What does liberal attitude mean? Liberal political views: history and modernity

Thinking out loud

First person

A Brief History of Liberalism. subtleties of perception. Quite interesting and at the same time intelligible arguments about Who is Who? I recommend to improve the educational level.

What is the difference between a liberal and a liberalist?

Andrey (). Co-written with A. Legeida

Recently, a good friend and colleague of mine, a sane person, shared such an interesting dialogue. He asked one interlocutor who was extremely aggressive towards liberals: “Can you clearly answer - who is a liberal?” He mumbled something in response and squeezed out: "A liberal is ... a liberalist." Let's try to figure out what the difference is, so as not to give such stupid answers in the future.

A liberal is a supporter of liberalism. What is liberalism? The easiest way to answer, based on the name: it is an ideology that protects freedom. But the key question is WHOSE freedom and WHICH freedom? There is no freedom at all, just as there is no man at all. Liberalism is the ideology of protecting very specific freedoms and those who are hungry for these freedoms. Let's try to figure out which ones.

TO THE HISTORY OF THE QUESTION

Historically, there are three stages in the formation of the ideology of liberalism.

First stage originates from the 18th century. Then in England for the first time a party arose, the adherents of which somewhat later began to call themselves liberals. These were - attention! - representatives of the big bourgeoisie, which came into conflict with the large landowners-landlords. The interests of the landlords were expressed by another party - the Conservatives, who, together with the Liberals, formed the world's first two-party system: both of these parties, replacing each other, ruled the British Isles for more than a hundred years - until the beginning of the 20th century.

At that time, Great Britain, ahead of other countries in the industrial revolution, was economically and politically the leading power in the world. Since the ideas of the ruling class of the ruling countries, as a rule, dominate in exploiting societies, liberalism (like its twin brother, conservatism) during the 19th century spread throughout the capitalist world. The bourgeoisie of many countries, and especially the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, converted to the liberal "faith", seeing in it an alternative to "violence and arbitrariness" - both on the right, in the face of monarchical absolutism, and on the left, in the face of Jacobinism, which was then considered the same scarecrow, like "Stalinism" today. Many people mistook for liberalism any struggle for freedom. Our compatriot V.G. Belinsky even wrote: "For me, a liberal and a person are one, an absolutist and a whip-breaker are one." Revolutionaries in France in 1830 considered themselves liberals in a similar sense, and in Latin America until the beginning of the 20th century.

Second phase in the history of liberalism is associated with late bourgeois revolutions: from European 1848 to Russian 1905-1917. By that time, revolutionary democrats had already departed from the liberals, gravitating towards socialism, albeit utopian for the time being. Liberals of the "second call" - as a rule, representatives of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. Speaking against the "old order", for reforms or, in extreme cases, "revolution from above", they most of all feared the revolution of the people, workers and peasants. A classic example of "second wave" liberals is the Russian cadets ("People's Freedom Party"). Lenin summarized the ideal of such people's liberalism with the words: "the combination of freedom (not for the people) with bureaucracy (against the people)." In all revolutions, the liberals of that time suffered a political collapse, because they were alien to both the working people and the mass of the bourgeoisie, who preferred a more “firm” dictatorial power.

Finally, third stage in the history of the "liberal idea" - neoliberalism (approximately from the 70s of the twentieth century to the present). This is the ideology of transnational corporations that oppose the regulation of their activities by the national state (not only socialist or people's democratic, but also national capitalist). At first glance, they are "anti-state", which does not even remind the former liberals, but rather anarchists. But, looking more closely, it is easy to see that the neo-liberals are not at all against the punitive and repressive functions of the bourgeois state in relation to the people (which is exactly what caused the greatest protest of the anarchists and was often condemned even by the former liberals). Neo-liberals are in favor of curtailing the economic and especially social functions of the state, leaving behind it precisely the punitive ones. How else to impose on the majority of society a clearly anti-popular, anti-social and anti-national program?

Thus, there are significant differences between the liberals of the three “calls”, and it is a pity that in today's Russia it is customary to smear them all with the same paint (for example, in Latin America, the left rightly sees the main enemy not in “liberalism” in general, but in neoliberalism) . But they also have common features..

WHO IS A LIBERAL?

If we try to define liberalism as briefly as possible, then this is an ideology that protects the interests of private property. The focus of liberalism is not a person in general, but the owner (as if it does not matter who he is - the owner of a shop or a large corporation). The freedom he defends is the freedom of property and proprietors; political and all other freedoms, strictly speaking, can only be theirs. It is quite logical that the liberals of the first two calls provided for property qualifications for political rights: for the right to be elected - higher, for the right to vote - lower, but the proletarians and other poor people who did not have any property did not have any rights under this scheme. For example, in the “democratic” republics of Latin America in the 19th century, on average, ... 1% (one percent!) of the population enjoyed the right to vote. And this right was expanded later, under other rulers, with different views.

That is, liberalism is the ideology of private property. Accordingly, a liberal is a supporter of the supremacy of private property. In order to ward off the reproaches of those who do not understand what private property is and may be indignant that I am against personal ownership of toothbrushes and shorts, I will only say: private and personal property are fundamentally different things and personal property is not private. But this is a question that requires separate consideration.

Such an ideology has an important consequence - everything that is outside the boundaries of private property, and even more so that it can violate it, is perceived as hostile. For example, the Argentinean liberal President Bartolome Mitre, sending punishers against the rebellious Indians and semi-proletarian gauchos, called for "not sparing their blood" and "make them fertilize the fields." The people of neighboring Paraguay - the then "rogue country" with the state capitalist regime - Miter and his allies exterminated 80 percent. Is it really so different from Hitler's "Plan Ost" or from what NATO invaders are doing with Iraq, Libya, Syria ?

WHO IS A LIBERAST?

And here we move on to what a “liberalist” is. A liberalist is the most aggressive, chauvinist form of upholding and broadcasting liberalism (in our days, neoliberalism). I would say a fascist form of neoliberalism.

For liberals, a friend and brother is another owner, they consider only themselves and other owners to be worthy people. Those people who find themselves outside the property (and such, in fact, is the vast majority) are perceived as working material, as a means for property and the owner. Those liberals who consider non-owners to be second-class people, subhuman, turn out to be liberals. Liberalism, taken to its logical conclusion, to its apogee, is a form of social "racism". If in classical fascism the criterion of exclusion is belonging to one or another race, then in liberalism such a criterion is belonging (possession or non-ownership) to property (often both criteria coincide in practice - take at least “quilted jackets and Colorados” in the perception of the advocates of the “European Ukraine's Choice"). Those liberals who broadcast such views in the most aggressive form turn out to be liberals.

There are, of course, liberals and "softer". They focus on criticism of all kinds of repressions (in our case, from Lenin to Putin), bureaucratic arbitrariness, militarism, clericalism (church interference in secular affairs), and, most recently, corruption. They also criticize the anti-social measures of the authorities, sometimes scolding even "their own" ultra-liberals for such encroachments. With all this, as events in a number of countries show, they can win over a part of the working people to their side. No one is enthusiastic about repression, bureaucracy, corruption, and so on. But for some reason, from the people's support of even such "honest" liberals, this people very soon becomes not better, but worse.

THE RHETORIC OF THE LIBERALS AS A SCREEN

And no wonder. After all, all those manifestations of bureaucracy, militarism, corruption and other ulcers against which they are trying to raise the people did not fall from heaven. Can the "state in the proper sense" (F. Engels), while remaining alienated from society, be completely different? Can the people, as long as they are unable to free themselves from class exploitation, seriously control state power "from below"? And, finally, does this mean that such a “bad” state does not nevertheless perform the functions of socially necessary - primarily socio-economic, which are vitally necessary for the working people and which the neo-liberals encroach on? On reflection, it is impossible not to answer all these questions in the negative.

What follows from here? That it is not necessary to fight arbitrariness, corruption and other things? We must, of course. But in a smart way, to the best of real strength, soberly realizing that under capitalism all these evils can only be slightly reduced, but they cannot be eliminated without a revolutionary transition to a qualitatively new society. Yes, and then this is a long and difficult business. And whoever promises "in one fell swoop of seven beatings" is just a demagogue. If he combines this with the exaltation of private property, which is characteristic of even the best of liberals, in modern conditions he will only clear the way for the fascist "liberals". Whether he wants it or not.

Today, on television and in general on the Internet, many people say: “Here they are liberals, liberal-minded citizens ...” They also call modern liberals even worse: “liber @ hundred”, liberoids, etc. Why did these liberals not please everyone who hayet? What is liberalism? Now we will explain in simple words, and at the same time we will determine whether it is worth scolding modern liberals like that and for what.

History of liberalism

Liberalism is an ideology - a system of ideas about the structure of society and the state. The word itself comes from the word Libertas (lat.) - which means freedom. What does it have to do with freedom now find out.

So, imagine the harsh Middle Ages. You are a craftsman in a European medieval city: a tanner, or even a butcher. Your city is in the possession of a feudal lord: county, barony or duchy. And the city pays him rent every month for what is on his land. He wanted to, let's say the feudal lord introduce a new tax - for example, on air. And enter. And the townspeople will not go anywhere - they will pay.

Of course, there were cities that were redeemed for freedom and themselves already established more or less fair taxation. But those were extremely wealthy cities. And yours - such an average city - cannot afford such a luxury.

If your son wants to become a doctor or a priest, then it will simply be impossible. Because the state law determines the life of each estate. He can only do what you do - be a butcher. And when the tax burden ruins the city, then, probably, it will rise and overthrow the power of the feudal lord. But the royal troops, or the troops of the feudal lord, of a higher rank, will come and punish such a rebellious city.

By the end of the Middle Ages, this order of things bothered primarily the townspeople: artisans, merchants - in a word, those who really earn their hard work. And Europe was engulfed by bourgeois revolutions: when the bourgeoisie began to dictate its terms. In 1649, the revolution in England,. And what are the interests of the bourgeoisie?

Definition of liberalism

Liberalism is an ideology, the key elements of which are: the freedom of the individual, the idea of the public good, the guarantee of legal and political equality. This is what the bourgeoisie needs. Freedom: if a person wants to do business - let him do what he wants - this is his right. The main thing is that he does not harm other people and does not encroach on their freedom.

Equality is a very important idea. Of course, all people are not equal: in terms of their intelligence, perseverance, physical data. But! We are talking about equal opportunities: if a person wants to do something, no one has the right to interfere with him on the basis of racial, social or other other prejudices. Ideally, any person can break out into people, “rise” with hard work. Of course, not everyone will climb, because not everyone can and wants to work hard and hard for a long time!

Common good: means a rational structure of society. Where the state guarantees the rights and freedoms of the individual, protects this individual from all sorts of threats. The state also protects the rules of life in society: controls the observance of laws.

Another very important foundation of liberalism: idea of natural rights. This idea was developed by the English thinkers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. It consists in the fact that three rights are inherent in a person from birth: the right to life, to private property and to the pursuit of happiness.

No one has the right to take a life from a person, except perhaps the state and only by law. The right to private property was analyzed in detail. The pursuit of happiness means the same freedom of action, of course within the law.

Classical liberalism died a long time in 1929, when a crisis arose in the United States, as a result of which tens of thousands of banks went bankrupt, millions of people died of starvation, and so on. Today we are talking about neoliberalism. That is, under the influence of various factors, liberalism has changed: it has transformed into neoliberalism.

What is neoliberalism, we analyze in detail.

Why are liberals in Russia today so “bad” that everyone scolds them? The fact is that people who call themselves liberals defend not so much the ideology of liberalism as the idea that Europe and the USA are the best countries and that it is they who should be guided by: to enter the European Union, NATO, in a word, bend under the West. At the same time, if you say that you do not think it is right, they prove to you that you are not right at all. That is, they deliberately violate your right to the same freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, position.

Why do we need Europe if they have a crisis economy? After all, all crises begin in the West. Look at the countries that are members of the European Union: Greece, Romania. Romanians now go to Germany to clean German toilet bowls - they cannot work at their bus factories - they were closed due to the fact that Germany makes bus deliveries. And Greece - several years in the European Union brought this country to a financial collapse, not even a crisis - a collapse.

Looking at all this, you will inevitably think, why do we need to be in the EU? To at least destroy us, what else somehow works somewhere? Therefore, if I would call modern Russian “liberals” (those people who advocate reckless European integration) liberals, then only through quotation marks.

In conclusion, I give a common joke. To the question: “Should I go down?” the patriot answers "Who?", and the liberal "Where?" 🙂

I hope you received an exhaustive answer to the question "What is liberalism", put likes, write in the comments about all this.

Sincerely, Andrey Puchkov

from lat. liber - free) - bourgeois. ideological and social and political. a current that united supporters of the bourgeois-parliament. building and bourgeois freedom. L. was widespread among the bourgeoisie during the pre-monopoly period. capitalism. Then L. represented a more or less integral system of views, according to which social harmony and the progress of mankind are achievable only on the basis of private property by ensuring sufficient freedom of the individual in the economy and in all other spheres of humanity. activity (because the common good allegedly spontaneously develops as a result of the implementation by individuals of their personal goals), and the capitalist. system - natural and eternal. The real content of L., specific for each stage of the development of capitalism, manifested itself in the activities of the social strata united under the banner of L. (“middle classes” - the industrial-trade bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia associated with them, the bourgeois nobility, some part of the large, in including part of the monopolistic, bourgeoisie) and has undergone a complex evolution with an extreme diversity of concrete-ist. (in particular, national) forms. In a modified form (in relation to the conditions of imperialism and the general crisis of capitalism), the ideas of L. are still used by the defenders of capitalism. L. was born in the conditions of the struggle of the young progressive bourgeoisie and the bourgeois nobility against feudalism as an instrument of struggle against the feuds. constraint, arbitrariness of absolutism and spiritual oppression of the Catholic. churches; in that period, L. was the bearer of ideals (faith in progress, in the triumph of reason, peace, freedom, equality), common to all anti-feuds. camps, the implementation of which, however, was least of all possible on the basis of a specific program of L. (constitutional monarchy, liberation from the feudal shackles of only large property). The spiritual fathers of L. were representatives of the moderate wing of the rationalist educators (Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, the Physiocrats; the formula of the latter laissez-faire, laissez-passer - "do not interfere with action", became one of the most popular slogans of L.), the creators of the bourgeoisie. classical political economy (A. Smith, D. Ricardo). At the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. L. in Zap. Europe stands out in a special socio-political. flow. Approximately from 1816, the term "L.", initially extremely vague, also became widespread. In France, during the Restoration period, B. Constant, Guizot and others for the first time gave L. the character of a more or less formalized political. and historical and philosophical doctrine. From the ideological legacy of the Enlightenment, they chose only those provisions that met the everyday needs of the bourgeoisie as the ruling class: deep faith in the human. reason was replaced by admiration for the limited. bourgeois "common sense", the idea of Nar. sovereignty gave way to the demand for "freedom of the individual"; recognizing ist. legitimacy of bourgeois revolutions, French liberals refused to recognize the legitimacy of the revolution. proletarian movement. In an atmosphere of deepening contradictions, and then aggravated in the 30s. 19th century (after the revolution of 1830 in France and the parliamentary reforms of 1832 in England) of the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the working class of the bourgeois-liber. reforms carried out everywhere through the appropriation of liber. bourgeoisie results of the struggle of the working masses and compromises with the monarchist-clerical reaction, are increasingly becoming anti-flight. character; L. slogans are increasingly becoming a means of disguising the capitalist. operation. European revolutions of 1848-49 remained unfinished in the mean. degrees as a result of the betrayal of the liber. bourgeoisie. But they contributed to clearing the ground for the development of capitalism, and it was the bourgeoisie who reaped their fruits; 50-60s 19th century became the climax. period in the development of L. L. reaches its greatest flowering in the classical. country prom. capitalism - England, where its ideologists from the very beginning developed Ch. arr. economical aspects of L. In the form of the so-called. utilitarianism - the doctrine developed by I. Bentham and a group of "philosophical radicals" (Bowring, Place, James and J. S. Mill), the prosperous middle classes received, along with a carefully thought-out program of the bourgeois. reforms designed to create ideal conditions for free enterprise, the ethical "justification" is unlimited. pursuit of profit - up to usury. In the 40s. 19th century Manchester manufacturers, MPs Cobden and Bright, in the course of the struggle against the Corn Laws, gave L. a classic. form of free trade. After the abolition of the Corn Laws, in the conditions of world trade. British monopoly and the decline of Chartism L. has become the dominant form of bourgeois ideology. Liber. the party led by Palmerston and Gladstone gained predominance in the political. life in England. L. subordinates to his ideological and political. influence means. part of the petty bourgeoisie and skilled workers united in trade unions. Political the dominance of the liberals led to increased social contrasts. With all this, compared with the feud. arbitrariness and constraint, the victory of free enterprise, the approval of the bourgeoisie. law enforcement have historically progressed. deed, met the needs of development produces. forces, contributed to the numerical and spiritual growth of the working class, opened up certain legal opportunities for its organization, for the spread of socialist. ideology and its connection with the labor movement. The later this country embarked on the path of bourgeois. transformation, the more developed the proletariat was in it by that time, the faster the cowardice and counter-revolutionary nature of the liberals were revealed. the bourgeoisie, its tendency to compromise with the reaction (for example, in Germany, Italy and a number of other countries). Having strengthened the bourgeois parliamentarism and free competition, L. has historically exhausted itself as the dominant (or most influential) bourgeois. socio-political flow. All his worldview came into clear conflict with the real picture of the development of capitalist. society, because under imperialism "... some of the basic properties of capitalism began to turn into their opposite ..." (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 22, p. 252). L. in the East arose in the 2nd half. 19 - beg. 20th century (China, Japan, India, Turkey) and from the very beginning, due to the connection of the local bourgeoisie with landownership, its progressive features were extremely limited; the demands of the liberals concerned Ch. arr. ext. modernization of the state apparatus, the creation of modern. army, navy, communications. In the last third of 19 - beg. 20th century the old, "classical" L. of the period of industrial capitalism is falling into decay, the adaptation of L. to new conditions begins. L. becomes primarily a means of distracting the masses from the revolution. struggle with the help of negligible. concessions to workers. Such is the activity of Lloyd George in England, Giolitti in Italy, and W. Wilson in the USA. Experienced Lebanese leaders (in England, France, and a number of other countries) directed the preparations for World War I and the military. offices, post-war. redistribution of the world, anti-Sov. intervention, suppression of the revolution. movements, introducing into all this, as V. I. Lenin noted, the methods of social demagogy and maneuvering developed over decades. Thus, the role of one of the original tools of the ruling imperialist movement, which had become fixed for L. in the conditions of the general crisis of capitalism, was revealed. bourgeoisie. Certain aspects of the practice of L. in the social question, especially in the part of it relating to the working class, were perceived by right-wing socialists. As the political influence of the working class L. gradually descends from the East. scenes, its functions are transferred to reformism. After the 1st World War and Vel. Oct. socialist. revolution, which opened a new era in the history of mankind, the crisis of L. sharply aggravated and deepened. L. began to experience a painful reassessment of values (above all, a crisis of faith in the salvation and infallibility of bourgeois individualism from the point of view of the interests of the bourgeoisie itself). Based on L. various concepts of the "third way" of the development of society arose, allegedly providing a combination of the interests of the individual and society, "freedom" and "order" on the basis of private property. So, in the period between the 1st and 2nd World Wars, attempts based on Keynes's theory to combine the "regulation" of the economy with social legislation (pensions, benefits for the unemployed, etc.) became widespread; these attempts were presented bourgeois. propaganda as a way to avoid both fascism and communism. Although the anti-communism of the liberals, as a rule, led either to capitulation to fascism, or to a policy of appeasement, which was tragic. consequences, liberal. the concepts of the period between the 1st and 2nd world wars are sometimes regarded by the monopolies as "too leftist", "pro-communist". Along with Keynesianism, after the 2nd World War, neoliberalism became widespread in the FRG, England, France, the USA, and Italy. Its center is in the Federal Republic of Germany (Eiken, Ryustov and others). Neo-liberals oppose "excessive" state intervention in the economy, arguing that with enough room for competition, a "social market economy" is formed, which allegedly provides general welfare. Lit .: Lenin V.I., Liberalism and Democracy, Soch., 4th ed., Vol. 17; his, Two Utopias, ibid., vol. 18; his, On the Liberal and Marxist Concept of the Class Struggle, ibid., vol. 19; Was ist liberal?, Mönch., 1910; Ruggiere G. de, Storia del liberalismo europeo, Mil., 1962; Samuel H., Liberalism, L., 1960 (Russian translation - Samuel G., Liberalism, M., 1906); Saunders J., The age of revolution. The rise and decline of liberalism in Europe since 1815, N. Y., 1949; The liberal tradition from Fox to Keynes, L., 1956. I. N. Nemanov. Smolensk. Liberalism in Russia is bourgeois in its objective content, ideological, and then political. course, the social base of which was made up of landlords, moving to the capitalist. methods of management, the middle bourgeoisie, the nobility and the bourgeoisie. intelligentsia. The origin of the first rudimentary ideas of noble L. refers to the 60s. 18th century - early 19th century In the 40s. 19th century began the process of registration L. as a special ideological and political. currents and dissociation of it from the democratic. trends. Development of capitalism, class. the interests of the growing bourgeoisie inevitably gave rise to L. and his opposition to autocracy and serfdom. The progressiveness of L. was determined by the objective conditions of the necessity of the bourgeois. transformation of societies. and Mrs. building Russia. Since the era of the first revolution. situation and the fall of serfdom in 1861 until Feb. revolution of 1917 there was a struggle between the two East. tendencies - liberal and democratic - on the fundamental question of the type of bourgeois. development of Russia. L., expressing the interests of the growing bourgeoisie, acted as the bearer of the reformist tendency and the landowner-bourgeois. evolution of the Prussian type. Democracy, representing the interests of the peasantry, fought for the revolution. the destruction of all feud.-serf. institutions and vestiges. Political the program and reformist tactics of L., reflecting the striving of the bourgeoisie to eliminate class privileges, the constitution. the transformation of absolutism, the establishment of the legal system, the advancement to power, at the same time testified to its political. flabbiness, a tendency to compromise with the forces of the feud. reaction, fear of revolution. L., keeping the main. features of its ideology, programs and tactics, evolved depending on two factors: the strength of the revolutionary. movements, degrees bourgeois. the evolution of absolutism and the character of governments. policy, acquiring a definition. features on each ist. stage. Main The trend in the evolution of Lithuania was a steadily decreasing, historically and class-limited progressiveness and an invariably growing anti-people and counter-revolutionary spirit. The nodal points of the evolution of L. became revolutionary. situation at the turn of the 1950s and 1960s. 19th century, first Russian. revolution 1905-07, Feb. revolution of 1917 and the victory of Oct. revolution of 1917. The period of decomposition and crisis of the feudal-serf. building (2nd half of the 18th century - mid-19th century), the first, noble period (1825-61) will free. movement was the time of the birth and formation of L. Ideas of progress. enlightenment, criticism of serfdom and autocracy, projects to limit absolutism in the 2nd half. 18th century (S. E. Desnitsky, A. Ya. Polenov, N. I. Novikov, F. V. Krechetov and others) expressed the urgent tasks of the bourgeois. transformation of Russia. In the era of Decembrism, liber. and democratic. trends evolved as shades loosened. movement in general revolutionary. channel. In ist. genesis L. and bourgeois. Democracy Age of Enlightenment 18th century and Decembrism constitutes, therefore, prehistory. In the 30-40s. 19th century, when the definition is formed. maturity of social relations capitalist. type, and the task of eliminating serfdom and bourgeois. transformations become radical and practical. question of the whole Russian societies. life, the demarcation of L. and democracy is planned. The emerging L. found its expression in the views of the so-called. Westerners (K. D. Kavelin, V. P. Botkin, T. N. Granovsky, P. V. Annenkov and others) and, in a peculiar form, some Slavophiles. It still existed within the framework of the general antifeod. camp, opposing the reactionary-serf. ideology. However, already at that time, the first differences between the liberals and the democrats were outlined and gradually intensified. Aggravation of the socio-political. antagonisms in the conditions of revolution. situation at the turn of the 50s and 60s. 19th century led to political polarization. forces, to the design of L., his ideology, program and tactics. In societies. the rise of this period determined. liber played a role. movement. In handwritten literature, projects, journalism (magazine Otechestvennye zapiski, Rus. vestnik, Atheney) ideologists L. (Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin, I. K. Babst, A. M. Unkovsky etc.) put forward a program of reforms carried out by the government, while maintaining landownership and the monarchy (the release of peasants with land for ransom, the abolition of estate privileges, glasnost, the creation of representative institutions). The process of L.'s separation from democracy was reflected in the liberals' break with Kolokol and Sovremennik; fight against L. revolution. camps headed by N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov. Reforms of the 60-70s 19th century, fear of people. revolution, hostility to the revolution. democrats (approval of the arrests in 1862 of Chernyshevsky, H. A. Serno-Solov'evich, and others), the explosion of chauvinism in connection with the Polish will liberate. The uprising of 1863–64 determined the turn of Latvia towards reaction, which made it possible for tsarism to weaken the anti-government. camp and beat off the revolution. onslaught. 2nd revolutionary situation in con. 70 - early 80s 19th century became a new stage in the development of L., to-ry, as before, remained within the framework of legal opposition to the autocracy, capable only of constitutions. "impulses" and a fruitless targeted campaign (see the Zemstvo movement). In the addresses of zemstvos and mountains. institutions, in speeches liber. presses ("Golos", "Molva", "Order", "Zemstvo", "Bulletin of Europe", etc.) put forward half-hearted measures both in the field of agrarian relations (resettlement of peasants, reduction of redemption payments, transformation of the tax system, etc.), and in the issue of state. system (the reform of the State Council, the involvement of representatives from the zemstvos in law-consultative activities), which did not affect the foundations of autocracy. The program and tactics of L. created favorable conditions for maneuvering the pr-va, facilitating, ultimately, in the beginning. 80s the victory of the reaction. On the second, bourgeois-democratic. stage will free. L.'s movements finally took shape and took shape in a definition. camp, which took the position of monarchic. center in the political grouping. forces. At this time, and the further, the stronger, the reactionary nature of L. "... was manifested in comparison with the revolutionary element of bourgeois democracy. .." (Lenin V.I., Soch., vol. 10, p. 431), his inability to independent progressive historical action. With the entry of Russia into the era of imperialism, the strengthening of the economic power of the bourgeoisie and the beginning of the span. movement, with the transformation of the working class into a center of attraction for democratic forces and the formation of the Social-Democrats, the process of activation of Leningrad, the gradual political and organizational consolidation of its groupings, and the intensification of the struggle for influence over the peasantry take place. , from the 1940s to the early 20th century, did not create its own org-tions, although it had material means and personnel for this. and the peasantry, the formation of political orgs of Leningrad began. in 1901 and 1902 congresses of zemstvo activists were held, in 1902 zemstvos in alliance with the bourgeois. intellectuals founded a journal in Stuttgart. "Liberation" ed. Struve. In the summer and autumn of 1903, the Union of Liberation and the Union of Zemstvo-Constitutionalists were created. The program documents of L. carried out the idea of "representation of the people" within the framework of the constitutional monarchy. building and increasing peasant allotments while maintaining landownership. L., fearing the growing people's revolution, sought to win hegemony in the liberation movement, demagogically acting as a carrier of national interests, and tried to switch the development of events to a reformist path. The first Russian The revolution of 1905-07 marked a turning point in the evolution of L. It "...remarkably quickly exposed liberalism and showed in practice its counter-revolutionary nature" (ibid., vol. 13, p. 100). L. in the conditions of the upward development of the revolution from Jan. until Dec. 1905 and the growing disorganization of the pr-va showed a sign. political activity, tried to maneuver between tsarism and revolution. people, to transfer development to the constitution. a way to bargain for reforms beneficial to the bourgeoisie. Such is the meaning of the appeal to the people of the July (1905) zemstvo-city congress, the decision of Sept. congress, L.'s tactics in relation to the Bulygin Duma, by October. strike of 1905. After the manifesto of 17 Oct. In 1905, the top bourgeoisie united in the "Union of October 17", and the "Union of Liberation" and the "Union of Zemstvo-Constitutionalists" created the Constitutional Democratic Party (Kadets) - the main. party L. Counterrevolutionary. character L. openly manifested itself in relation to Dec. armed uprising of 1905. Revolutionary. L. opposed the methods of struggle parliamentary, peaceful methods of "organic" work in the Duma. In the interrevolutionary period L. played an important role in the third June system as Ch. opposition parties, to-heaven propaganda of the constitutions. illusions and reforms, his loyal parl. tactics facilitated the carrying out of the Stolypin Bonapartist agrarian. and Duma politics. L. acted as an active force in the political. and ideological. reactions, which found expression in Sat. "Milestones" (1909). L. was not able to fight for the victory of the bourgeoisie. revolution, but the incompleteness of the capitalist. evolution kept the base for its oppositions. speeches against the feudal lords, absolutism. On the eve and during World War I, L. preached the ideas of the bourgeoisie. nationalism and pan-Slavism, ideologically substantiating the imperialist. Russian interests. bourgeoisie, participated in the mobilization of all forces for the needs of the imperialist. war. The defeat of the royal troops, households. devastation, the growth of the revolution. movements, the disorganization of the pr-va, unable to wage war to victory, the strengthening of the influence of the court camarilla forced L. to take the path of opposition to the autocracy and take the initiative to create in August. 1915 in the 4th Duma, the so-called. "progressive bloc". Victory Feb. The revolution of 1917 marked the beginning of the last stage in the history of L. Lieber. parties seized power and became governments. parties striving for the autocracy of the bourgeoisie, for the continuation of the war, for the defeat of the Soviets and the Bolshevik Party. The Kadet Party united around itself all the forces of the bourgeois-landlord-general counter-revolution, which was especially clearly manifested in the Kornilov revolt (see Kornilovshchina). Oct. the revolution led L. to the ideological and political. collapse. The bourgeoisie, including means. part liber. intelligentsia, responded with sabotage and counter-revolution. performances on the establishment of the Soviet. authorities. During the years of civil war L., united with other forces of the counter-revolution, with the help of the intervention of the international. imperialism, tried to destroy the Sov. power. Many Lebanese figures (Struve, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, and others) took an active part in the White Guard. pr-wah, and after civil. wars became the ideologists and organizers of the anti-Sovs. struggle in exile. Liberal-bourgeois. party open participation in the armament. fight against the Soviets. authorities placed themselves outside the framework of owls. legality and owls. democracy. A peculiar manifestation of the ideology of L. in the conditions of the first years of the NEP was the so-called. the Smenovekhov movement, which strove for the restoration of capitalism "from within" the owls. building, based on its internal. rebirth. L. throughout its history was not in the program-tactical. relation to a single and homogeneous movement. In its line with ser. 19th century to early 20th century there were various currents that reflected the interests of certain sections of the bourgeoisie. Since 1905, the process of desks began. design of various directions of L. Some desks. The groupings that arose in 1905 (the Party of Legal Order, the Progressive-Economic Party, and others) did not last long, and the Lebanese factions were soon distributed among the Octobrists, Progressives, and Cadets. The histories of these parties, primarily the Cadet one, constitute in their totality the history of the Rus. L. in the period 1905-17, With all interparty. and intrapart. disagreements (criticism by Milyukov of the authors of "Vekhi" for self-disclosure dangerous for L., Maklakov's accusation of flirting with democracy and a discussion between them on tactical questions, etc.), all parties and trends of L. were united by fear of the revolution. victory of the people, the desire for a compromise with the absolutist-feudal. reaction, active participation in the struggle against democratic. and socialist. revolution. If there is a specific features of these same beings. features were characteristic of L. in nat. district The scope and maturity of L. were determined by the level of socio-political. development of national district. In con. 19 - beg. 20th century in Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus, and a number of other districts, liberal-nationalist sects took shape. parties and groupings of the local bourgeoisie (the National Democratic Party in Poland, the Ukrainian Democratic Party, the Byelorussian community, Jadidism in Central Asia, Musavatists in Transcaucasia, etc.). They were in opposition to tsarism and sought to achieve self-government and equal rights with the Russian. bourgeoisie. Under the conditions of imperialism and the expansion of nat.-liberate. the struggle of the peoples of the bourgeois-nationalist. L. is losing progress. traits. His dual policy was reduced to attempts to obtain concessions from tsarism and with the help of nationalist. demagoguery to distract the workers from the socio-political. struggle, split their alliance with the Rus. the proletariat. After Oct. liberal-nationalist revolution. parties are included in the common front of the counter-revolution and are actively fighting against the Soviets. authorities. In the ideology, program, tactics and organization of L. in Russia, his main ones were manifested. traits and features: a relatively late separation from democracy and a quick turn to counter-revolution, that is. the specific weight of the noble element, activity within the framework of the legal opposition and the later formation of parties. groupings, fear of revolution, a tendency to compromise with the forces of the feud. reactions. These features of L. had their origins in the weakness and non-revolutionary nature of the Russian. bourgeoisie, in regards. strength and survivability of the remnants of the feud. antiquity. They intensified with the growth of the class. struggle, with the performance of the proletariat, which pushed back L. and became the hegemon of all democratic. forces. Revolutionary. democracy exposed L. and his conciliatory policy. This line is in the span. free. the movement was continued and enriched by the Bolshevik Party. V. I. Lenin gave scientific. analysis ist. evolution of L., its ideology, programs and tactics, revealing the commonality of the most significant features of L. of various periods. Assessment of L., his social and political. role was one of the most important points of disagreement between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Lenin's doctrine of the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeoisie. revolution and the struggle of Bolshevism for its implementation undermined the influence of L. and his opportunist. allies in the labor movement - the Mensheviks. The struggle of the Bolsheviks against Lithuania was a necessary condition for the revolution. and democratic. education of the working masses, preparing them for the struggle under the arms. proletariat for a new, democratic and socialist. Russia. L. tried ist. concepts to substantiate their program and tactics. Liber. historiography (Milyukov, Struve, P. G. Vinogradov, and others), based on the reactionary-idealistic. theory, portrayed political. the history of Russia as the history of the consistent development of the reformist activity of the autocracy and the growing progressiveness of Leningrad, while ignoring the decisive role of the class. struggle. Leninist Criticism of Liber. historiography played a big role in exposing the ideology of L. Oct. The revolution of 1917 meant not only the collapse of the ideology, program and tactics of Lithuania, but also revealed the complete failure of its historical and political. doctrines. Lit .: Lenin V.I., Persecutors of the Zemstvo and Annibals of Liberalism, Soch., 4th ed., Vol. 5; his, Two Tactics of Social Democracy in Democratic. revolutions, ibid., vol. 9; his same, Experience in the classification of Russian. political parties, ibid., vol. 11; his, Concerning the Jubilee, ibid., vol. 17; his own, the "Peasant Reform" and the proletarian-cross. revolution, ibid.; his own, In memory of Herzen, ibid., vol. 18; his own, Politich. parties in Russia, ibid.; his, On the liberal and Marxist concept of class. struggle, ibid., v. 19. See also Reference volume, part 1, p. 307-11. Belokonsky I., Zemstvo and constitution, M., 1910; Bogucharsky V., From the history of political. wrestling in the 70s. and 80s. 19th century Party "People's Will", its origin, fate and death, M., 1912; Veselovsky B., History of the Zemstvo for forty years, vol. 1-4, St. Petersburg, 1911; Glinsky B: The struggle for the constitution. 1612-1862, St. Petersburg, 1908; Jordan N., Konstituts. movement of the 60s, St. Petersburg, 1906; his, Zemsky liberalism, 2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1906; Karyshev N. Zemsky solicitations. 1865-1884, Moscow. 1900; Kornilov A., Society. movement under Alexander II, M., 1909; his own, Course in the history of Russia in the 19th century, 2nd ed., part 3, M., 1918; Lemke M., Essays will release. movements of the "sixties", St. Petersburg, 1908; Martov Yu., Society. and mental currents in Russia, 1870-1905, L.-M., 1924; Plekhanov G., Unsuccessful history of the party "Narodnaya Volya", Works, vol. 24; Svatikov S., Society. movement in Russia, Rostov n / D., 1905; Yakushkin V., State. power and state projects. reforms in Russia, St. Petersburg, 1906. Berlin, P., Rus. bourgeoisie in old and new times, M., 1922; Druzhinin N., Decembrist Nikita Muravyov, M., 1933; his own, Mosk. nobility and the reform of 1861, "IAN USSR. A series of history and philosophy", 1948, vol. 5, K "1; Nechkina M. V., Movement of the Decembrists, vol. 1-2, M., 1955; Rosenthal V. N., Ideological centers of the liberal movement in Russia on the eve of the revolutionary situation, in: Revolutionary situation in Russia in 1859-1861, M., 1963; Sladkevich N., Opposition movement of the nobility in the years of the revolutionary situation, there same, M., 1962; Usakina T., Herzen's article "Very dangerous!!!" and the controversy around "accusatory literature" in journalism 1857-1861, M., 1960; Fedosov I., Revolutionary movement in Russia during second quarter of the 19th century, M., 1958; Kheifets M., The second revolutionary situation in Russia, M., 1963; Zayonchkovsky P., Abolition of serfdom in Russia, M., 1954; Kozmin V., From the history of Russian of the illegal press, Common cause newspaper, in the book: Ist. sb., vol. 3, L., 1934; ., 1958; Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR, vol. 1, M., 1955, ch. 8; vol. 2, M., 1960, ch. 2-3; vol. 3, M., 1963, ch. 1, 4, 5; Pokrovsky M. H., Essays on the history of the revolution. movements in Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries, 2nd ed., M., 1927; Chermensky E., Bourgeoisie and tsarism in the revolution of 1905-1907, M.-L., 1939; his, Feb. bourgeois-democratic. revolution of 1917 in Russia, M., 1959. See also lit. to the articles "Legal Marxism", "Zemskoye Movement", "Constitutional-Democratic Party "Progressive Bloc"" and others. MI Kheifets. Moscow.

Liberalism- this is where the principle of limited intervention in social relations is implemented.

The liberal content of social relations is manifested in the presence of a system of checks against the pressure of political authorities, designed to guarantee the freedom of the individual and ensure the protection of the rights of citizens. The basis of the system is private enterprise, organized on market principles.

The combination of liberal and democratic principles of public relations makes it possible to single out a political system called " liberal democracy". Modern Western political scientists believe that this concept denotes an ideal that has not yet been realized, therefore they propose to designate the regimes of democratically developed countries with the term “Western polyarchy” (the rule of many). In other political systems, liberal authoritarian mode. In principle, we are talking only about a greater or lesser degree of manifestation in all political systems.

Liberalism and neoliberalism

As an independent ideological trend (worldview), liberalism arose at the end of the 17th century. thanks to the work of such scientists as J. Locke, III. Montesquieu, J. Mill, A. Smith and others. The fundamental ideas and principles of classical liberalism were formulated in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789 and the French Constitution of 1791. The very concept of “liberalism” entered the socio-political lexicon at the beginning of the XIX V. In the Spanish Parliament (Cortes), "liberals" were a group of deputies of nationalist legates. Liberalism as an ideology was finally formed by the middle of the 19th century.

The liberal ideology is based on the concept of the priority of personal rights and freedoms over all others (society, state). At the same time, of all freedoms, preference is given to economic freedoms (freedom of entrepreneurship, priority of private property).

The fundamental features of liberalism are:

individual freedom;
respect and observance of human rights;
freedom of private ownership and enterprise;
the priority of equality of opportunity over social equality;
legal equality of citizens;
contractual system of state formation (separation of the state from civil society);
separation of powers, the idea of free elections of all institutions of power;
government interference in private life.

However, following the classical model of liberal ideology led to the polarization of society. Unrestricted liberalism in economics and politics did not ensure social harmony and justice. Free, unrestricted competition contributed to the absorption of the weak by stronger competitors. Monopolies dominated all sectors of the economy. A similar situation developed in politics. The ideas of liberalism began to experience a crisis. Some researchers even began to talk about the "decline" of liberal ideas.

As a result of lengthy discussions and theoretical searches in the first half of the 20th century. certain basic principles of classical liberalism were revised and an updated concept of "social liberalism" was developed - neoliberalism.

The neoliberal program was based on such ideas as:

consensus of the rulers and the ruled;
the need for the participation of the masses in the political process;
democratization of the procedure for making political decisions (the principle of "political justice");
limited state regulation of the economic and social spheres;
state restriction of the activities of monopolies;
guarantees of certain (limited) social rights (the right to work, to education, to benefits in old age, etc.).

In addition, neoliberalism presupposes the protection of the individual from the abuses and negative consequences of the market system.

The core values of neoliberalism were borrowed by other ideological currents. It attracts by the fact that it serves as the ideological basis of the legal equality of individuals and the rule of law.

liberals- representatives of the ideological and socio-political movement, uniting supporters of representative government and individual freedom, and in the economy - freedom of entrepreneurship.

general information

Liberalism originated in Western Europe during the era of the struggle against absolutism and the domination of the Catholic Church (16-18 centuries). The basis of the ideology was laid during the period of the European Enlightenment (J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, Voltaire). Physiocratic economists formulated the popular slogan do not interfere with action, expressing the idea of non-intervention of the state in the economy. The justification for this principle was given by the English economists A. Smith and D. Ricardo. In the 18-19 centuries. the social environment of the liberals were predominantly bourgeois strata. Radical liberals associated with democracy played an important role in the American Revolution (embodied in the US Constitution of 1787). In the 19th–20th centuries the main provisions of liberalism were formed: civil society, individual rights and freedoms, the rule of law, democratic political institutions, freedom of private enterprise and trade.

Principles of liberalism

The essential features of liberalism are determined by the etymology of the word itself (lat. Liberaly - free).

The main principles of liberalism are in the political sphere:

freedom of the individual, the priority of the individual in relation to the state, the recognition of the right of all people to self-realization. It should be noted that in the ideology of liberalism, individual freedom coincides with political freedom and "natural rights" of a person, the most important of which are the right to life, liberty and private property;
limiting the sphere of activity of the state; protection of private life - primarily from the arbitrariness of the state; “the curbing of the state with the help of a constitution that guarantees the freedom of action of the individual within the framework of the law;
the principle of political pluralism, freedom of thought, speech, beliefs.
delimitation of the sphere of activity of the state and civil society, non-interference of the former in the affairs of the latter;
in the economic sphere - freedom of individual and group entrepreneurial activity, self-regulation of the economy according to the laws of competition and the free market, non-interference of the state in the economic sphere, inviolability of private property;
in the spiritual sphere - freedom of conscience, i.e. the right of citizens to profess (or not to profess) any religion, the right to formulate their moral duties, etc.

Success and development of the direction

In its completed classical form, liberalism established itself in the state system of Great Britain, the USA, France and a number of other European states in the second half of the 19th century. But already in the late XIX - early XX centuries. a decline in the influence of liberal ideology is revealed, which developed into a crisis that lasted until the 30s of the 20th century, which was associated with the new socio-political realities of this period.

On the one hand, free competition left without state control led to the self-liquidation of the market economy as a result of the concentration of production and the formation of monopolies, ruined small and medium-sized enterprises; on the other hand, unlimited ownership caused a powerful labor movement, economic and political upheavals, especially manifested in the late 20 x - early 30s. 20th century All this forced us to reconsider a number of liberal attitudes and value orientations.

Thus, within the framework of classical liberalism, neoliberalism is being formed, the origin of which many scientists associate with the activities of the American President F. D. Roosevelt (1933-1945). The rethinking concerned primarily the economic and social role of the state. The new form of liberalism is based on the ideas of the English economist D. Keynes.

neoliberalism

The neoliberal program was based on such ideas as:

consensus of the rulers and the ruled;
the need for the participation of the masses in the political process;
democratization of the procedure for making political decisions (the principle of "political justice");
limited state regulation of the economic and social spheres;
state restriction of the activities of monopolies;
guarantees of certain (limited) social rights (the right to work, to education, to benefits in old age, etc.).

In addition, neoliberalism presupposes the protection of the individual from the abuses and negative consequences of the market system. The core values of neoliberalism were borrowed by other ideological currents. It attracts by the fact that it serves as the ideological basis of the legal equality of individuals and the rule of law.

Forms

classical liberalism

Liberalism is the most widespread ideological trend that was formed at the end of the 17th-18th centuries. as the ideology of the bourgeois class. John Locke (1632–1704), an English philosopher, is considered the founder of classical liberalism. He was the first to clearly separate such concepts as the individual, society, state, singled out the legislative and executive powers. The political theory of Locke, set forth in the "Two Treatises on State Government", is directed against patriarchal absolutism and considers the socio-political process as the development of human community from the state of nature to civil society and self-government.

The main goal of the government from his point of view is to protect the right of citizens to life, liberty and property, and in order to reliably ensure natural rights, equality and freedom, people agree to establish a state. Locke formulated the idea of the rule of law, arguing that absolutely any body in the state must obey the law. In his opinion, the legislative power in the state should be separated from the executive (including the judiciary and external relations), and the government itself should also strictly obey the law.

Social liberalism and conservative liberalism

At the end of XIX - beginning of XX century. representatives of liberal trends began to feel the crisis of the ideas of classical liberalism, associated with the aggravation of social contradictions and the spread of socialist ideas. Under these conditions, new trends in liberalism appeared - "social liberalism" and "conservative liberalism". In “social liberalism”, the main ideas were that the state had social functions, and it was responsible for providing for the most disadvantaged sections of society. "Conservative liberalism", on the contrary, rejected any social activity of the state. Under the influence of the further development of social processes, the internal evolution of liberalism took place, and in the 30s of the 20th century, neoliberalism was born. Researchers attribute the beginning of neoliberalism to the "New Deal" of the American president.

Political liberalism

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

economic liberalism

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

cultural liberalism

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

Third generation liberalism

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

Outcome

All of the above forms of liberalism assume that there must be a balance between the responsibilities of government and individuals, and that the function of the state should be limited to those tasks that cannot be properly performed by the private sector. All forms of liberalism are aimed at legislative protection of human dignity and personal autonomy, and all claim that the abolition of restrictions on individual activity contributes to the improvement of society. Modern liberalism in most developed countries is a mixture of all these forms. In third world countries, "third generation liberalism" often comes to the fore - a movement for a healthy environment and against colonialism. Liberalism as a political and legal doctrine is based on the idea of the absolute value and self-sufficiency of the individual. According to the liberal concept, it is not society that precedes and socializes individuals, but independent individuals create society itself in accordance with their own will and reason - all social, including political and legal institutions.

Liberalism in modern Russia

Liberalism is more or less common in all modern developed countries. However, in modern Russia, the term has acquired a significant negative connotation, since liberalism is often understood as the destructive economic and political reforms carried out under the rule of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, a high level of chaos and corruption, covered up by orientation towards Western countries. In this interpretation, liberalism is widely criticized because of the fear of further destruction of the country and the loss of its independence. Modern liberalization often leads to a reduction in social protection, and “price liberalization” is a euphemism for “raising prices”.

Fans of the West (“creative class”) are usually considered radical liberals in Russia, including in their ranks very specific personalities (Valeriya Novodvorskaya, Pavel Shekhtman, etc.) who hate Russia and the USSR as such, for example, comparing them with Nazi Germany, and Stalin and Putin - with Hitler, deifying the United States. Well-known resources of this kind: Echo of Moscow, The New Times, Ej, etc. The opposition, which held mass protests against the Russian authorities in 2011-2012, designated itself as liberal. because of disagreement with the nomination and election of Putin for a third term. But it is interesting that at the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin, for example, called himself a liberal, liberal reforms were proclaimed by Dmitry Medvedev when he was president of Russia.