Liberals. Who are liberals and what do we know about them Who is a liberal definition

Liberal values: personal freedom, private property and unalienable rights.

Liberals, foaming at the mouth, argue that the entire legacy of the communist regime should be forgotten forever and immediately - and then everything will work out for us. This is something like the Ukrainian nationalists: if we get rid of everything Muscovite, we will immediately become a civilized Europe. The logic is absolutely identical.

If you listen to the words of serious analysts, then from their conclusions it follows that the Soviet system was a continuation of traditional society.

Our country lived in a traditional social way from the day it was founded until 1991. She lived according to very clear moral and ideological concepts that were passed down from generation to generation - and in general, with the exception of short periods, she lived stably. There was a coordinate system, there was a goal vector, a clear value system, there was a moral and philosophical foundation.

The majority of the population did not experience any fundamental failures in essential concepts: what is good and evil; what is true and what is false; what is possible and what is unacceptable. But since 1991, our concepts began to be intensively replaced, as a result of which society was divided into three large groups: those who happily accepted the “new”; those who do not want to accept him in any way; and a huge mass of confused people who simply do not know what patterns to use to build their lives.

What is the most important thing in a person, an individual, a personality. Let's compare the liberal and traditional points of view. Let's start with the liberals.

What, what values, are the most important in a person according to the “wisest of the wise”? Every schoolchild now knows them: personal freedom, private property and inalienable rights. At first glance, the concepts are attractive and cannot conceal anything dangerous. In fact, these are three bombs planted under the foundation of society.

The danger of the concept of “private property” is that it focuses a person’s attention and life goals on the material and individual. It kills the spiritual and creative in him. He exalts his own, personal over the general. A person turns into a kind of rodent, whose main task is to carry and carry more grain into his hole. Compete with other rodents, defend their reserves. And nothing more is required from a person.

Human rights - what could be wrong with that? How about without rights? So, did people really have no rights before the liberals? But now about something else.

The danger is that here, as in the case of private property, the fundamental law of philosophy on the unity of opposites is violated. If laws on private property are passed, laws on public property should be passed immediately. And also about spiritual interests as opposed to material ones.

If individual rights are proclaimed as the main value, then the responsibilities of the individual should be proclaimed as an equally important value. One balances the other and one is impossible without the other. However, the Declaration of Rights was adopted at the UN, but they forgot about the Declaration of Responsibilities! And this “forgetfulness” led to juvenile justice, gay pride parades, same-sex marriages, family breakdown, and the replacement of indigenous peoples of the same Europe (with Russia, by the way!) by emigrants from Asia and Africa. And what will happen next?

It's the same with freedom. It is impossible without necessity. But they “forgot” about the need. And what happened? Remember the early 90s in our country, when bandits, oligarchs and other scumbags, along with everyone else, were granted freedom? Many are no longer able to remember this, since “free citizens” sent them to the next world.

Throughout the 90s, demagogues rushed around with freedom like a white bag, poking it where it was needed and not needed, but in the end they themselves got confused and fooled people’s heads. And here everything is very simple! To feel with your own skin the role of freedom and necessity in our lives, it is enough to get behind the wheel of a car and drive around the city. As soon as I started, there was a sign, followed by another, and so on all the way. And there are traffic cops everywhere! That's the whole philosophy of freedom! I assure you that in life everything is exactly the same as on the roads.

There has always been a correct and clear concept of “degree of freedom”. It is even in mathematics. But this was not enough for the liberals; give them freedom in all its immense breadth. The practical result of such freedom is quite sad. Opinion polls say that a large percentage of the population of our country wants less freedom and more order.

Liberals have set themselves a very ignoble goal - to turn all the traditional truths by which humanity has existed for thousands of years inside out. Each person, according to their obsessive propaganda, should have his own opinion, his own truth, his own truth, his own good and evil. By themselves, these concepts are nothing.

The man was left to his own devices, simply abandoned. He is surrounded by only competitors, friends and comrades who are not in use. And what can he do with his competitors? Just fight for a place in the sun. But at the same time maintaining tolerance, political correctness and respecting other people’s opinions.

The discussed basic liberal values, divorced from the opposites that constrain them, turn into the most dangerous social phenomena, like leprosy, destroying society from the inside. By declaring private interests to be priority over public ones, liberals derailed the locomotive of society. Strictly speaking, society no longer exists; if anything remains of it, it is solely thanks to the remnants of traditional common sense and morality.

Society is divided into separate individuals-atoms, less and less connected with each other. There is an implementation of the ancient principle of conquerors: divide and conquer! And on a global scale. For whom did the liberals try so hard to divide everyone? It's worth thinking about.

Now about the main thing in a person from the perspective of traditional society.

Traditional society proclaims itself (society as such) to be the most important value. Because it has long been known that man is a social being and cannot live in a society other than his own kind.

It follows from this that it is necessary to take care of the integrity and health of society. And this concern falls on the shoulders not only of the authorities, but also of all members of society. An individual is a part of society, obligated to look after the public interest, just as in a family its members take care of each other.

Liberals will say that the above statement is nothing more than the doctrine of a totalitarian state: fascist, Bolshevik, etc. And it will be a lie. The stated understanding has always existed among humanity, starting with the primitive communal (pay attention to the second word!) system. And moreover, the same is true in animal communities.

Scientists have proven that the most effective communities are bee colonies and anthills. The human community is far from them, with all its techniques and technologies. And all thanks to the perfect organization of insect communities, where everyone is in their place and doing a common job.

The validity of what has been said is also proven by systems theory. According to her conclusions, the community is a higher level of organization compared to the individuals within it. And therefore, a more important value. Therefore, the interests of society take priority over the interests of the individual. And the value of an individual directly depends on its importance for society.

But isn’t this an infringement of individual rights and freedoms? Maybe the liberals are right? After all, a person placed in such dependence loses a lot. Here again we should turn to the laws of philosophy: when we lose something, we gain something else.

On the one hand, we are burdened with duties and responsibilities, but on the other hand, a sense of belonging to the common is added, that I am with everyone and everything is with me. Our lives gain clear meaning and perspective. We always have support under our feet. We know how to raise our children. We have a real reason to respect ourselves, and others respect us.

What is happening in the most prosperous countries of liberal Europe? There, the number of suicides among young people, teenagers and even children is growing sharply. Why do they have everything?! (By “everything” we mean rights, property and freedom!). Not everything! They do not have the main thing - what is mentioned in the previous paragraph.

The most valuable thing in a person is his contribution to society. Or even into the noosphere (this is the case with large-scale personalities). And in traditional society, thinkers, scientists, inventors, writers, artists, composers, and travelers have always been valued above all others. And also social activists, philanthropists, enthusiasts. They were given special honors, including by monarchs and even dictators and tyrants.

Why is this the main thing in a person? Because these are the people who move civilization. In addition, if someone still did not know, the godlikeness of man, often mentioned in speeches and texts, is precisely this. And in relation to entire peoples and countries, the same principle has always been applied. Those people and countries are greatest whose contribution to civilization is most significant.

And what is happening in modern Russia, which continues, despite the talk, to move in a liberal-democratic direction?

According to sociological surveys, a lot of high school students dream of becoming officials and oligarchs. Have huge incomes and opportunities, be successful. What is successful? In the same way: finances, career, on the personal front. And what’s even more interesting is that many of those surveyed believe that all means are good to achieve such goals.

But not all people are marked with the seal of heaven. Not everyone is given the opportunity to leave a mark on history. What is the most important thing in an ordinary average person?

The presence of a moral core, responsibility, sense of duty, education and a high cultural level. There is nothing to worry about for a person with such a set of qualities; you can always rely on him and you don’t need to hide from him behind a metal door. If all people were like this, we would now live in a completely different world.

However, much of this means nothing to the generation that will soon rule our country. Conduct a survey among young people: what is debt? They will answer: this is a debt to a bank or other creditor. Ask at the same time: what is conscience? The question will cause difficulty; some will simply brush it aside like an annoying fly.

Since ancient times, it has been typical for a normal person to feel like a part of the whole and behave accordingly. And not only in relation to your family, tribe, clan. But also in relation to the nation, country, nature and the planet as a whole. For a normal person, there are no other people's children, no other people's adults, no other people's animals, no other people's trees, no other people's problems.

What do we have now? "It's not my problem!" – attitude of a young man. That there are strangers there, they don’t care about those closest to us! It is not surprising that relatives deceive each other for the sake of money, real estate and other material assets.

Liberals argue that society is cementing the so-called “middle class” - fairly wealthy people who are firmly on their feet. For them, liberals, everything is based on income level!

Perhaps the middle class actually holds together a liberal democratic society. As for the people endowed with the qualities I listed above, civilization has always rested on them, regardless of the political system. And until now it has not collapsed only because such people, fortunately, still exist. This statement is so obvious that it does not even need proof.

When I was in school (Soviet, that is, traditional), one teacher often used the word “drones” in relation to careless students. I don’t know if she’s alive now; if she’s alive, she’s obviously amazed at how many drones there are in modern Russia. Those who live only for themselves and do not bring any benefit to the world around them.

However, in fairness, it must be said that bee drones are still built into their community and perform their function. And our human, Russian drones, fed by liberal freedoms, don’t even think about integrating into the system, they didn’t care about it.

The animals turned out to be much smarter than the liberals - drones, in the figurative sense of the word - they expel those that do not obey the laws of the flock. The same was done in traditional human society. But the great subverters of eternal truths awarded the “drones” with rights, freedom and private property.

And also the right to vote, equal to the voice of an honorary academician and famous writer. If you express outrage about this, they will call you a xenophobe and will certainly ask their favorite question: who has the right to judge? (Implying no one).

Is it possible to talk about the existence of any kind of society in a country destroyed by liberals? If there is anything constructive left in it, then these are the remnants of traditional society, which, according to the heralds of the “new”, need to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible. And that's when we'll get rid of it. But it’s better not to live to see that.

• Tags: ,

Liberals

Liberals(lat. liberalis- relating to freedom, free), in the original meaning - freethinkers, freethinkers; sometimes - people prone to excessive indulgence. Liberals are also called followers and supporters of liberalism and (in a narrower sense) members of liberal parties.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Liberals” are in other dictionaries:

Historical Dictionary

- (by this, see liberal). A political party opposed to the absolutists. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. LIBERALS etymology see liberal. A political party opposed to the absolutists. Explanation...

liberals- representatives of an ideological and socio-political movement that unites supporters of representative government and individual freedom, and in economics, freedom of entrepreneurship. Liberalism originated in Western Europe during the era of the struggle against... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary "World History"

- (from Latin liberalis concerning freedom, free) in the original meaning freethinkers, freethinkers; sometimes people prone to excessive indulgence. L. are also called followers and supporters of Liberalism and (in a narrower... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Liberals and conservatives. Wed. My mother’s brother, Prince Semyon Odolensky, a shameless liberal of the most unliberal time, was a man full of all sorts of contradictions and eccentricities. Leskov. Laughter and grief. 8. Wed. I'm a liberal, but between... ... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

Wed. My mother's brother, Prince Semyon Odolensky, a shameless liberal of the most unliberal times, was a man full of all sorts of contradictions and eccentricities. Leskov. Laughter and grief. 8. Wed. I am a liberal, and among my own people I am even considered to be red...... ... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary

I political party in Germany, which separated in 1866 from the Progressive Party (in Prussia). When the successes of the Prussian troops caused an explosion of enthusiasm among the people, many among the Progressive Party could not forget the systematic violations... ...

The commonly used name for a political party in Austria that officially calls itself the United N. Left (Vereinigte Deutsche Linke) club. The founder of the N. liberals was the constitutional Party (Verfassungspartei), which played a prominent role... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

A political party in the German Reichstag that occupies a neutral position and is inclined to compromise. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. NATIONAL LIBERALS political party in Germany, diligently... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Naujoji sąjunga (socialliberalai) Leader: Arturas Paulauskas Date of foundation: 1998 Ideology: social liberalism International ... Wikipedia

Books

• Guardians and liberals. In a protracted search for a compromise. Historical and literary research. In 2 books (set of 2 books), Vyacheslav Ogryzko. For the first time, the idea of ​​​​the need to create a newspaper for Russian writers was expressed on May 13, 1957 by Nikita Khrushchev at a meeting of the CPSU Central Committee. “And so, maybe,” the Soviet leader suggested then, “...

What is liberalism? Each person will answer this question differently. Even dictionaries give different definitions of this concept. This article explains what liberalism is in simple words.

Definitions

We can identify several of the most precise definitions of the concept of “liberalism”.

1. Ideology, political movement. It unites admirers of parliamentarism, democratic rights and free enterprise.

2. Theory, a system of political and philosophical ideas. It was formed among Western European thinkers in the 18th-19th centuries.

3. The worldview characteristic of ideologists from among the industrial bourgeoisie, who defended freedom of enterprise and their political rights.

4. In the primary sense - freethinking.

5. Excessive tolerance, condescension, conciliatory attitude towards bad deeds.

Speaking about what liberalism is, in simple words, it should be noted that this is a political and ideological movement, whose representatives deny revolutionary methods of struggle in achieving certain rights and benefits, and advocate free enterprise and the introduction of democratic principles into life.

Basic principles of liberalism

The ideology of liberalism differs from other theories of political and philosophical thought in its special principles. They were formulated by scientists back in the 18th-19th centuries, and representatives of this movement are still striving to bring them to life.

1. Human life is an absolute value.
2. All people are equal to each other.
3. The will of the individual does not depend on external factors.
4. The needs of one person are more important than the collective. The category “personality” is primary, “society” is secondary.
5. Every person has natural inalienable rights.
6. The state should arise on the basis of general consensus.
7. Man himself creates laws and values.
8. The citizen and the state are responsible to each other.
9. Sharing of power. The dominance of the principles of constitutionalism.
10. The government must be elected through fair democratic elections.
11. Tolerance and humanism.

Ideologists of classical liberalism

Each ideologist of this movement understood what liberalism was in his own way. This theory is represented by many concepts and opinions, which can sometimes contradict each other. The origins of classical liberalism can be seen in the works of S. Montesquieu, A. Smith, J. Locke, J. Mill, T. Hobbes. It was they who laid the foundations of the new movement. The basic principles of liberalism were developed during the Enlightenment in France by Charles Montesquieu. He spoke for the first time about the need for separation of powers and recognition of individual freedom in all spheres of life.

Adam Smith substantiated what economic liberalism is, and also identified its main principles and characteristics. J. Locke is the founder of the theory of the rule of law. In addition, he is one of the most prominent ideologists of liberalism. J. Locke argued that stability in a society can only exist if it consists of free people.

Features of liberalism in the classical sense

The ideologists of classical liberalism focused on the concept of “individual freedom”. Unlike absolutist ideas, their concepts denied the complete subordination of the individual to society and social orders. The ideology of liberalism defended the independence and equality of all people. Freedom was perceived as the absence of any restrictions or prohibitions on the implementation of conscious actions of an individual within the framework of generally accepted rules and laws. The state, according to the fathers of classical liberalism, is obliged to ensure the equality of all citizens. However, a person must independently worry about his financial situation.

Liberalism proclaimed the need to limit the scope of state activities. Its functions should be reduced to a minimum and consist of maintaining order and ensuring security. Power and society can only exist if they obey the laws.

Models of classical liberalism

The fathers of classical liberalism are considered to be J. Locke, J.-J. Russo, J. St. Mill, T. Payne. They defended the ideas of individualism and human freedom. In order to understand what liberalism is in the classical sense, one should consider its interpretations.

1. Continental European model. Representatives of this concept (F. Guizot, B. Constant, J.-J. Rousseau, B. Spinoza) defended the ideas of constructivism, rationalism in interaction with nationalism, and attached greater importance to freedom within society than for individuals.
2. Anglo-Saxon model. Representatives of this concept (J. Locke, A. Smith, D. Hume) put forward the ideas of a rule of law, unlimited trade, and were convinced that freedom is more important for an individual than for society as a whole.
3. North American model. Representatives of this concept (J. Adams, T. Jefferson) developed the ideas of inalienable human rights.

Economic liberalism

This trend of liberalism was based on the idea that economic laws operate in the same way as natural ones. Government intervention in this area was considered unacceptable.

A. Smith is considered the father of the concept of economic liberalism. His teaching was based on the following ideas.

1. The best incentive for economic development is personal interest.
2. Government measures for regulation and monopolies, which were practiced within the framework of mercantilism, are harmful.
3. Economic development is directed by the “invisible hand”. The necessary institutions must arise naturally without government intervention. Firms and resource providers that are interested in increasing their own wealth and operating within a competitive market system are supposedly guided by the "invisible hand" to help meet social needs.

The emergence of neoliberalism

Considering what liberalism is, a definition must be given to two concepts - classical and modern (new).

By the beginning of the 20th century. in this direction of political and economic thought, crisis phenomena begin to appear. In many Western European countries, workers' strikes are taking place, and industrial society is entering a period of conflict. Under such conditions, the classical theory of liberalism ceases to coincide with reality. New ideas and principles are being formed. The central problem of modern liberalism is the issue of social guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. This was largely due to the popularity of Marxism. In addition, the need for social measures was considered in the works of I. Kant, J. St. Mill, G. Spencer.

Principles of modern (new) liberalism

The new liberalism is characterized by an orientation towards rationalism and targeted reforms with the aim of improving existing state and political systems. A special place is occupied by the problem of comparing freedom, justice and equality. There is a concept of “elite”. It is formed from the most worthy members of the group. It is believed that society can achieve triumph only thanks to the elite and dies with it.

The economic principles of liberalism are defined by the concepts of “free market” and “minimal state”. The problem of freedom acquires an intellectual connotation and is translated into the area of ​​morality and culture.

Features of neoliberalism

As a social philosophy and political concept, modern liberalism has its own characteristics.

1. Government intervention in the economy is necessary. The government must protect freedom of competition and the market from the possibility of monopoly.
2. Support for the principles of democracy and justice. The broad masses must actively participate in the political process.
3. The state is obliged to develop and implement programs aimed at supporting low-income segments of the population.

Differences between classical and modern liberalism

History of the development of Russian liberalism

In Russia already in the 16th century. an understanding of what liberalism is is emerging. Several stages can be distinguished in the history of its development.

1. Government liberalism. It arose in the highest circles of Russian society. The period of government liberalism coincides with the reign of Catherine II and Alexander I. In fact, its existence and development spanned the era of enlightened absolutism.
2. Post-reform (conservative) liberalism. Prominent representatives of this era were P. Struve, K. Kavelin, B. Chicherin and others. At the same time, zemstvo liberalism was being formed in Russia.
3. New (social) liberalism. Representatives of this trend (N. Kareev, S. Gessen, M. Kovalevsky, S. Muromtsev, P. Milyukov) defended the idea of ​​​​creating decent living conditions for every person. At this stage, the prerequisites for the formation of the Cadets Party were formed.

These liberal trends not only differed from each other, but also had many differences with Western European concepts.

Government liberalism

Previously, we looked at what liberalism is (definition from history and political science, characteristics, features). However, authentic directions of this movement have formed in Russia. A prime example is government liberalism. It reached the peak of its development during the reign of Alexander I. At this time, liberal ideas spread among the nobility. The reign of the new emperor began with a series of progressive changes. It was allowed to freely cross the border, import foreign books, etc. On the initiative of Alexander I, a Secret Committee was created, which was involved in developing projects for new reforms. It included those close to the emperor. The plans of the leaders of the Secret Committee included reforming the state system, creating a constitution, and even abolishing serfdom. However, under the influence of reactionary forces, Alexander I decided on only partial reforms.

The emergence of conservative liberalism in Russia

Conservative liberalism was quite widespread in England and France. In Russia, this direction has taken on special features. Conservative liberalism dates back to the assassination of Alexander II. The reforms that the emperor developed were only partially implemented, and the country still needed transformation. The emergence of a new direction is due to the fact that in the highest circles of Russian society they began to understand what liberalism and conservatism are, and tried to avoid their extremes.

Ideologists of conservative liberalism

In order to understand what post-reform liberalism in Russia is, it is necessary to consider the concepts of its ideologists.

K. Kavelin is the founder of the conceptual approach to this direction of political thought. His student, B. Chicherin, developed the foundations of the theory of conservative liberalism. He defined this direction as “positive,” the goal of which is to implement reforms necessary for society. At the same time, all segments of the population must defend not only their ideas, but also take into account the interests of others. According to B. Chicherin, society can be strong and stable only if it relies on power. At the same time, a person must be free, since he is the beginning and source of all social relations.

P. Struve was involved in the development of the philosophical, cultural and methodological foundations of this direction. He believed that only a rational combination of conservatism and liberalism could save Russia in the post-reform period.

Features of post-reform liberalism

1. Recognition of the need for government regulation. At the same time, the directions of its activities must be clearly identified.
2. The state is recognized as the guarantor of stability of relations between various groups within the country.
3. The realization that during a period of increasing failures of reformers, it becomes possible for authoritarian leaders to come to power.
4. Transformations in the economy can only be gradual. The ideologists of post-reform liberalism argued that it was necessary to monitor society's reaction to each reform and carry them out with caution.
5. Selective attitude towards Western society. It is necessary to use and accept only what meets the needs of the state.

The ideologists of this direction of political thought sought to implement their ideas through an appeal to mass values ​​that were formed in the process of historical development of society. This is precisely the goal and hallmark of conservative liberalism.

Zemsky liberalism

Speaking about post-reform Russia, one cannot fail to mention what zemstvo liberalism is. This direction emerges at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. At this time, modernization was taking place in Russia, which led to an increase in the number of intelligentsia, in whose circles an opposition movement was formed. A secret circle “Conversation” was created in Moscow. It was his work that laid the foundation for the formation of the ideas of the liberal opposition. Members of this circle were zemstvo leaders F. Golovin, D. Shipov, D. Shakhovsky. The magazine “Osvobozhdenie,” which was published abroad, became the mouthpiece of the liberal oppositionists. Its pages spoke of the need to overthrow autocratic power. In addition, the liberal opposition advocated expanding the rights and opportunities of zemstvos, as well as their active participation in public administration.

New liberalism in Russia

The liberal trend in Russian political thought acquired new features by the beginning of the 20th century. The direction is being formed in an atmosphere of sharp criticism of the concept of “rule of law”. That is why liberals set themselves the task of justifying the progressive role of government institutions in the life of society.
It is important to note that in the 20th century. Russia is entering a period of social crisis. The new liberals saw its cause as ordinary economic instability and spiritual and moral catastrophe. They believed that a person should have not only the means to subsist, but also leisure, which he would use to improve himself.

Radical liberalism

Speaking about what liberalism is, we should note the existence of its radical direction. In Russia it took shape at the beginning of the 20th century. The main goal of this movement was the overthrow of the autocracy. A striking example of the activities of radical liberals was the Constitutional Democratic Party (Cadets). Considering this direction, it is necessary to highlight its principles.

1. Downplaying the role of the state. Hopes are placed on spontaneous processes.
2. Achieving your goals in various ways. The possibility of using coercive methods is not denied.
3. In the economic field, only rapid and deep macro-reforms are possible, which cover as many aspects as possible.
4. One of the main values ​​of radical liberalism is the combination of the experience of world culture and developed European states with the problems of Russia.

Modern Russian liberalism

What is modern liberalism in Russia? This issue still remains controversial. Researchers put forward different versions about the origins of this trend, its principles and features in Russia.
Scientists highlight some features of modern liberalism in Russia. Let's take a closer look at them.

1. Discussions about the political system often go beyond the boundaries of liberalism.
2. Justification of the need for the existence of a market economy.
3. Promotion and protection of private property rights.
4. The emergence of the question of “Russian identity”.
5. In the field of religion, most liberals advocate a tolerant attitude towards other faiths.

conclusions

Today, there are many currents in the liberal direction of political thought. Each of them has developed its own principles and special features. Recently, there has been debate in the world community about what innate liberalism is and whether it exists at all. It should be noted that even the French enlighteners argued that freedom is a right, but understanding its necessity is not available to everyone.

In general, we can say that liberal ideas and reforms are an integral feature of modern life.

For many centuries, each layer of society in politics pursued exclusively its own interests, and ultimately, those people who could adapt to certain conditions to the maximum extent became the “helms” of government. Liberals played a huge role in the country. Who are they? First of all, these are people who were ardent supporters of reforms, always advocated for the expansion of rights and

Those who have never heard of who liberals are will be interested to know that they were first talked about in Europe at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. It was then that a socio-political movement was born, which was called “liberalism”. Subsequently, it transformed into a powerful ideology. The main value for liberals was the inviolability of economic, political and civil freedoms.

The word “liberalism” entered the Russian language at the end of the 18th century. It was translated as “freethinking.” During this period of time the first Russian liberals appeared.

In English, the translation of this word initially had a negative connotation - “connivance”, “harmful condescension”, but later it was lost.

And yet, who are the liberals, and what kind of liberals did they adhere to? As has already been emphasized, the highest value for them was human rights and freedoms. In addition, they advocated private property while promoting freedom of enterprise.

The above public political movement was formed as a means of protection against tyranny and excesses on the part of representatives of the Catholic Church and the totalitarianism of monarchs. Who are liberals? These are those who reject the fundamental principles of some theories of state creation, namely the fact that monarchs and kings are “God’s anointed” to reign. They also question the fact that religion is the “ultimate truth”.

Those who have no idea who liberals are will be interested to know that these people defend the principle of equality of all citizens before the law. They are convinced that government officials should regularly report to the people on the work done.

At the same time, representatives of liberalism are confident that officials should in no way restrict human rights and freedoms.

English liberals had their own point of view on this matter. Their ideologist Jeremy Bentham argued that human rights and freedoms are nothing more than the embodiment of evil. At the same time, he adhered to those principles that did not allow one person to suppress the will of another.

“To oppress individuals is a real crime. Don’t do this and you will be of great benefit to society,” Bentham emphasized.

It should be noted that liberalism in its modern form also zealously defends the ideas of pluralism and compliance in the management of society. At the same time, the rights and freedoms of minorities and certain segments of the population must be strictly respected. At the same time, liberals believe that the state today should pay more attention to social issues.

Political life on our planet is becoming increasingly tense. After the introduction of sanctions, it affects almost every person in the country. Involuntarily, you begin to become interested in what is happening in ruling circles. And you are immediately faced with the question of who liberals are. It arises as soon as you look at a few articles or programs related to Russia’s internal politics. Some liberals are praised in every way, while others criticize them no less loudly. It’s hard to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Surely it is necessary to begin, no matter how unpleasant it may be, with clarification of the essence of philosophy. Namely: what ideas they defend, where they came from, how they see the future, then it will become clear who the liberals are. Let's try to figure it out briefly.

From the history

It is clear that the reader is interested in Russian liberals.

After all, they are the ones who influence his life. However, we will have to rewind time and look at the root of the emergence of this ideology. Otherwise, the essence of what follows will simply be incomprehensible. The fact is that at the moment humanity has given birth to three different ideologies, competing with each other, if not fighting. Their bearers are trying to introduce their own views in various states and build their own system. Let us name the adherents of these three ideas. These are liberals, conservatives and socialists. In a democratic society, parties are created that promote certain ideas. However, each of them adheres to one of the above-mentioned ideologies. Each movement has many subtleties, expressed in the nuances of the proclaimed principles or goals. Some parties are, so to speak, hybrid. That is, they combine the principles of different ideologies in their programs. But this is not particularly important. To understand how Russian liberals influence the situation in the country, the fact that they have ideological opponents is enough. Their confrontation is what shapes internal political life, which certainly affects the well-being of citizens.

Liberal views

We will start with pure theory. That is, let’s consider purely ideology. Then compare it with its competitors to understand more deeply. It must be taken into account that all three ideologies are not just fighting in the minds. The field of their practical implementation is the state structure. That's it, in general. That is, each ideology gives birth to its own social movement. Liberals and conservatives, for example, form political parties that fight desperately for power. Naturally, they need to present their ideas to the electorate in the most advantageous light. What attracts liberals? Their main value is freedom. It extends to all spheres of society. In economics, it is expressed by competition with equal rights. Everyone has heard about this. There is a so-called free market. Liberal citizens are attracted to the rule of law. That is, ideally all people are equal to each other. Everyone has the right to their thoughts and values. In addition, they are offered to be broadcast to the public completely freely. Liberals consider restrictions unacceptable, except in special cases. Namely crimes. Otherwise, a citizen, according to their concepts, has every right to everything he wants. That is, we can answer the question of who liberals are as follows. This is a political movement fighting for full civil liberties. The theory is quite attractive, don’t you think?

Compare with conservatives

The eternal “enemies” of liberals base their ideology on “protection.” Conservatives believe that there should be, even dominate, something unshakable in society. It forms the ideological basis on which everything else develops. For example, today's Russian conservatives talk about family values. This means that this social institution cannot be changed to suit newfangled trends. He is unshakable. To spite them, the LGBT community is being created, a social movement that denies the traditional institution of the family. Liberals and conservatives build their debate around this issue. That is, they try to prove to people the attractiveness of their views, which, we note, in this case are mutually exclusive. The same is observed in the field of organization of the state economy. Liberals stand for complete freedom. Conservatives believe that it is necessary to preserve a certain “established way of life.” For example, neocons talk about the inviolability of private property. By the way, the liberals do not contradict them on this. However, they believe that freedom of enterprise cannot be limited by strict rules. That is, any citizen should be able to compete with others on equal terms. It turns out that the liberal movement, in principle, is quite democratic and flexible. In theory, it may well coexist with competitors and find consensus. However, in practice it turns out differently.

Shades of liberalism

Ideology is a rather complex topic. The fact is that the development and embodiment of any thought is impossible instantly. It takes a lot of time to introduce it into society. Fruits, as is commonly believed, appear after years, or even decades. But party supporters are instantly attracted by beautiful slogans or interesting projects. People don't often delve into where a particular idea can lead society. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the shades and nuances of liberal ideology. To do this, let us again turn to history. Thus, in the nineteenth century a special movement arose - the liberal socialists. Its ideology was based on the fact that the working class as a whole became more literate and acquired the right to vote. A typical liberal socialist of that time proposed to fight against child and dangerous labor and for increased earnings. All this was proposed to be enshrined in law. For the nineteenth century, the ideas were quite progressive. Representatives of a different direction, the Liberal Democrats, believed that the development of civil society could only be hindered by government intervention. He was accused of restricting civil liberties. Both of these liberal movements are in conflict with each other. Socialists believe that democracy cannot coexist with private property. Their opponents talk about the priority of individual freedom, regardless of property status.

Let us specify the differences between liberals and other ideologies

There are several points that will help you understand the essence of the proposed material. Namely, the attitude of representatives of the described ideologies to the fundamental foundations of the state structure. For clarity, socialists, conservatives and liberals are taken. The table contains brief characteristics of their fundamental positions, according to the theory.

From the table above it is clear that liberals defend complete personal freedom, even when it is not guaranteed by the state. That is, a person has the right to any self-expression and is burdened with responsibility for its use.

Why and when to study differences in ideologies

In the global world, there are practically no countries where information is censored. It is clear that ideas spread very widely. Any person can choose for himself those that best suit his worldview. In a sense, this state of affairs may pose a threat to statehood. Modern technologies are such that representatives of certain movements try to “recruit” supporters even before they acquire the right to vote. That is, children are already subject to information attacks from adherents of certain movements. This is probably why the school curriculum deals with questions about who liberals and conservatives are (8th grade). The younger generation needs to be prepared to participate in public life. Young citizens must approach it consciously and creatively.

After all, after a while they will have to take over the “reins of power” and begin to make independent decisions. However, the school curriculum does not guarantee that students fully understand who liberals are. The question is very broad and covers a huge period of human history, perhaps the most dynamic. Ideology itself cannot be static. It grows out of the needs of a society that is constantly changing and developing, consistently creating and solving problems. Representatives of one or another ideological direction need to be at the center of these changes, to develop together with countries and peoples.

Liberals of Russia

Only the lazy do not provide a list of people promoting such an ideology in the modern Russian Federation in critical articles. The current confrontation with the West has led to some imbalances in domestic politics. Since it is built on liberal ideas (officially), all shortcomings are usually attributed to them. Here experts lump together economic and social problems, without particularly trying to substantiate their claims with ideological shortcomings. Let's see what the liberals of Russia actually created. The list of their names usually begins with Yegor Gaidar. Is it so? Did this statesman adhere to liberal ideas? This is debatable. Rather, this character, who influenced the formation of modern Russia, professed conservatism. For him, private property was an immutable thing. But the freedom of a citizen is a secondary matter. His phrase about people “who do not fit into the market” is well known. She is cruel in her outright essence, as she treated socially vulnerable citizens. A society for which justice is not an empty phrase, but a real value, could not accept such ideas. The figure of E. Gaidar is recognized by the expert community as the most striking among domestic liberals. This man was not engaged in theory, but in its practical implementation.

Anatoly Chubais, who is well known to everyone, also belongs to the liberals. Naturally, the list of liberals is not limited to two names. One can recall former Russian Finance Minister Boris Fedorov, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and others. Former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin is also called a great professional liberal. In general, we can continue to list for a very long time the names of famous people who, unfortunately, often only cause indignation among the population of our country.

Well, nowadays it is customary to include in the social movement “liberals” anyone who criticizes the policies of the President of the Russian Federation. This is not entirely correct, but it is historically justified.

A liberal is one who looks to the West

The point is this. After the destruction of the USSR, society faced a difficult question: “What next?” It just so happened since the century before last that the elite “copied” scenarios from European countries. They believed that the snow was whiter there and the gold glittered brighter. That's what we decided. We will build such a society. During this period, only the communists could give battle to the liberals. There was simply no other force. It should be noted that the communists were one step away from revenge. Zyuganov had excellent chances in the Russian presidential elections. It was not so easy for the people of a huge country, brought up on socialist values, to turn towards perceiving reality in a capitalist worldview. For more than twenty years, they tried to introduce other ideas into society. About equality and freedom of enterprise, about equal opportunities and so on. Only the mouthpieces of this ideology were mostly based on Western examples and principles. In addition, it is known that they did not receive their salaries in the Russian Federation. And for many this looked like a betrayal. And if at the beginning of the construction of the new Russia such facts were perceived as “learning from experience,” then after the Ukrainian crisis the attitude towards dollar salaries changed somewhat. And it's not that the liberal movement did anything bad for people. Rather, historical memory played a role here. The people have not forgotten that Russia had to fight many times. And all the invaders came from exactly the same direction from which they are now trying to teach us.

Economic field of activity

Let's delve a little deeper into the practical side of implementing liberal ideology. Namely, how representatives of the movement represent the country’s economy. It should be noted that they do not detail purely practical issues. Declaratively, liberals proclaim such things as the need for a market economy, with the mandatory removal of the state from its regulation. They strongly oppose any form of administration. That is, the entrepreneur must gain complete freedom in the area of ​​economic activity. Here they are opposed by conservatives who express thoughts about the need, for example, for state intervention in the social sphere. That is, in their opinion, laws are needed to regulate the activities of all enterprises, regardless of their form of ownership. Conservatives and liberals of the Russian Federation have a consensus on only one issue. Namely: they agree that private property should become a paramount value in society. This is an interesting topic. In fact, historically this cannot happen in Russia. That is, private property periodically changed its owner. Even in tsarist times, there were periods when land was owned by those who served the state. With the loss of his place, such a person was deprived of his property. Next everyone remembers the October Revolution and expropriation. That is, for the introduction of the sacredness of the concept of private property into society (as exists in the West), more time must pass than the life of one generation. In addition, a very important point is the practical implementation of freedom of enterprise. Purely, this requires a high educational level of the people. However, liberals in their political struggle focus on opposing government regulation. They give the example of the USA, where a person can open a business in a matter of hours. This is considered a special achievement of liberal democracy. Only they lose sight of the fact that after a year, 95% of new entrepreneurs go bankrupt. And of those who survived, half leave the arena within a few more years. Liberals call it competition. But in fact, this phenomenon looks like a way to enrich the banks that issue loans to these hapless entrepreneurs.

Why people in Russia “don’t like” liberals

We have not touched upon another important topic. Namely, the attitude of representatives of liberal ideology to issues of social protection and cultural development of the population. And this is the reason for the people’s antagonistic attitude towards them. The fact is that liberals, calling for complete freedom, allow serious distortions in the social manifestations of their policies. Take the LGBT community for example. There is nothing wrong with the fact that any person has every right to live the way he wants. This is a personal matter! However, why highlight non-existent problems of minorities? Do they concern the entire society that professes traditional values? It just so happens that patient and kind people live in Russia. By the way, liberals call this quality tolerance. The point is not in the term. It’s just common among people to feel sorry for outcasts and apostates (not traitors). You have your own vision of how to love - no one will throw stones for it. It's a different matter if you shout to the whole country about your preferences. Until it affects the majority of the population, no one will say a word. As soon as society begins to feel threatened, things take a different turn. For example, today many people ask the question: “If liberals defend the minority so loudly, then who will stand up for the majority?” There is a clear imbalance in political pressure on the people. The latter begins to resist. Well, values ​​don’t take root in it, just like any values ​​in the West. The statements of liberals, especially recently, only aggravate the situation, which is unfavorable for them. For example, Khodorkovsky’s phrase “it’s a shame not to steal from such a state” cannot be perceived as the slogan of a person worthy of trust. Or K. Sobchak’s statement that Russia is “a country of genetic scum.” This is humiliating both for the people and for this representative of the “elites”. Therefore, it is so natural to treat liberals as traitors. Carried away by Western values, these people have completely lost touch with the people for whom they should live, think and work. After all, this is precisely the purpose of the elites.

conclusions

We will not argue that liberal ideas are as bad as they seem today. Not everything in this ideology is aimed at destroying society. Quite the contrary. Many of the ideas that have already been implemented were promising and humane. For example, the fight to ban child labor. However, ideas have their own “lifespan”. They must either transform to meet the needs of society or fade into oblivion. And the first sign of the need for such changes is their hypertrophied, even grotesque, manifestation. This is exactly what we are seeing today. What happens next? Can liberalism survive and change? Time will tell.