USA: Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826); James Madison (1751-1836) and others.

In Russia: Speransky Mikhail Mikhailovich (1772-1839); Annenkov Pavel Vasilyevich (1813-1887); Novgorodtsev Pavel Ivanovich (1866-1924); Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich (1853-1943) and others.

Liberalism was formed in the 17th and early 19th centuries. not by chance.

Social, religious and philosophical background

classical liberalism

Social background connected with the emergence of a new class in the historical arena - the bourgeoisie, which declared its unwillingness to depend, as J. Locke wrote, "on the fickle, unknown, indefinite will of one person," on the monarch. The bourgeoisie was also supported by other strata of society oppressed by the monarchical power of that turbulent era of modern times, far from us.

Religious and moral background- This is a breakaway back in the 16th century. from Catholicism, Protestantism and its ethics with its idea of God's chosen man, regardless of whether he is a king or a simple shopkeeper. God's chosen person is free from the moral prejudices of the official religion, a hard worker, a pragmatist, aimed exclusively at success, at achieving personal well-being and superiority. Other people are means to him. According to M. Weber ("Protestant Ethics"), Calvinist Protestants who fled from Europe to America formulated their credo in this way: "From cattle they get fat, money from people."

For reference

Frenchman Jean Calvin (1509-64), from 1541 - dictator of Geneva, founder and leader of one of the many Protestantism named after him, along with Lutheranism, the Anglican Church, Methodists, Baptists, Adventists, etc.

The philosophical basis of liberalism is individualism, which means:

a / The main driving force of society, the "crown of creation" is the individual, the individual. He himself, and not a collective, society, state or government, must be responsible for himself, be the creator of his own destiny. J. Locke argued: man himself is "the master of his own person."

b / The interests of an individual (individual) are higher than the interests of society and the state. The state is just a hat that a person can change at any time, and nothing more.

c/ Morality is a private matter. Man himself determines what is good and what is bad. Public morality, the concepts of sinful and immoral are far-fetched abstractions.

d / In place of public morality (unwritten norms and rules of behavior and relationships between people) is placed and elevated to the cult of RIGHT and the principle is proclaimed: "Everything that is not prohibited by law is allowed."

But are the laws - written (as opposed to moral - "unwritten" norms of a hostel) rules - able to cover the entire infinite variety of interpersonal and social relations? After all, these relationships are so unique and complex that, as the official Christian morality taught, they are accessible only to God, the Creator. Famous French writer and philosopher of the 20th century. A. Camus in this regard caustically remarked: "It is logical that the rivals of the Creator (liberals - A.D.) planned to remake the universe in their own way." Thus, from one extreme - from the assertion of the complete lack of rights and insignificance of the human personality, characteristic of the Middle Ages, liberalism fell into the other extreme - into the absolutization of the autonomy of the individual, into the complete denial of its social nature. This is one of the vulnerabilities of liberal philosophy. Even Aristotle wrote that man by nature is a social, political being, due to which even those people who do not need mutual assistance at all, unconsciously strive for cohabitation. And, therefore, we will note already from ourselves - to generally accepted moral values and rules. The idea of “dressing” all these rules in the formal dry framework of the law is outwardly tempting, but even upon closer examination it seems unattainable and utopian.

Main political ideas classical liberalism

1. The idea of innate and inalienable human rights(first of all - on life, freedom and property), as well as on the initial equality of people. In the United States Declaration of Independence dated July 4, 1776 (by Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States) it was written: “We consider it self-evident truths that all people are created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which is the right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. This refers to the rights that, according to the ideologists of liberalism, belong to every person from birth, regardless of his origin, kinship, skin color, etc. and which no one has the right to limit or take away from him.

2. Constraint, state minimization, reducing its role to a protective function - to the function of a "night watchman". The goal of the state should be the preservation of formal, that is, political and legal, human rights, as well as the provision of law and order, defense and security. This protective function of the state's obligations to society and its corresponding powers are exhausted. In the French “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” of 1789 we read: “The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural inalienable rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression."

From whom should the rights and freedoms of man and citizen be protected? According to the ideologists of classical liberalism, first and foremost, from the state. Therefore, liberal freedoms are called "negative freedoms", their characteristics begin with the prefix "NOT": the state is "not" in the right, "should not", "does not" interfere, "does not" restrict, etc. etc. Their uh economic and social problems a free man, the founders of liberalism believed, will decide for himself better and more efficiently than any state. John Mill wrote: "Man himself knows better than any government what he needs."

For a long time, liberalism has not been able to accurately formulate its position regarding the limits of the functions of the "night watchman" state. Representatives of various currents in liberal ideology still vacillate between the concepts of the "zero state" (a direction that calls itself libertarian) and the "minimal state" of the classical model, reduced to the police and the army.

3. The idea of a free market economy and competition, that is, trade and economic, as well as all other types of activity, unlimited by anything and by no one: political (free competition for power), informational (freedom and competition in the media), spiritual, ideological, etc. Only one thing was required from the state: not to interfere with people, not to limit their freedom of action, their initiative. Laissez faire “Do not interfere with action”) - this was the main requirement of the emerging commercial and industrial capital of that time to the state - to this, from the point of view of liberal ideology, the main enemy of human rights and freedoms.

But what should be the political and legal mechanism for ensuring human rights? That is, how should society and the state be arranged to ensure the preservation of human rights? This question is answered by the following idea of liberalism.

4. Democracy as a political and legal mechanism for ensuring human rights. Democracy, we recall, presupposes:

· The sovereignty of the people, not the monarch, and the election of power.

· Legal state, strictly limited by the constitution and laws. J. Locke, the author of the idea of the rule of law, wrote that "where there are no laws, there is no freedom" ("Two treatises on civil government").

· A civil society capable of controlling the state from the outside.

· The division of state power into three independent branches: legislative, executive and judicial as a domestic mechanism that prevents abuse of power by any of the branches by mutual restraint of each other. The idea of separation of powers belongs to C. Montesquieu (“Persian Letters” and “On the Spirit of Laws”).

Initially, the ideas and principles of classical liberalism liberated human potential and gave a powerful impetus to political and economic development in Europe and the United States. However, by the 1930s classical liberalism has exhausted its potential. In Western countries, crises began, and in the United States, a period of great depression began. Why?

· The principle of economic freedom not controlled by the state has turned the rich into rich and the poor into beggars.

· The principle of individualism gave rise to rampant immorality, the growth of crime, the social and moral degradation of society.

· Political rights and freedoms turned out to be a toy for the rich, and for the majority of the people - an empty, unnecessary formality.

· The state "night watchman" remained aloof from pressing social and economic problems and contradictions.

Liberalism was faced with the need to either abandon its principles or adapt itself to the challenges it engendered. And he began to change his form. Classical liberalism was replaced by the so-called left-wing or social liberalism. Its founders English economist J. Keynes (1883-1946), as well as W. Lippman, J. Galbraith stated: the further development of Western society is impossible without abandoning the idea of "state-night watchman" . The state is obliged to worry not only about the formal political rights of its citizens, but also about their real social and material well-being. To do this, it must intervene in the economy, pursue an active social policy aimed at overcoming unemployment, helping the disadvantaged, guaranteeing the rights to education, health care, work, pension, social insurance for all citizens. In other words, the idea of the rule of law was complemented by the idea of a social state, called the welfare state (and not just the welfare state for those able to earn money).

The introduction of the ideas of social liberalism into life led to various consequences in different countries West. In most - to the positive, and in some to the tragic. In the United States, President Roosevelt implemented his "New Deal", announced by him in 1933, thanks to which America managed to overcome the socio-economic crisis and become a great power. In Sweden, the Social Democrats who came to power in 1932 created a socially oriented, state-run market - the Swedish model of socialism. But in Germany, social-liberal ideas helped the National Socialists, led by Hitler, come to power.

Since the second half of the 20th century, Western neo-liberals have no longer denied the need for state intervention in the economy. The only question being discussed is to what extent such interference is permissible so that economic freedoms and human rights are not violated? Depending on the answer to this question Neoliberalism has two wings:

1. Left-liberal, Keynesian. Its supporters continue to insist on strengthening the socio-economic role of the state. This position gravitates toward social democracy.

2. Right-liberal wing. Its supporters, liberal conservatives, continue to insist on the ideas of classical liberalism. They warn social liberalists of several things:

· On the illusory nature of the ideas of social justice and social equality, incompatible with the freedom of the individual. At the same time, they refer to communism and socialism as negative examples of the practical implementation of such ideas in the life of society and the state.

About the dangers of expansion social role and functions of the state, fraught with the threat of a new totalitarianism. At the same time, they refer to fascism and Stalinism.

· About the corrupting role of social ideas that turn free, responsible and enterprising people into a faceless mass of dependents and lazy people.

Therefore, modern right-wing liberals continue to defend the ideas of classical liberalism: free competition and the market, minimal state intervention in the economy and the social sphere.

Right-wing liberalism often becomes an ally of modern conservatism, which often uses in its policy the ideas of classical liberalism, which existed in the 18th century. his sworn enemy. Classical examples of the use of ideas and methods of right-wing liberalism by modern Western conservatives are Reaganism and Thatcherism of the 80s. of the last century (see more about conservatism in the 5th question of this lecture).

As for liberalism as the official party ideology, in this capacity it is represented in the modern world very modestly. Created in 1947, the Liberal International includes just over 30 parties. Liberal parties often come to power in the USA and Japan (the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan from 1955 to 2009 was constantly at the helm of state power). Influential positions are held by liberal parties in Canada and Austria.

Most researchers of liberal political ideology consider the time of its origin - the end of the 17th century, and the ideological core - the theory of "social contract". The most complete, complete development of the ideas of this theory was in the works of John Locke (1632-1704), Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).

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 an 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. Therefore, it is not surprising that at the initial stage, the complex of values and ideas that make up the essence of liberalism included individual freedom, the dignity of the human person, and tolerance.

The process of emergence of theoretical developments of an ideological nature is always preceded by certain changes in society. In the case of liberalism, these changes were dramatic. Europe entered the New Age. Changes took place in all spheres of public life. In the field of economics, this is the transition from the feudal to the capitalist mode of production; The dictate of the Catholic Church in the spiritual sphere was becoming a thing of the past, and an era of religious freedom was beginning. New social groups appeared in the structure of society, the so-called "third estate". The theorists of the ""social contract"" and ""natural rights"" became the spokesmen of whose interests.

The ideas of the founder of liberalism, John Locke, about the "Natural Rights" of a citizen: to life, liberty, property; about the separation of the branches of power came in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, just in time. His political science developments were actively used in the constitutional design of the English state at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century. This happened, first of all, because John Locke became the spokesman for the interests of the general population, especially the most active - the "third estate".

In contrast to previous ideas that an individual has political, economic and other rights only insofar as he is a full citizen, as was believed in the era of antiquity, or because he belongs to a certain class, as was argued in the Middle Ages, Enlightenment thinkers proclaimed the idea of "natural rights", inalienable human rights. These rights are given to every person by nature and include the right to life, liberty, and property, or, as recorded in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, adopted in 1791, the right to liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. Declarations are based on natural law, on common sense, and not on historical traditions and customs. Both the Declaration and the US Constitution rely on the natural right of citizens to change or overthrow their government and establish whatever form of government they see fit.

Unlike Hobbes, Locke and Montesquieu considered the primitive (i.e., pre-state) state of people not as a “war of all against all”, but as a state of freedom, equality and independence, in which all people had equal opportunities for peaceful, mutual benevolent prosperity based on private property. Thus, Locke and Montesquieu are more optimistic than Hobbes in their evaluation of "human nature". "" Primitive people, proves Montesquieu, there was no need to fight with each other. On the contrary, they were vitally interested in peaceful relations. They also could not have a desire to rule over other people, because this desire is associated with more complex relationships. Therefore, peace, and not war, according to Montesquieu, was the first natural law of man.

In relation to the origin of private property, enlighteners have different points of view. According to Locke, property arises independently of state power. Montesquieu believed that in primitive society there was no private property. He declares that, having renounced natural independence in order to live under the power of state laws, people have also renounced the natural community of property in order to live under the power of state laws. He thus regards private property as a comparatively late product of historical development. Private property, according to Montesquieu, is a consequence of the "social contract", i.e. subject to legal regulation. Private property - supreme manifestation civilization. Montesquieu believed that with private property, every person can achieve material well-being and true freedom, later this idea became one of the main postulates of liberal ideology.

The political practice of modern enlighteners of absolutist states convinced them that as long as power is concentrated in one hand, as long as the state does not have principles limiting it in itself, the rights and freedoms of citizens cannot be reliably guaranteed. The idea of the need to create mechanisms to control the process of exercising power, the thinkers of the 18th century, was also led by the doubt that people in power will always put the interests of society first, and not concern for their own well-being. . It was assumed that the deterrent in the rule of law should be a consistently carried out separation of powers. Locke was the first to put forward this idea. "" He sees a reasonable state structure in the presence of three powers: legislative (parliament), executive (courts, army) and "federal", i.e. in charge of relations with other states (king, ministers) "". Montesquieu developed Locke's theory of the separation of powers. According to him, the legislative, judicial and executive powers should be formed independently and not depend on each other. "" If the legislative and executive powers are combined in one person or institution, then there will be no freedom, since it can be feared that this monarch or senate will create tyrannical laws in order to also apply them tyrannically "".

Obviously, freedom was understood by the adherents of liberalism in a negative sense, that is, in the sense of freedom from political, ecclesiastical and social control by the feudal state. The struggle for freedom for them meant the struggle for the destruction of external restrictions imposed on the economic, physical and intellectual freedom of man. A. Berlin formulated this position as follows: "I am free to the extent that others do not interfere in my life." Therefore, classical liberalism declared all forms of hereditary power and class privileges to be null and void, putting in the first place the freedom and natural abilities of an individual as an independent rational being, an independent unit of social action.

It is individualism that underlies the right of every person to life, freedom and private property (and in some editions - to the pursuit of happiness), the principle of identifying freedom and private property, which together have become a powerful stimulating force for the development of productive forces, socio-historical development, formation and approval of political democracy. Here, private property is seen as a guarantor and measure of freedom. "The idea of freedom," W. von Humboldt wrote, "develops only together with the idea of property, and we owe the most energetic activity precisely to the feeling of property." At the same time, they proceeded from the postulate that the fruits of activity cannot be alienated from the subject of activity itself, since they are its essential continuation. It was from economic freedom that political and civil freedom was derived. As if the embodiment of individualism and the right of private property in the economic sphere are the principles of free market and free competition, the implementation of which ensured unprecedented rates of intensive and extensive growth of productive forces.

With the formation and approval of the idea of individual freedom, the problem of relations between the state and the individual and, accordingly, the problem of the limits of state intervention in the affairs of the individual, became more and more distinct. The sphere of individual human activity, not subject to interference by external forces, was considered as the sphere of realization of natural freedom and, therefore, natural law. Since this right is intended to protect the individual from unauthorized interference in his personal life by the state or the church, it is a form of "legal Protestantism". Adepts of natural law proceeded from the idea that man was born before society and the state. Already in the pre-social, pre-state, "natural" state, he was endowed with certain inalienable rights, guided by which everyone received what he deserved.

Based on this postulate, a political economy, legal system and state-political concept were formulated, in which law was turned into a tool for guaranteeing an individual the freedom to choose moral and ethical values, forms of activity and creating conditions for the implementation of this choice. These ideas were embodied in the principles of laissez faire, the free market, free, unrestricted competition. In the political sphere, they are reflected in the ideas of the state - the "night watchman" and the rule of law, democracy and parliamentarism.

The essence of the idea of the "night watchman" state was to justify the so-called minimal state, endowed with a limited set of the most necessary functions to maintain order and protect the country from external danger. Here, priority was given to civil society over the state, which was seen as a necessary evil. From the views of J. Locke, for example, we can draw the following conclusion: the supreme state body can be compared not with the head that crowns society, but with a hat that can be painlessly changed. In other words, society is a constant value, and the state is a derivative of it.

While recognizing liberalism as the priority in formulating the concept of the “night watchman” state, it should be borne in mind that its representatives, especially the moderate wing, by no means rejected the positive functions of the state in all spheres of public life without exception. Let me remind here that for liberals from the very beginning it was an axiom that the state was obliged to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual. In this sense, an exceptionally important place in liberalism was occupied by the postulate formulated differently by A. Smith and I. Kant. The former said that property gives rights, but these latter must be used in such a way as not to violate the rights of other members of society. As Kant argued, "freedom ends where the freedom of another person begins." In both cases, the action of the state to protect human rights and freedoms was implied.

But among the liberals, it was not only about such prerogatives and powers immanently inherent in the state as ensuring the rule of law within the country and protecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity from outside claims. It is symptomatic that the founders of liberalism directly assigned the state responsibility for the material provision of the poor. Thus, considering the main duty of the state to "guard" the rights of the individual, I. Kant at the same time spoke of the need for the state to help the poor and, for this purpose, to impose a special tax on the rich, "designed to support those members of society who are not in able to live by their means", thus helping them to exercise their rights. It is enough to read the relevant pages of The Wealth of Nations to be convinced that one of the founders of liberal political economy and the concept of the "night watchman" state unconditionally supported the positive role of the state when it came to material support for the poor and disadvantaged sections of the population.

In a liberal-democratic system, legal statehood is connected with the institutions of an open society. In this context, liberalism has made a significant contribution to the formulation of the principles of constitutionalism, parliamentarism and the rule of law - these supporting structures of political democracy. Of fundamental importance was formulated by Sh.-L. Montesquieu principle of separation of powers into three main branches: legislative, executive and judicial. According to him, in the case of a combination of the legislative and executive branches, the suppression of freedom, the rule of arbitrariness and tyranny are inevitable. The same will happen if one of these branches joins the judiciary. And the combination of all three in one person or organ is the characteristic feature of despotism. First of all, the founding fathers of the liberal worldview came up with the idea that the state should be ruled not by individuals, but by laws. The task of the state is to regulate relations between free citizens on the basis of strict observance of laws that are designed to guarantee the freedom of the individual, the inviolability of property and other rights of man and citizen.

Liberalism and democracy condition each other, although they cannot be fully identified with each other. Democracy is understood as a form of power, and from this point of view it is the doctrine of the legitimization of the power of the majority. Liberalism, on the other hand, implies limits to power. There is an opinion that democracy can be totalitarian or authoritarian, and on this basis one speaks of a tense state between democracy and liberalism. But this, in my opinion, is a clear misunderstanding based on the substitution of concepts. If we consider it from the point of view of forms of power, it is obvious that with all the external similarity of individual attributes (for example, the principle of election by universal suffrage, which in the totalitarian system was a formal and purely ritual process, the results of which were predetermined in advance), totalitarianism (or authoritarianism) and democracy, according to the vast majority of system-forming principles, were directly opposite forms of organization and exercise of power.

The latest trends and shifts in the development of Western society, characteristic of the 1970s and 1980s, had a significant impact on the entire system of Western social and political thought, on all its currents, directions and schools. Liberalism is no exception from this point of view. Since a significant share of the responsibility for solving social and economic problems during the entire post-war period lay with the welfare state, identified primarily with social democracy and liberalism, the cause of all the difficulties that faced capitalism during this period began to be seen precisely in liberalism and social control. democracy.

An indicator of the confusion and confusion among liberals was the appearance of many works devoted to the crisis of modern liberalism. Since the second half of the 60s. such expressions as "the poverty of liberalism", "the end of liberalism", "the death of liberalism", often taken out in the headlines of books and articles, have become a stereotype. Back in 1971, one of the theorists of West German liberalism, K.G. Flach was forced to admit that "the voice of the liberals has weakened", that "liberalism has stopped v its development in the 19th century." Even more categorical judgments on this issue were expressed by the famous American sociologist R. Nisbet, who argued that "liberalism, as we understand it in the 20th century, belongs to the dustbin of history."

Such judgments reflected the state of the post-war decades, which confirmed the fact of a real weakening of the positions of the liberal parties (with the exception of the US Democratic Party), their retreat to the periphery of political life. Liberalism, presented as a current of socio-political thought, retains its significance today. Moreover, there is a peculiar paradox: against the backdrop of undermining faith in liberalism, politicians and voters have a revival of interest in academic and university circles in the political and social philosophy of liberalism. Although most liberal parties have found themselves in a state of deep crisis, liberalism itself, despite all the difficulties, remains viable.

Keywords

LIBERALISM / CLASSICAL LIBERALISM / MODERN LIBERALISM / COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS/ FREEDOM / DEMOCRACY

annotation scientific article on political sciences, author of scientific work - Kuts Galina Mikhailovna

The content of the key ideologemes of liberal discourse changed depending on the dominant practice of understanding political realities, which is due to the wide variety of trends and currents of liberalism. The conceptual core of liberalism is formed by a number of basic, interconnected principles: the problem of individual freedoms, inalienable natural rights, limitation of power, private property, separation of powers, the rule of law, etc. These ideas, taking shape in classical liberalism, were significantly rethought in the discourse modern liberalism adapting to changing political conditions. classical liberalism focused on the issues of political and economic freedoms of the individual. The originality of his ideas is due to the European and North American interpretations of liberalism. If in Europe there was a separation of the Anglo-Saxon and continental European liberal traditions, then in the USA the bifurcation of liberal problems manifested itself in the emergence of "moderate" and "democratic" variants of liberalism. Central problem modern liberalism was the question of social guarantees of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Accordingly, the idea of state regulation of the social sphere acquired a dominant position.

The text of the scientific work on the topic "Classical and modern liberalism: a comparative analysis"

G.M. Kutz

CLASSICAL AND MODERN LIBERALISM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

annotation

The content of the key ideologemes of liberal discourse changed depending on the dominant practice of understanding political realities, which is due to the wide variety of trends and currents of liberalism. The conceptual core of liberalism is formed by a number of basic, interconnected principles: the problem of individual freedoms, inalienable natural rights, limitation of power, private property, separation of powers, the rule of law, etc. These ideas, having taken shape in classical liberalism, were significantly rethought in the discourse of modern liberalism, adapting to changing political conditions. Classical liberalism focused on the issue of political and economic freedoms of the individual. The originality of his ideas is due to the European and North American interpretations of liberalism. If in Europe there was a separation of the Anglo-Saxon and continental European liberal traditions, then in the USA the bifurcation of liberal problems manifested itself in the emergence of "moderate" and "democratic" versions of liberalism. The central problem of modern liberalism has become the question of social guarantees of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Accordingly, the idea of state regulation of the social sphere acquired a dominant position.

Keywords:

liberalism, classical liberalism, modern liberalism, comparative analysis, freedom, democracy.

CLASSICAL AND MODERN LIBERALISM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Classical liberalism has drawn attention to the problems of political and economic freedoms of the individual. The originality of its ideas is due to European and North American interpretations of liberalism. If in Europe there was a separation of Anglo-Saxon and continental European liberal traditions, in the U.S. there was a split in the liberal perspective which was manifested in the emergence of "moderate" and "democratic" choices of liberalism. The central problem of modern liberalism was the issue of social guarantees rights and freedoms of the individual. Accordingly, the dominant position has gained the idea of state regulation of the social sphere.

liberalism, classical liberalism, modern liberalism, comparative analysis, freedom, democracy.

The relevance of a comparative analysis of the problems of classical and modern liberalism is due to the need to identify the basic postulates of liberalism that are adequate to modern political realities. The urgency of the problem is also determined by the criticism of liberalism, which has become more active in connection with the financial and economic crisis in the modern world. Moreover, the entire corpus of ideas of liberalism is subjected to criticism, and not just its economic explication. At the same time, it is thanks to the ideological arsenal of liberal discourse, in particular, the issue of individual and political freedoms, that the modern political landscape of Western countries has taken shape.

Assessing the whole conceptual array of liberalism, it is customary to distinguish two stages in the genesis of liberal problems: classical liberalism (XVII-XIX centuries) and modern liberalism (late XIX - early XX centuries). Classical liberalism focused on the problems of political and economic freedoms, the natural rights of the individual, the social contract, and so on. (J. Bentham, T. Hobbes, I. Kant, B. Constant, J. Locke, J. St. Mill, C.-L. Montesquieu, A. Smith, G. Spencer, A. de Tocqueville and others .). The originality of the ideas of classical liberalism is due to the European and North American interpretations of liberalism. If in Europe there was a separation of the Anglo-Saxon and continental European liberal traditions, then in the USA the bifurcation of liberal problems manifested itself in the emergence of “moderate” and “democratic” variants of liberalism (see Fig. 1).

In the conceptual arsenal of the discourse of modern liberalism, the idea of state regulation of the social sphere becomes dominant (T. G. Green, J. Dewey, G. Crowley, L. von Mises, M. Friedman, F. A. von Hayek, L. T. Hobhaus and etc.). The transformation of classical liberalism into modern takes place at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. in the following areas:

Socialization (focusing on the social sphere);

Democratization (introduction of universal suffrage);

Etatization (strengthening the role of the state in the economy);

Nationalization (rejection of cosmopolitanism);

Modernization (conceptual renewal of the basic principles of liberalism).

Of these directions in the transformation of liberalism, socialization tendencies were most actively identified, which subsequently led to the conceptual design of modern liberalism.

The transformation of liberal problems that took place at the end of the 19

early twentieth century, denoted in different sources in different ways: both "social liberalism", and "liberal reformism", and "neoliberalism". Understand-

The real identification of the last two terms is due to the fact that "liberal reformism" originated in America, and it is there that it is often called "neoliberalism". However, much more often there is an identification of the terms "social liberalism" and "liberal reformism", which are used as synonymous.

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

problems of political and economic freedoms, natural rights of the individual, social contract, constitutionalism, separation of powers, limitation of power, political representation, rule of law, civil society, private property, tolerance, etc.

Constructivism; Evolutionism; Priority The problem of political

the idea of rationalization is the idea of the legal idea of economic freedoms,

ma; interaction states; end, and not the development of end

vie with nationalism-institutionalism; political conception of equals and

mom; the ratio of internationalism; liberalism; inalienable

Democracy and free trade - against closer - human rights,

liberalism, la; the idea of freedom in nia with democracy is the desire to find

civil framework of the law; thia; lastly, a balance between

society and existence with the power of trans-equality and freedom

sti; understanding of the monarchy; the pony was shaped in body; subsequently

freedom as more freedom mania as conservatism vii this version

important to the socially more important to American liberalism,

nal group, an individual, but not a model having become socialized,

than for the indie - for the social has become a classic

type of group in the USA

F. Guizot, J. Locke, A. Smith, J. Adams, T. Jefferson,

B. Constant, D. Riccardo, D. Hume A. Hamilton, T. Payne,

J.-J. Russo, et al. J. Madison et al. B. Franklin et al.

B. Spinoza and others.

Rice. 1. Basic interpretations of classical liberalism (author's development)

Regarding the use of the concept of "neoliberalism", we note that this term is most often used to designate a separate stage of modern liberalism, which took shape closer to the middle of the 20th century. The genesis of the problems of modern liberalism is shown in Figure 2.

The central problem of modern liberalism has become the issue of social guarantees of the rights and freedoms of the individual, which was not least facilitated by the popularity of Marxism, within which the concept of social solidarity was developed. In addition, the need for social measures was emphasized even in the theoretical developments of I. Kant, J. St. Mill, G. Spencer and others, who developed certain issues of the problems of liberal reformism.

Let us turn to highlighting the main differences between classical and modern liberalism.

Liberty. In classical liberalism, the cult of individual freedom was proclaimed, the basis of which was basic principles: the self-worth of the individual, his responsibility not only to society, but also to himself, the right to self-realization of each, free development and self-affirmation.

The main difference between the problems of classical and modern liberalism lies in the understanding of the category of freedom. For classical liberalism, as I. Berlin noted, there was a characteristic tradition of understanding freedom in a negative context (freedom from), when it was believed that freedom was necessary for an individual to get rid of certain restrictions so that a person could do what he pleases. In modern liberalism, the concept of negative freedom is supplemented by the concept of positive freedom (freedom for-): freedom for self-development, for expanding the range of one's own capabilities. Positive freedom means a person's power over himself, over his desires, consistent rationalization of his own actions.

The explication of freedom in the discourse of neoliberalism has acquired a peculiar specificity. The priority was the social interpretation of freedom, according to which the individual's belonging to society began to be considered very significant. The neoliberal explication of freedom meant "not the absence of restrictions, but the ability or possibility of a person - moreover, on an equal basis with others - to do something useful for himself and society" .

Individualism. The starting point for all liberalism is the existence of individuality, that is, the value of the individual, his uniqueness. In this context, it must be taken into account that it was thanks to Christianity that the problem of the uniqueness of an individual became a key one not only for liberalism, but also for other spheres of public life. After all, the primacy of the individual over social group finds its legitimacy as early as Evangelical individualism.

Understanding the problems of individualism in the discourse of classical liberalism is associated with a certain focus on extreme individualism, bordering on egoism.

In modern liberalism, which has abandoned the orientation towards extreme individualism, the concept of individualism has been supplemented, on the one hand, by the theory of interest groups, and, on the other hand, by the concept of communitarianism.

Natural rights of the individual. The basis of classical liberalism was the philosophy of natural human rights (to life, liberty and property), which, postulating the equality of all people from birth, justified the inalienability of natural rights (no one can either deprive people of these rights or dispose of them). According to J. Locke, the existence of the state is justified by the protection of natural rights, since the primary and main goal of uniting people into structures of common activity and transferring oneself under the authority of the government is the preservation of property. It should be noted that the concept of property in the interpretation of J. Locke includes three components: life, liberty and possession.

All versions of modern liberalism are also based on the concept of natural human rights. However, there is a difference in their explication. If social, economic and cultural rights of the individual are more important for liberal reformism, then civil and political rights occupy a central place in neoliberalism.

Mind Priority. Even from Socrates, ideas have come down to us regarding the understanding, on the one hand, of the human mind as a basic guideline in determining the most optimal actions, and on the other hand, regarding the understanding of political activity as natural for a person. The first idea (the priority of reason in understanding political activity) was completely taken up by classical liberalism and developed in modern liberalism. In classical liberalism, there was a rejection of the second idea (that political activity is natural for a person), which led not only to the elevation of private life and its opposition to the state, but also to the emergence of doubts about all power. Classical liberals considered power to be artificial, unnatural, it must not only be put up with, it must be limited in the name of the prosperity of the freedom of the individual.

In modern liberalism, which - unlike classical liberalism - is more active in the development of new areas of public life, there is an understanding that it is impossible to do without power. Therefore, modern liberalism, being aimed at change, seeks to implement reforms to improve the relationship between power and the individual.

The liberal creed "laissez faire". In classical liberalism, it was believed that the state was called upon to protect the private life of the individual.

and freedom of action (within the law). However, it is necessary to limit the scope and scope of its activities, setting limits on the spread of state power to minimize its interference in the private life of the individual. It is to this limitation that the basic credo of liberalism refers - "laissez faire" (non-intervention). The establishment of such boundaries provides for the contractual nature of relations (“contractualism”) between state power and the individual, which excludes all kinds of forms of paternalism. The rule of law (in the context of understanding the liberal creed) was considered in classical liberalism as an instrument of social control, and constitutional mechanisms as a guarantee of individual freedom. In general, in the discourse of classical liberalism, the creed "laissez faire" meant the principle of non-intervention of state power only in economic relations (both internal and external).

If in classical liberalism state intervention in the social sphere was limited, then for modern liberalism the idea of state regulation of the social sphere has become dominant, which is why modern liberalism is sometimes called the “statist” form of liberalism. Accordingly, in the discourse of modern liberalism, there was a significant rethinking of the liberal credo "laissez faire" regarding the social sphere (a certain narrowing in its application), since it was believed that the state should assume obligations to regulate it (T. Green, L. T. Hobhouse and etc.).

All this required a change in attitude towards the state, which had already begun to be perceived as an instrument for expanding freedom, rather than limiting it. Relations between the state and the individual began to take on a partnership coloring. So, on the one hand, there was a narrowing of the application of the liberal creed. On the other hand, if in classical liberalism the basic creed (“laissez faire”) correlated only with freedom in the economic sphere, then in modern liberalism, which is characterized by the gradual development of new areas of public freedom, the liberal creed extended to new areas of social life.

Ideas of spontaneity and evolutionism. The rationalism of the liberal worldview presupposes the recognition and perception of spontaneous formations (value systems, morality, etc.). In the classical liberal discourse, in the perception of socio-political development, the evolutionary principle of development and spontaneous initiatives are considered to be a priority. The dominance of these ideas presupposes, on the one hand, the implementation of reformist strategies in the public space, and, on the other hand, market mechanisms in the economic space. Consider-

It was assumed that the free interaction of individuals in various social spheres is balanced by itself (by analogy with the Newtonian picture of the world, according to which the free movement of atoms, in the end, is balanced). This idea gained particular popularity in the economic sphere, transforming into the idea of a free market, regulated by the "invisible hand" (A. Smith). That is, the assumption was considered basic that the self-regulatory forces of the free market would create mechanisms for adapting to new economic conditions. However, modern liberalism has introduced the idea of the need for periodic correction of their activities into these ideas about society or the economy as self-regulating spheres.

Pluralism. The concept of pluralism has become a kind of bridge between classical and modern liberalism, being actualized precisely in the discourse of modern liberalism. After all, modern liberalism first received a baptism of fire, demonstrating its capabilities in the religious plane, when it took the path of limiting the influence of the religious policy of the state, the formula of which was the thesis "one state - one religion." Liberals, on the contrary, supported the thesis "one state - many religions", which demonstrated the orientation of modern liberalism towards a pluralistic worldview. Subsequently, the business sector received similar support.

According to the concept of pluralism, there are many sources of power in society (including the government) that are ready to exercise control over citizens. That is why in modern liberalism the emphasis has shifted from the problem of limiting the power of the state (on which the “laissez faire” credo is based) to the problem of ensuring a dynamic balance between different centers of power (R. Dahl), which, in turn, actualized the idea of consensus. At the same time, the concept of an open society (K. Popper), which is based on pluralism, gained popularity.

Competition. The idea of competition organically supplemented the idea of pluralism. If for classical liberalism the idea of fierce competition was relevant, according to which the strongest survive (W. G. Sumner), then in modern liberalism this idea has been significantly softened. As F. A. von Hayek noted, in a political context, “competition is the process of proving the rightness of a minority, when the majority is inclined to actions that they did not want to do in the first place.” It began to be considered that the existence of society is determined by the mechanisms of cooperation and mutual assistance between members of society. Subsequently, the idea of fierce competition in a certain way replaced the idea of cooperation.

From “equality of opportunity” to “equality of conditions”. The rethinking of the idea of competition was reflected in a certain transformation of the dominant ideologeme of classical liberalism "equality of opportunity" into an ideologeme that is characteristic of modern liberalism - "equality of conditions". The ideologeme of classical liberalism (“equality of opportunity”), being aimed at leveling the initial inequality of people, worked only in relation to those individuals who had approximately the same natural inclinations and conditions of socialization. According to the ideologeme of "equality of conditions", which appeared in modern liberalism (G. Crowley), the success of competition should be ensured by the creation of the same starting conditions for individuals (for example, equal access to education).

The idea of a "welfare state" If in classical liberalism the ideologeme “the state as a night watchman” occupied a significant place, then in the theory of neoliberalism this place began to belong to the ideologeme of the “welfare state” (J. Galbraith, G. Myrdal, etc.), which began to bear responsibility for its citizens. In addition to the concept of "welfare state", the basis of neoliberal discourse was the ideologeme of "social market economy", which was developed in the theory of "ordoliberalism" (L. Erhard, W. Eucken, W. Repke, etc.), which contributed to the emergence of conditions for the formation civil liability.

Due to the focus of modern liberalism in the second half of the twentieth century. on the issue of justice, the principle of neutrality was updated, which implies a certain removal in the assessments of the interpretation of ideas about what the concept of "good" or "justice" is for each individual. Such a position regarding the understanding of neutrality meant that the state should assume only an instrumental role, providing citizens with the right to adhere to different ideas about the good and about lifestyles.

political participation. The political philosophy of classical liberalism, whose origins can be found in the philosophy of the Stoics and the late scholastics, was formerly a moral doctrine, stating that rationality and goodness are inherent in man at the essential level. However, it was believed that this does not apply to all people, but only to the best among them (more educated, smart, etc.). On this basis, in classical liberalism, it was widely believed that only the best of individuals have the right to demand something from political power and express doubts about its activities. Modern liberals have significantly expanded this circle of "best" people. Recognition of the need to participate in political process all citizens, regardless of their social affiliation.

Thus, if in classical liberalism it was believed that the state exists to protect the natural rights of the individual, then modern liberalism has significantly expanded this understanding. In the political context, liberalism stands for the embodiment of liberal democracy, fighting against all forms of authoritarianism. In the economic context, the attention of liberalism is focused on the institution of private property and limiting the influence of the state (especially in relation to the market). The cultural dimension of liberal issues is focused on the personal freedoms of the individual and a wide range of lifestyle choices (from behavior and clothing

Priority own picture of the world and religious views). In a social context, liberal practices are most often focused on the problem of equality of conditions.

Literature

1. Berlin I. Chotiri ese about freedom [transl. from English O. Kovalenka]. K.: Osnovi, 1994.

2. Zvesper J. Liberalism // Encyclopedia of political thought; [per. from English N. Lisyuk, S. Aloshkinoi, I. Pidluska. K.: Spirit and Litera, 2000.

3. Locke J. Two Treatises on Riding. K .: Vidavnitstvo Solomіy Pavlichko "Fundamentals", 2001.

4. Mitroshenkov O. A. Liberalism // Political encyclopedia: in 2 volumes. M.: Thought, 2000. T. 1.

5. Rovdo V.V. Ideology of liberalism // Rovdo V.V. World political ideologies: classics and modernity. Minsk: Tonpik, 2007.

6. Soloviev A.I. Liberalism: problems of theoretical and ideological

measurements // Scientific expert: scientific electronic journal. 2010. Issue. b. URL: http://problemanalysis.ru/text/Jornalа_20i0.pdf (date accessed

niya: 25.10.2013).

7. Struve P.B. Laissez faire et laissez passer // Encyclopedic Dictionary. Volume XVIIA: Ledier-Loparev. St. Petersburg: Typo-Lithography

I.A. Efron, 189b.

8. Fouche M. European Republic. Historical and geographical contours. Moscow: International relations, 1999.

9. Hayek F.A. background. Cognition, competition and freedom: [anthology of essays]. St. Petersburg: Pnevma, 1999.

1. Berlin I. Chotiri ese pro svobodu. K.: Osnovi, 1994.

2. Zvesper J. liberalism. Entsiklopediya politichnoi dumki; . SPb.: Pnevma, 1999.

classical liberalism- a political ideology, a branch of liberalism that asserts civil rights and political freedom. Classical liberalism emphasizes the need for economic freedom. Classical liberalism was developed in the 19th century in Europe and the USA. Although classical liberalism was built on ideas known as far back as the 18th century, it focuses on the new type of society, government, and public relations that emerged in response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. Among the people whose ideas influenced classical liberalism are John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. Their ideas drew Adam Smith's economics and belief in natural law, utilitarianism, and progress. The 20th century saw a revival of interest in classical liberalism, led by the economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Some call modern development classical liberalism "neoclassical liberalism", which emphasizes the need to minimize the role of the state and focus it on issues of security and justice.

Libertarianism, less often libertarianism (fr. libertarisme) - political philosophy, which is based on the prohibition of "aggressive violence", that is, the prohibition on the use of force or threat against another person or his property against the will of this person. The prohibition of aggressive violence is legal, not ethical. In other words, libertarianism implies that violations of this prohibition must be prosecuted. However, it does not give instructions for specific actions of people. Because of this, libertarianism is not an ethical system. It is compatible with different views of morality, from conservatism, which supports numerous self-restraints, to libertinism, which rejects any moral restrictions. Some libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) see the ban on "aggressive violence" as absolute and without exception, even for civil servants. In their opinion, such forms of government intervention as taxation and antitrust regulation are examples of theft and robbery, and therefore should be abolished. Protecting citizens from violence should be carried out by private security agencies, and helping the poor should be a charitable task. Another section of libertarians (minarchists) accepts the prohibition of "aggressive violence" as an important principle, but considers it necessary or inevitable that there should be a coercive taxation of the state, whose only task would be to protect the life, health and private property of citizens. The difference between this and the previous approach to libertarianism is that in the first case, the prohibition is absolute and applies to each specific action, and in the second, the task of minimizing violence in society is set, for which the state is considered as a lesser evil. Due to the fact that the listed specific forms of libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism and minarchism) contain ideas not only about the right to be (a ban on aggressive violence), but also about the state to be, these specific forms of libertarianism are not only legal, but also political philosophy.

Although supporters of personal and economic freedom also began to call themselves libertarians to distinguish themselves from "liberals", which in the United States and some other countries since the 20th century have been understood as supporters of personal freedom and state redistribution of resources (in particular, Roosevelt's "New Deal") , including social democrats and moderate communists. However, many proponents of libertarian ideas do not call themselves libertarians, insisting on the traditional designation of their ideology ("liberalism") or defining themselves as "classical liberals". Others consider such adherence to the old terms to be erroneous, introducing confusion into the political picture of the modern world, which hinders the spread and understanding of libertarian ideas.

vapingday.com

The main features of classical liberalism. neoliberalism. Classical and modern liberalism Classics of liberalism

annotation scientific article on political sciences, author of scientific work - Kuts Galina Mikhailovna

Related Topics scientific works on political sciences, author of scientific work - Kuts Galina Mikhailovna

The text of the scientific work on the topic "Classical and modern liberalism: a comparative analysis"

We advise you to read

How to interest a man: a set of rules

I can’t open a dispute on Aliexpress: reasons, what to do?

Parcels with Aliexpress stuck with Hand over to airline status: what to do?

Aliexpress group in VK. Aliexpress vkontakte. How to choose products to publish

All about SF Express delivery

I paid for the purchase on the Internet, but the store disappeared That I ordered the goods

Women's wide and flared trousers

What should the consumer do if the goods are not delivered on time?

Delivery status on Aliexpress "Shipping canceled" - what does it mean, what to do?

What should I do if the seller canceled the delivery on Aliexpress?

Go blonde or brunette

Missing Roma acorn changed appearance

Madina Tamova or Katya Nikulina - who will Ilya Glinnikov marry?

What perfume do celebrities wear?

annotation scientific article on political sciences, author of scientific work - Kuts Galina Mikhailovna

Related Topics scientific works on political sciences, author of scientific work - Kuts Galina Mikhailovna

The text of the scientific work on the topic "Classical and modern liberalism: a comparative analysis"

We advise you to read

Similar posts