Liberalism: history of origin, basic values. The history of liberalism in Russia Preconditions for the emergence of liberal ideas

COURSE WORK

"Liberalism: History and Development Prospects"

Introduction

Section 1. Origins and main provisions of liberal ideology

1.1 The concept and essence of the ideology of liberalism

1.2 Prerequisites and history of the formation of the ideology of liberalism

Section 2. The liberal idea in modern times

1 Criticism of classical liberalism

2 Liberal thought in Ukraine

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The relevance of researchdue to the fact that trying to master the inexhaustible complexity of modern life, we are faced with the urgent need to understand the essence of liberalism, determine its place and role in public life, find out the reasons for the long-term and vitality of liberal trends. An important role is played by comprehending the political experience of liberalism, as well as its state of affairs in our time.

Liberalism isphilosophical, political and economic theory, as well as ideology, which proceeds from the position that individual human freedoms are the legal basis unionand the economic order. The origins of liberal ideology date back to the 17th-18th centuries. In the works of J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, A. Smith, I. Kant, the idea of the priority of human rights and freedoms, popular sovereignty and civil society was consolidated.

Liberal theory was initially developed in the West, and it initially did not constitute a single, one school of social thought: there were multiple differences between the American English and French traditions of liberalism. But they took shape at about the same time. Gradually, liberalism developed in other countries, including Ukraine.

Liberalism has many hypostases both in the historical and in the national-cultural and ideological-political dimensions. In the interpretation of the fundamental issues concerning the relationship between society, the state and the individual, liberalism is a very complex and multifaceted phenomenon, manifested in various variations that differ both within individual countries and especially at the level of relations between countries. It is associated with such concepts and categories that have become familiar to the modern socio-political vocabulary, such as the idea of the intrinsic value of the individual and responsibility for their actions; private property as a necessary condition for individual freedom; free market, competition and entrepreneurship, equality of opportunity, etc .; separation of powers, checks and balances; the rule of law with the principles of equality of all citizens before the law, tolerance and protection of the rights of minorities; guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual (conscience, speech, assembly, creation of associations and parties, etc.); universal suffrage, etc.

The object of research isliberalism as a multidimensional social phenomenon is a development factor, a set of certain social values of a worldview scale that perform many functions.

The subject of research islaws of origin, structure (structure), functioning and development of liberalism as a phenomenon that naturally arises at a certain stage of human development.

The purpose of this workis the definition of the essence of liberalism, consideration of the prerequisites for its appearance and development, socio-philosophical understanding of modern liberalism, clarification of its social mission and main functions? including in Ukraine.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

¾ to analyze the methodological foundations presented in the liberal tradition, to analyze the main concepts of liberalism, leading directions;

¾ to define the essence of liberalism as a socio-cultural phenomenon;

¾ substantiate the specifics of liberalism as a political and economic ideology;

¾ to identify the main features inherent in the liberal image of social reality;

¾ to determine the meaning of liberalism in modern times;

¾ research of liberal thought in Ukraine.

In this work, the works of foreign and domestic scientists were used. These include: J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, J. Rousseau, A. Smith, T. Hobbes, R. Spencer, M. Grushevsky, M, Dragomanov and others. Various articles were also used that deal with the disclosure of this topic.

Methodological baseThis research is based on historical and dialectical approaches to the analysis of phenomena. The methods of structural-functional, systemic, comparative and comparative-historical analysis, as well as an interdisciplinary approach were used.

The structure of the course work.This work consists of an introduction, two sections, each of them has two subsections, a conclusion and a list of used literature. The first section reveals the concept, essence and history of the formation of the ideology of liberalism. The second section provides a characteristic of the liberal idea of our time. Also discusses liberal thought in Ukraine

Section 1. Origins and main provisions of liberal ideology

.1 The concept and essence of the ideology of liberalism

liberalism social philosophical ideology

Liberals ?zm (fr. libéralisme) is a philosophical, political and economic ideology based on the fact that the rights and freedoms of an individual are the legal basis of society and economic order.

Obviously, liberalism is a set of principles and attitudes that underlie programs political parties and the political strategy of this or that government or government coalition of liberal orientation. At the same time, liberalism is not just some kind of doctrine or credo, it is something immeasurably greater, namely the type and way of thinking. As one of its leading representatives of the XX century emphasized. B. Croce, the liberal concept is a metapolitical one that goes beyond the formal theory of politics, as well as in a certain sense of ethics and coincides with the general understanding of the world and reality. This is a system of views and concepts in relation to the surrounding world, a type of consciousness and political and ideological orientations and attitudes, which is not always associated with specific political parties or political course. It is simultaneously theory, doctrine, program and political practice.

A liberal (semi-democratic) regime was characteristic of developed countries in the 19th century. In the XX century. it has developed in a number of developing countries that have approached developed ( South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand), as well as as a result of the elimination of the command-administrative system in the post-socialist countries of Eastern Europe (Russia, Bulgaria, Romania).

A liberal regime is a way of exercising state power based on the recognition of the rights and freedoms of citizens and the absence of direct armed violence. The transition from a dictatorship to a liberal regime is called liberalization. This process is characterized by a decrease in the level of state coercion, some expansion of political freedoms. However, liberalization cannot be equated with democracy. Liberalization can also take place in a totalitarian system, as was the case, for example, during the Khrushchev "thaw" or the evolution of the Francoist regime in Spain. However, the essential principles of the system of power remained unchanged. The democratic type of government is characterized by a liberal-pluralistic regime. This regime is based on the optimal decentralization of methods of political administration, on the principles of political competition and compromise. The liberal-pluralist regime recognizes the right of every person to adhere to and preach any views, respect for dissent is inherent in it. Political practice under this regime is carried out as a result of constant competition, competition between various social and political forces, none of which can have a monopoly on power or ideology. At the same time, under a liberal-pluralistic regime, state power retains strong repressive functions to protect the rights and freedoms of each individual and statehood.

In the theory of state and law, political methods and methods of exercising power, which are based on a system of the most democratic and humanistic principles, are also called liberal. These principles primarily characterize the economic sphere of the relationship between the individual and the state. Under a liberal regime in this area, a person has property, rights and freedoms, is economically independent and on this basis becomes politically independent. In relation to the individual and the state, priority remains with the individual, etc.

The liberal regime defends the value of individualism, opposing it to the collectivist principles in the organization of political and economic life, which, in the opinion of a number of scientists, ultimately lead to totalitarian forms of government. The liberal regime is conditioned, first of all, by the needs of the commodity-money, market organization of the economy. The market requires equal, free, independent partners. The liberal state also proclaims the formal equality of all citizens. A liberal society proclaims freedom of speech, opinions, forms of ownership, and gives scope to private initiative. Individual rights and freedoms are not only enshrined in the constitution, but also become realizable in practice.

Thus, private property leaves the economic basis of liberalism. The state frees producers from its guardianship and does not interfere in the economic life of people, but only establishes the general framework of free competition between producers, the conditions of economic life. It also acts as an arbiter in resolving disputes between them. At the later stages of liberalism, legitimate government intervention in economic and social processes takes on a socially oriented character, which is due to many factors: the need to rationally distribute economic resources, decide ecological problems, participate in the peaceful division of labor, prevent international conflicts etc..

The liberal regime allows the existence of opposition, moreover, in the conditions of liberalism, the state takes all measures to ensure the existence of opposition representing interests, creates special procedures to take these interests into account. Pluralism, and above all, a multi-party system, is a necessary attribute of a liberal society. In addition, under a liberal political regime, there are many associations, public organizations, corporations, sections, clubs that unite people of the same interests. Organizations are emerging that allow citizens to express their political, professional, religious, social, domestic, local, national interests and needs. These associations form the foundation of civil society and do not leave the citizen face to face with the state authorities, which are usually inclined to impose their decisions and even abuse their capabilities.

Under liberalism, state power is formed through elections, the outcome of which depends not only on the opinion of the people, but also on the financial capabilities of certain parties necessary for conducting election campaigns. State administration is carried out on the basis of the principle of separation of powers. The system of "checks and balances" helps to reduce the opportunities for abuse of power. State decisions are taken by a majority vote. Decentralization is used in public administration: the central government takes upon itself the solution of only those issues that the local government cannot resolve.

Of course, one should not apologize for the liberal regime, since it also has its own problems, the main ones being the social protection of certain categories of citizens, the stratification of society, the actual inequality of starting opportunities, etc. The use of this regime most effectively becomes possible only in a society that differs high level economic and social development. The population should have a sufficiently high political, intellectual and moral consciousness, legal culture. At the same time, it should be noted that today liberalism is the most attractive and desirable political regime for many states. A liberal regime can exist only on a democratic basis; it grows out of a democratic regime itself.

The ideology of the liberal state can be summarized in two well-known expressions. One does not have an accurate translation from French into Russian - laissezfaire, which roughly means: do not interfere with the individual going about their business. The second is very short: "The state is a night watchman."

The theoretical core of liberalism consists of:

) the doctrine of the "state of nature"; 2) the theory of "social contract"; 3) the theory of "sovereignty of the people"; 4) inalienable human rights (life, freedom, property, resistance to oppression, etc.).

The main value of liberalism is freedom. Freedom is a value in all ideological doctrines, but their interpretation of freedom as a value of modern civilization differs significantly.

Freedom in liberalism is a phenomenon from the economic sphere: initially, the liberals understood freedom of the individual from the medieval dependence on the state and the guilds. V; In politics, the demand for freedom meant the right to act of one's own free will, and, above all, the right to fully enjoy inalienable human rights, limited only by the freedom of others. Since the focus of the liberals' view was such a restrictor of freedom as other people with equal rights, it followed that the idea of freedom was supplemented by the requirement of equality (equality as a requirement, but not an empirical fact).

The development of liberal principles is reflected in a variety of theories created by strong advocates: liberalism. For example, the principle of individual freedom as a social benefit is reflected in the theories of the free market, religious tolerance, etc. The above liberal principles of interpretation of the law were expressed in the theories of constitutional law, the rule of law, etc. And the principle of the priority of human rights over the rights of the state received development in the theory of the "state of the night watchman", in accordance with which it is necessary to limit the scope and scope; the activities of the state by the protection of human rights, his life, property, inaction; negative freedom (“freedom from” - from oppression, exploitation, etc.); abstract freedom - as the freedom of a person in general of any person; individual freedom: the most important kind, freedom - freedom of entrepreneurship.

1.2 Background and history of the formation of the ideology of liberalism

The origins of liberal ideology date back to the 17th-18th centuries. In the works of J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, A. Smith, I. Kant, the idea of the priority of human rights and freedoms, popular sovereignty and civil society was consolidated. The first mention of the term liberalism itself (from the Latin "liberalis" - "free") dates back to 1811-1812, when in Spain a group of politicians and publicists defined the developed constitution as "liberal". Early liberal concepts (the Whig tradition in England from the beginning of the 18th century, the ideology of the "founding fathers" of American constitutionalism, Orleanism in France at the beginning of the 19th century) were of an elite character. Their moderation, caution in relation to the ideas of broad democratization of public life was associated with the belief that only a person who managed to prove his worth, having a sufficient educational level, independent property status, can be a worthy citizen, personally interested in preserving the principles of a free society. The elite interpretation of liberalism was reflected in the system of limited, qualifying suffrage.

In the political writings of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the state is called the main creation of people, not God (which continues the mission of N. Machiavelli).

In his works "Philosophical elements of the doctrine of the citizen" (1642) and "Leviathan" (1651), he sets out his theory of the state, analyzes the pros and cons of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. Sympathy is on the side of the monarchy, since the absence of power as such is even worse than its redundancy. As for the duties of the sovereign, he should be guided by the thesis: "the welfare of the people is the highest law."

The basis of his theory of state and law, T. Hobbes lays a certain idea of the nature of the individual. He believes that initially all people are created equal in terms of physical and mental abilities and each of them has the same “right to everything” with others. However, man is also a deeply egoistic being, overwhelmed by greed, fear and ambition. He is surrounded only by envious people, rivals, enemies. "Man is a wolf to man." Hence the fatal inevitability in society of "war of all against all." To have the "right to everything" in such a war means in fact not to have any right to anything. This disastrous situation T. Hobbes calls "the natural state of the human race."

Hobbes's painting of the "state of nature" can be regarded as one of the first descriptions of the nascent English bourgeois society with its division of labor, competition, the opening of new markets, the struggle for existence. It seemed to the thinker himself that he recognized the nature of man in general, deduced a form of social life that was natural for all times and peoples. This was a view far from historicism.

In the nature of people, according to T. Hobbes, are laid not only forces that plunge individuals into the abyss of "the war of all against all." The properties of a completely different plan are also inherent in man; they are such that they induce individuals to find a way out of such a disastrous state of nature. First of all, it is the fear of death and the instinct for self-preservation, which dominates over other passions. Along with them, the natural mind acts, i.e. the ability of everyone to reasonably reason about the positive and negative consequences of their actions. The instinct of self-preservation gives the first impulse to the process of overcoming the natural state, and the natural mind tells people on what conditions they can carry out this process. These conditions (they are expressed by the prescriptions of natural reason) are natural laws.

The main, most fundamental natural law says: it is necessary to strive for peace and follow it. Everything else should be used only as a means of achieving peace. The most important among them is the renunciation of each of his rights to the extent that this is required by the interests of peace and self-defense (the second natural law). The waiver of the right is made for the most part transferring it by agreement to a certain person or to a certain group of persons. From the second natural law follows the third: people are obliged to fulfill the agreements concluded by them; otherwise, the latter will have no meaning. The third natural law contains the source and origin of justice.

In addition to these three, there are 16 natural (unchanging and eternal) laws. All of them are summarized in one general rule: do not do to another what you would not want to be done in relation to you.

The political teachings of T. Hobbes and Montesquieu raise questions of the origin and nature of the state, its right to the compulsory exercise of power.

In general, political scientists single out the political doctrines of aristocratic and democratic liberalism.

The theorists of aristocratic liberalism include J. Locke, J. Vico, C. Montesquieu, Diderot, P. Holbach, I. Kant, B. Constant, A. Tocqueville.

Almost all of them relied on the concept of natural law and social contract, did not go beyond constitutional monarchism, parliamentarism, recognition of law and legality, the right to private property, its inviolability, insisted on political freedom and free competition.

The political doctrines of democratic liberalism are based primarily on the ideas of K. Helvetius and Rousseau.

An outstanding place among the French encyclopedists is occupied by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), who became famous, first of all, thanks to the book "On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law" (1762). The main idea of the "social contract" is the idea of the people as a sovereign - the bearer of supreme power.

In particular, he proclaimed that freedom of people is their natural right, and therefore the individual has no right to dispose of his own kind. Only with the consent of individuals is a collective whole formed, which appears as a generalized "public face". The parties to the agreement, in the terminology of the author, are "people", and individuals are "citizens" who are subject to state laws.

Since the people are the only sovereign, it is not worth dividing power into executive and legislative. Instead, Rousseau proposed to hold national plebiscites - a survey to take into account and fulfill the will of the people by the authorities.

The concept of the famous encyclopedist provided that in case of violation of the social contract with the people by the ruling elite, the latter has the right to overthrow and build power on the principles of a civil republican system. The idea of "natural rights", which was further developed in the concept of "social contract", pushed to the understanding of statehood as a social institution. According to her, the primary element of society is an autonomously existing individual, and the totality of individuals constitutes "society in a state of nature."

In order to avoid possible conflicts, people decided to move from a "natural" to a "civil" state, entered into an agreement and thus created a state that absorbed both the individual and society.

The theory of utilitarianism was worked out by Jeremiah Bentham (1748-1832), an Englishman who advised the governments of many countries and for his merits received French citizenship by the decision of the National Assembly of France in 1792. This theory states that the main credo of a person's benefit and happiness depends on the amount of money at her disposal.

In addition, this interesting thinker formulated a model of radical political (representative) democracy, was against the granting of voting rights to minors and the military, as well as illiterate people who can easily get these rights by learning to read.

An important step forward was the constitutionalization by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) new science- sociology. O. Comte not only introduced the specified period into scientific circulation, but also developed a fairly complete system of sociological knowledge, determined the subject, structure, tools and capabilities of the new science.

Sociology O. Comte is subdivided into social statistics, which considers stable ("natural") conditions for the existence of any social structure, as well as social dynamics, which studies the natural laws of social development.

O. Comte believed that sociocracy has dominance in society, which belongs to relying on the statement: "Love as a principle, order as a foundation and progress as a goal." Progress and order must be achieved through reforms, based on solidarity, consensus, the unity of the political association as a whole (state) and its parts.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who began as a follower of I. Bentham, advocated representative democracy based on consensus, universal suffrage (while maintaining a high educational qualification). His liberalism was of a moral and cultural nature.

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) created a system of evolutionary philosophy based on three elements: evolutionary theory, organicism, the doctrine of social institutions... G. Spencer built his theory on the basis of analogies between human society and a biological organism, defending the idea of the natural relationship of all aspects of social life, the ability of society to self-regulation, the evolutionary nature of its development. Spencer believed that both biological and social evolution are based on the laws of natural selection, the struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest.

Developing O. Comte's thought about society as a system, he founded the theory of equilibrium of socio-political systems and a systemic analysis of society. He denied revolutions, criticized parliamentarism, which meant a crisis of liberalism.

In the first half of the XIX century. liberalism gradually breaks with the abstract-rationalistic tradition of the enlighteners and goes over to the position of rationalism and utilitarianism. The symbol of this approach was the doctrine of the so-called. "Manchester liberalism". Its founders - the leaders of the League of Manchester Entrepreneurs R. Cobden and D. Bright - preached the principles of unlimited economic freedom, denial of any social responsibility of the state and society. Of course, the liberal doctrine is not limited to the presented provisions. But, in any case, the quintessence of the liberal worldview is the postulate of man as the highest value. At the same time, it clearly follows that everything else, including the state, is only tools, means of protection and protection of that very highest value. At the same time, liberals, as a rule, do not ask a question, but about which person, what kind of person they are talking about in this or that particular case. For an orthodox liberal, a person is self-worth as such, i.e. as an abstract, whose rights, freedoms, interests are in any case primary in relation to the public, collective, state. The state, from the point of view of liberal human rights defenders, always strives to infringe, restrict human rights and freedoms, bring them in line with its own - state - interests. In this sense, a person should always be on his guard against the state, the state for a person is an enemy striving to defeat and suppress it.

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

Liberalism was alien to radicalism and revolutionary world outlook. As the famous Italian researcher G. Ruggiero emphasized, "in its extreme expression, liberalism would become radicalism, but it never reaches the end, maintaining balance with the intuition of historical continuity and gradualness." Indeed, the liberal worldview as a whole, which was both a stimulus and a result of the revolutions of the late XVIII - the first half of the XIX century, ultimately acquired an anti-revolutionary content and orientation.

The situation was different in different countries. The most pronounced liberal ideal took shape in the Anglo-Saxon countries, especially in the USA. Here, having established itself in public consciousness, individualism began to be perceived as the main and even the only principle of American society. The individualistic ideal was given a self-sufficient significance, considering it not just as one of the many elements of the system of values and principles of functioning of bourgeois society, but as the main goal of any reasonable society in general. Self-reliance and self-reliance, individualism and free competition have been raised to the standard of the way of life for a large segment of the American people.

As for Ukraine, it should be noted that our state is going through difficult times of the formation of a civil society. This predetermines radical transformations in the political, economic and spiritual spheres of our life.

The return of Ukraine to the mainstream of general civilizational development is seen exclusively on the path of the market, democracy, broad personal rights and freedoms of citizens. There is simply no other way. The time has come to resolutely and forever abandon utopian myths about a bright socialist future. In this situation, interest in the ideology and values of liberalism inevitably increases, as well as in the activities of the liberal democratic parties that existed in Ukraine. This is obvious and quite natural, because only an objective analysis of the past makes it possible to a certain extent to foresee the future. It is known that historically the Ukrainian people were characterized by a striving for individual freedom and equality in public life. Therefore, there are enough reasons to assume that Ukrainian national traditions acted as one of the conditions for the emergence of liberal ideas in Ukraine, because they affected the mentality of its people. On the other hand, liberal views were formed and evolved in parallel with conscious liberalism and democracy, which, according to Mikhail Dragomanov, developed not so much on the historical-national as on the common European basis. In Ukraine, these ideas were intertwined, mixed with the local tradition of political liberties and state autonomy. In the works of historians 20-40s. the general liberal ideas spreading to Ukraine from the West are already clearly visible. This is evidenced by the "reflections" of A. Martos, which contain statements about political freedoms, a republic and a constitution. The historical tradition, fueled by patriotic feelings and fanned by the liberal-democratic ideas of its time, contributed to the Ukrainian national revival. It is important to note that in the 40s of the XIX century. along with the liberal, a revolutionary socio-political trend was formed. Probably, it was from this period that the disagreements began between the representatives of these two directions, which in the future led to the confrontation between the liberal and revolutionary currents. Evolution of liberal democratic ideas. The educational activities of the liberal-minded intelligentsia led to the creation of the Cyril and Methodius Society in January 1846. On the example of the activities of this organization, one can trace the entire development of liberal-democratic ideas in Ukraine.

After 1861 in Ukraine, along with the development of capitalist relations, the liberal movement also intensified, which received an organizational form in the form of communities. The main directions of their activity were the organization of educational circles, the study and popularization of history, ethnography, folklore of the Ukrainian people, the publication and distribution of literature. The members of the communities were mainly liberal-minded intellectuals. The opinions of the community members were reflected in the first Ukrainian socio-political journal "Osnova" (Belozersky, Kostomarov, Kulish, Antonovich). But in 1863, after the Valuevsky decree, communities in Ukraine were closed, and their educational activities were prohibited. The Ukrainian liberal movement has entered a period of recession.

Since the beginning of the 70s, prof. Volodymyr Antonovich creates an illegal "Old Society", which includes Drahomanov, Zhitetsky, Chubinsky, Mikhalchuk, Lysenko, Rusov, Staritsky, Nechui-Levytsky - a whole galaxy of prominent figures of Ukrainian culture. The Kiev community acquired the newspaper Kievsky Telegraph, which became the organ of Ukrainian thought, and also created a scientific society called the South-Western Branch of the Russian Geographical Association. The activities of these institutions were terminated by the Emsky decree of 1876, which prohibited the printing of books and the production of theatrical plays in the Ukrainian language. As Vernadsky wrote, "the period of intense struggle against the Ukrainian movement continued, with some hesitation and interruptions, for more than 50 years ..." However, liberal Ukrainian thought continued to develop in the Russian Empire. Mikhail Petrovich Dragomanov (1841-1895) was an outstanding representative of the liberal movement. He believed that the task of each person, as a people, is to know oneself and to strive to move towards civilization together with civilization, i.e. Drahomanov's approach was to link the Ukrainian National Movement and its program with European liberal-democratic concepts. But knowledge of oneself requires a high national self-awareness, and the level of civilization of the people is so low that it does not allow them to rise to self-awareness, and, consequently, the desire to revive freedom. He wrote that the Ukrainian lost a lot, because when most of the peoples of Europe created their states, we did not succeed. Dragomanov's liberalism is defined as the doctrine according to which human individuality is the highest value. Politically, this is expressed primarily in the expansion and strengthening of individual rights. Drahomanov believes that the story of freedom is the story of the restriction of state power. The inviolability of the personal sphere is more important than participation in the creation, the formation of collective political will, and the individual with his will is the basis of all possible social orders. In the mid-90s of the XIX century. These ideas were further disseminated in Ukraine. In the liberal-democratic camp, the idea of the need to unite their activities, to create a single organization is maturing.

In September 1897, thanks to the efforts of Boris Antonovich and Alexander Konissky, the All-Ukrainian Organization of Communities was created in Kiev. It included zemstvo leaders, industrialists, and representatives of the creative intelligentsia. This was the beginning of the transition of the Ukrainian liberal movement from predominantly educational to political activity. In 1903, at the congress of the All-Ukrainian non-party organization, a decision was made to transform it into a party of the liberal trend, and the development of a party program began. This work was entrusted to an elected council consisting of B. Grinchenko, Efremov, M. Levitsky, I. Chekhivsky, E. Chekalenka. And at the congress of 1904, the creation of the Ukrainian Democratic Party (UDP) was officially proclaimed and its program was adopted, which contained the basic requirements of liberalism in the field of human rights and defended the principles of constitutionalism. But a year later, a split arose in the UDP, and another party of the liberal direction was formed, with an almost identical program, but more radical in national question- Ukrainian Radical Party.

Liberal ideas received new life during the period of theoretical discussion related to the publication of the well-known collection "Vekhi". Among Ukrainian public figures- theorists of liberalism, the key place is occupied by Bogdan Kistyakovsky, the son of a professor of law at Kiev University Alexander Kistyakovsky - an active figure in the "Old community" and the journal "Osnovy".

B. Kistyakovsky, feeling the noticeable influence of Drahomanov's ideas, a significant part of his scientific activities devoted to editing his multivolume work "Political Works". In the work of Kistyakovsky, the first Ukrainian specialist in the field of philosophy of law, for a long time the problem of correlation between social and liberal ideas was defining. In 1902, he published an article "The Russian Sociological School and the Category of Possibility", which marked his decisive transition to the position of liberalism. The need to reunite the social idea with the liberal one is discussed in the work "The State Legal and Socialist" (1906), where law is considered in the context of social science, the understanding of the philosophical principles of the rule of law is substantiated.

Maxim Slavinsky and Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky also offered their own interpretation of the liberal concept.

The founders of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Vladimir Vernadsky, Agatangel Krymsky and Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky contributed significantly to the spread of the liberal idea in Ukraine. From the considerations of Tugan-Baranovsky, the idea of the ability of science to solve social problems(article "The influence of ideas of political economy on natural science and philosophy"). At the same time, it was essential to substantiate the important role of private property in the system of economic relations. Tugan-Baranovsky's position on this issue differed from various types of socialist approaches. “Modern humanity,” he wrote, “cannot do without this stimulus of economic energy ... Therefore, the termination of the operation of the private economic system would be tantamount to economic, cultural and social decline in general.”

Among the ideologists of the Ukrainian liberal-democratic movement, the outstanding figure of the first president of the UPR, Mikhail Sergeevich Hrushevsky (1866-1934), is distinguished. Personal freedom and personal responsibility were for him the basis of any social activities... High moral requirements and a sense of duty cannot be imposed on a person from the outside by either class or nation. To work for the public good, or not - everyone decides for himself. "The kingdom of freedom is obtained by the same strong compulsion over oneself, like the kingdom of God, which was once promised to faithful Christians," wrote Hrushevsky.

Section 2. Liberal thought in modern times

2.1 Criticism of classical liberalism

The problem of modern society lies in the so-called identity politics associated with the ideas of dignity, recognition and authenticity, which has replaced, or at least diminished the importance of political ideologies. The goals of self-expression and recognition take precedence over broader and more ideological issues. This is the reason for the ideological crisis, in which the main Western ideologies have lost their ability to mobilize.

At the same time, we must understand that it is possible to find a worthy justification for any company - the struggle to solve a specific problem - only on the basis of some general philosophy, which is ideology. Ideologies continue to play an important role in modern politics and even represent a necessary condition under which a democratic society can remain “healthy”. Be that as it may, the traditional ideological has ceased to be adequate and it is necessary to "draw" a new one. It should be noted that today liberalism occupies an important place among ideologies. Liberalism, in its current form, is not fully able to cope with the problems and difficulties of political life and the life of society, although, as the dominant ideology, it is actively fighting them.

During the formation of the capitalist system and the establishment of the domination of the bourgeoisie, a system of views and political orientations was put forward, which were called "classical liberalism". It was based on the political ideas of J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, Kant, A. Smith, W. Humboldt, A. Tocqueville and others.

In the process of the evolution of capitalism, the assertion of the dominance of monopolies, it became clear that these ideas do not ensure the harmonious development of society. In this regard, important provisions of classical liberalism were revised. Considerable attention was paid to reforms in order to limit the arbitrariness of the monopolies and alleviate the situation of the most disadvantaged part of the population. New SHJ principles were formulated. Hobson, T. Green, F. Naumann, J. Geliotti. J. Dewey and others)., Received the name of the new, democratic, or social, liberalism.

Under the name Keynesianism, a corresponding system of economic views was established. It provided for the strengthening of the economic and social role of the state. Archaic principles of free market and free competition, according to the supporters of this system, revolving poverty and lack of rights for some for the sake of prosperity and domination of others. The implementation of Keynesian principles is designed to mitigate, prevent economic crises or even eliminate them, and therefore strengthen capitalism. It was concluded that without government intervention, it is generally impossible to ensure a minimum of political rights for citizens. Hence the requirement for the state to retain significant regulatory functions. The existence of trade unions was recognized as natural. The concept of the "welfare state" was formulated. The necessity and possibility of overcoming social conflicts was substantiated. In the political sphere, the idea of "pluralistic democracy" was proclaimed, according to which the political system was viewed as a mechanical process of "balancing" competing group interests.

It is believed that the principle of liberalism "every man for himself" can be implemented in a society based on the principles of exchange. Exchange is seen as the most effective factor in "managing people and improving their living conditions" (K. Polen). It is possible only among equals and "teaches people to treat each other as equals."

Modern liberalism is characterized by an orientation towards rationalism and purposeful reforms in order to improve the existing system. In this regard, a significant place is occupied by the problem of the relationship between freedom, equality and justice.

Given the formal nature of political freedom and its suppression by market and monetary interests, the problem of freedom takes on an intellectual connotation. It translates into the realm of morality and culture. In this regard, it is believed that there is a specific cultural liberalism. He is assigned the first decisive role already because freedom is a CA, first of all, a spiritual phenomenon and it exists in culture.

Neoliberalism is rather "colorful" in its direction. There are trends that merge with conservatism, and there are those that have acquired a socialist connotation, such as, for example, the liberal-bourgeois reformist concepts of the "new society".

Considering themselves to be the spokesmen for the interests of the broad strata of the population, the authors of these concepts combine harsh criticism of the obvious vices of their contemporary society with very moderate reformist projects for the future. It is no coincidence that the center of their concept is not the problem of property, but the problem of distribution and redistribution of national income, the structure of social needs of society and ways to satisfy them.

Neoliberalism (from Latin Lieber-free) is a term denoting modern modifications associated with the names of Locke, Montesquieu, Smith, Mill, etc. liberalism of the 17-19 centuries, which substantiated the idea of freedom and self-sufficiency of the individual, freedom of initiative, competition, trade , freedom from state interference in economic, social and personal life.

Liberal ideology begins to change at the turn of the century (J. Hobson, T. Green, Hobhouse, F. Naumann). Along with traditional individualism, "collectivist" accents appear in it, which are intensifying. Neoliberalism seeks to substantiate and implement state regulation of economic and social life (J. Keynes, Galbraith, etc.). With the help of taxes, social programs, benefits, etc. measures of social security, neoliberals are trying to smooth out inequality in property, to create a "welfare state." Socio-political dirigism, in their opinion, does not infringe upon, but, on the contrary, strengthens the rights and freedoms of citizens. In comparison with the liberalism of the past, not only the relations of the individual, society and the state are subjected to inversion, but also the relationship between freedom and equality. If before the priority was given to the will and there was an obvious antagonism between egalitarian and liberal principles, now moderate egalitarian aspirations (egalitarianism) began to play a significant role.

At the same time, there is growing suspicion of mass democracy, about which liberalism has always taken an ambivalent position, recognizing it as a "necessary evil", the only weapon against absolutist tyranny, which at the same time threatens the "tyranny of the majority." Based on technocratic optimism, belief in the omnipotence of scientific regulation and management of socio-economic processes, neoliberalism suffered a number of failures in its programs, and from the mid-70s it began to be suppressed by neoconservatism, which returned to the idea of minimizing state intervention in socio-economic life. which, according to many neoconservatives, violates its "evolutionary" course, as well as anti-legalist ideas. The term "neoliberalism" is sometimes used to refer to neo-conservative theories, as they adopted many of the basic principles of classical liberalism.

The structure of neoliberalism includes several schools: London (F. Hayek), Freiburg (V. Oyken, L. Erhard), Chicago (M. Friedman).

One of the "fathers" of neoliberalism is the Austrian economist, a representative of the English school of neoliberalism F. Hayek. He is one of the main ideologues of the English school of neoliberalism.

Austrian economist F. Hayek (1899-1992) moved to England in the 30s, to the USA in 1949, and returned to Austria in the 70s. During his long life he wrote many books: "Prices and Production" (1929), "Monetary Theory and the Economic Cycle" (1933), "Profit, Interest and Investment", "Pure Theory of Capital" (1941), "The Road to Slavery "(1944)," Individualism and the Social System "(1948)," The Constitution of Freedom "(1960), the trilogy" Law, Legislation and Freedom "(1973-1979)," Denationalization of Money "(1976), etc. he acted as an economist and as a philosopher.

As a pupil of Wieser and Böhm-Bawerk, Hayek remained faithful to the end to the idea of the high value of the principles of economic liberalism.

Hayek proclaims the priority of human freedom as the main principle. Will is the absence of any limitation or coercion on the part of the state. Will presupposes the development of individualism. Individualism, which became the basis of European civilization, says Hayek, is not selfishness or narcissism, it is first of all respect for the personality of one's neighbor, it is the absolute priority of the right of every person to realize himself in the world.

Hayek connects the formation of modern civilization with the development of trade, the market, where natural forces operate. The lifting of restrictions was accompanied by the rise of science, invention, enterprise, wealth. The idea of natural freedom has become an element of the consciousness of all classes of society, and free activity has become an everyday and general practice. The emerging ideas of socialism, according to Hayek, should be implemented only with the help of a brutal dictatorship. "As long as control over property is distributed among many independent people, no one has absolute power over them," says Hayek. In a society where state planning is carried out, harsh coercion reigns, will disappears.

According to Hayek, true freedom is the right to freely dispose of one's capital and one's abilities, and such freedom is inevitably associated with risk and responsibility. The system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom not only for those who have property, but also for those who do not.

Socialism severed ties with the ideals of liberalism, socialism nurtured fascism and cleared the way for it to power. A totalitarian system emerged. In some democracies, a regulated society is being formed. The more a society is regulated, the more there is a stratum of people with the privilege of a guaranteed income. “Reputation and social status are beginning to be determined not by independence, but by the insurer,” says Hayek. The system of social values is changing, society is losing conditions for development.

The existence of social inequality in society, according to Hayek, is natural. The form of income distribution arises as a result of competition. In society, a kind of selection takes place, in the competitive struggle, the niche of activity and the share of each are determined, the legal order and moral norms are approved.

As a supporter of a liberal democratic society, Hayek comes to the conclusion that the state monopoly in the issue of money is harmful to society and should be replaced by free competition of private banks. Each bank of issue must issue its own currency (with its own name and external design). This would be beneficial to the population, it would get rid of government abuse when issuing money. German neoliberalism is a kind of theory state regulation but with more emphasis than Keynesianism on supporting a competitive market mechanism.

Ludwig Erhard (1897-1977) was a major exponent of German neoliberalism. With his direct participation, West Germany in the late 40s. was brought out of the crisis and reforms were carried out in it.

Erhard is the "designer" of the new economic order, who carried out economic reform and structural restructuring in Germany. The success of the reforms was determined by the combination of two components - currency reform and market economy policies.

The monetary reform was carefully prepared, carried out decisively and consistently, so that the rise in prices was stopped after about six months. By the beginning of 1950, the pre-war level of production had been surpassed. The main reason for the success is Erhard carried out the turning of the course of economic policy towards a market economy, the development of competition. The reform carried out by Erhard and his associates created the preconditions for the economic revival of Germany. Although the justification of the reform was carried out from the position of neoliberal theory, in practice the regulatory role of the state was significantly strengthened.

The prominent representatives of neoliberal ideas in France were economists M.Alle R. Aron and others.

Maurice Allais - French economist, 1988 Nobel laureate. His merit consists in proving two theorems of the theory of welfare. Their essence is that in a market economy (far from competition in a "pure" form) no one can become richer without making someone poorer.

Therefore, if the differentiation of income in society is such that a redistribution of income is required, then this should be done through the taxation system and pricing policy. The following phenomenon of human economic behavior, discovered by Maurice Allais, is also important for understanding the processes of income formation for various groups of the population: human behavior in the face of economic risk becomes rational.

M. Allé is perceived as a real scientific "monster", which in an amazing way combined theoretical and practical activities, as well as work in various fields of science.

Professor R. Aron was a famous teacher and one of the best European publicists, denouncing totalitarianism in all its manifestations.

In the United States, the so-called Chicago School of Neoliberalism has become an alternative to Keynesianism, the monetary ideas of which originated within the walls of the University of Chicago back in the 1920s. However, American monetarism acquired an independent, and even more so, leading role in the neoliberal movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s. with the appearance of a number of publications by Friedman (born in 1912), who in 1976 became one of the Nobel laureates in economics.

Friedman and his colleagues, based on research around the "construction" of the Phillips curve, came to the conclusion that this curve is far from stable, especially taking into account the situation in the economies of many countries of the world in the late 60s _nt., When inflation rises, contrary to the "logic" of this curve, was accompanied not by a decrease, but by an increase in unemployment, and then - in the early 70s _nt. - There was even a simultaneous increase in both inflation and unemployment.

Friedman attempted to revive the priority of money, money supply and money circulation in economic processes.

The novelty of the concept of state intervention in the economy, according to Friedman, lies in the fact that, in contrast to the Keynesian concept, it is limited by a tight monetary policy. The latter is closely related to the Freedmen’s "natural rate of unemployment", achieved through a constant and stable growth rate of the amount of money in the amount of 3-4% per year, regardless of the state of the conjuncture (taking into account the average growth rate of the US gross national product over a number of years, according to which the maximum possible level national economy).

Friedman's concept of a "natural rate of unemployment" is based on both institutional and legislative determinants (meaning, by the former, for example, trade unions, and by the latter, the possibility, for example, the adoption of a law on the minimum wage level). the level of unemployment at which inflation will be impossible for a certain period of time. According to M. Blaug, "the natural rate of unemployment, to which the economy is constantly returning, is a modern monetary version of the old classical doctrine of a strictly proportional relationship between the amount of money and prices in the long run , the "anchor" that keeps the interest rate steady ... ".

2.2 Liberal idea in Ukraine

Socio-political realities indicate the need to revise the basic principles on which the modern political system of society.

Since Ukraine gained independence, and until now, among scientists, discussions have continued about the principles on which Ukrainian democracy should develop and, accordingly, what foundations of human community should be laid both for the realization of the interests of an individual and for the achievement of general welfare. Ukrainian society.

Political processes in Ukraine, as well as in some states of Central and Eastern Europe, recently took place on the basis of the provisions of the liberal doctrine, under the influence of Western European political institutions and values. It is now obvious that "Western ideas and institutions do not function as planned in the euphoria that followed immediately after the collapse of socialism."

Today, the maxim formulated by Francis Fukuyama has spread: liberalism as an ideological and political concept is doomed to victory. Considering the significant influence of liberalism in the world (especially in the West and within the immediate American influence), as well as the spread and popularization of liberal views in post-communist Ukraine, this provision has become almost an axiom for many Ukrainian politicians and scientists. Liberal ideas mean striving for freedom, democracy, humanism. Liberalism is based on the recognition of the priority of human rights, which is the highest value in comparison with the collective, nation, society and state. This worldview reinforces the recognition of the sanctity and inviolability of private property, guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. Liberalism as a political and economic concept adds to this the requirement for the separation of powers, an organization of the economy that puts in the first place the freedom and natural abilities of the individual, etc. Given the modern understanding of liberalism and democracy, it is advisable to establish a relationship between these concepts. Usually the timing was perceived as interrelated. That is why the phrase liberal democracy appeared. Now, when there has been a process of not only liberal, but also conservative, social democratic concepts, the problem of their correlation with the concept of democracy is again actualized and acquires new features.

History testifies that liberal ideas in Ukraine remained, despite Fukuyama's early and automatic optimism, are doomed to failure. When, in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Ukrainian public and political figures were just beginning to try on liberal ideas to Ukrainian realities, liberal thought, as such, already united a number of developed conceptual modifications, theoretical schools and those practicing the liberal ideology of the party. In Ukrainian political thought, the liberal (democratic) idea has always been subordinated to social and national ideas. There are two attempts to perceive liberalism in Ukraine: the first is associated with the attempts of Mikhail Dragomanov to transfer Western European liberal ideas to Ukrainian soil in the second half of the 19th century and combine them with social and national ideas, the second - with the activities of representatives of the Russian liberal trend in Ukraine in the early 20th century. The first attempt was unsuccessful, primarily due to the lack of organizational foundations for popularizing the idea. As for the twentieth century, the reasons for the death of the germs of liberalism are well known: a rather strong party of constitutional democrats disappeared from the political arena after the victory of the Bolsheviks. For some time, some representatives of the Cadet Party, who worked in the system of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, remained carriers of liberal ideas. But the liberal model in Ukraine never took on a finished form. The entry of theoretical concepts of liberalism into modern Ukrainian political thought is primarily associated with the formation of parties that identify themselves as parties of a liberal orientation. The liberal trend in Ukrainian social thought was actually outlined by Mikhailo Dragomanov. Influenced by the Decembrists and representatives of British liberalism, he defended the concept of a society based on the idea of uniting harmoniously developed individuals. The path to this ideal is federalism with maximum decentralization and self-government of communities and regions.

The disadvantage of the Ukrainian liberalism of the past era was the underestimation of the national in the system of ideological foundations of society and the role of the state in relation to other socio-political institutions. Together, the key place was given to the concept of democracy, especially to the principles of direct democracy in the organization of state power, regional and local self-government. The liberals' program ideas seemed unrealistic for the Ukrainian lands within the imperial states with a totalitarian political regime. These ideas are always utopian in Ukraine and have never received widespread support.

In modern conditions, liberalism is becoming a fashionable ideological and political-economic concept in Ukraine. Now the majority of Ukrainian political organizations have adopted liberal ideas. But the problem with modern Ukrainian liberalism is the use of morally and politically outdated concepts of classical liberalism. For Ukraine, as well as for a number of countries of the post-communist world, the "syndrome of implanting a political system" is characteristic. A certain part of the democratic forces of Ukraine, focused on the liberal models of the Western world, or offers to implant these ideological foundations of the donor countries on the post-Soviet soil. At the same time, the literature that is republished and promoted in Ukraine is mainly encyclopedic manuals of the early and middle of the twentieth century.

The total liberal worldview recognizes the ideal of individual freedom as a universal goal. Individualism underlies the right of every person to life, freedom and private property, emphasized the classic of liberalism J. Locke. It is these rights that are the most important for a person, and the existence of such an institution as the state is justified by the protection of these rights, since "the primary and main goal of uniting people in solidarity and transferring themselves under the authority of the government is to preserve property." Therefore, the functions of the liberal state are limited only to the protection of property, the concept of which, according to J. Locke, includes three components: life, freedom and ownership.

It is difficult to disagree with such conclusions, especially when they relate to our Ukraine, where the accumulation of "sins of the past" went in geometric progression and this process has not yet been stopped. The development of Ukraine as a national state, designed to ensure the formation of a civil society with all the qualitative characteristics inherent in such a society, is impossible without an effective government and a system of public administration. Today in the public consciousness there has not yet been a rethinking of the role of the Ukrainian state. And that's the problem. The overwhelming majority of the population does not identify with the state, the apparatus of which has always been associated with repressive functions in relation to the Ukrainian themselves. When formulating the problems of public administration and public policy, it is necessary to focus on the very fact of the complexity of this process. Problems take shape, which makes it difficult to solve them (dissatisfaction, apprehension, disappointment, anxiety).

Unlike problems in mathematics or physics, political problems are unstructured, complex, and contradictory. They are complex in nature and contain a number of conflicts, as follows: people who want to be called politicians, in their activities are guided mainly by personal interests; consensus on goals is unrealistic; it is difficult to imagine the full range of alternative solutions and their consequences.

The problem formulation is neither systematic nor scientific, "depends on the vision of reality, intuition, imagination, creativity and luck." Political problems arise like a constellation; intersect, overlap and bump into each other. The correct formulation of the problem determines the approach to its further solution.

The inertia of historical development, when any manifestations of a living national movement in the economy, culture, and spiritual life were perceived as hostile to the existing system, was deposited on the ideology and thinking of the current Ukrainian establishment (the ruling elite, rich people).

And this is happening in the conditions of the triumph of the left forces (CPU, SPU, "Regions of Ukraine", "Our Ukraine", Batkivshchyna), which received most of the mandates both to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and local authorities.

Comparing the systems of public administration in Western Europe and the USA, one can conditionally conclude that in Europe liberalism prevails in politics and conservatism prevails in the economy; in the USA it is the other way round: liberalism in economics and neoconservatism in politics. The system of such balances allows avoiding risks that can cause destructive processes in the system of public administration and social development as a whole.

Ukraine in this comparison is a unique example of sliding into nowhere, when liberalism in politics is complemented by liberalism in the economy. Therefore, there is a tendency for Ukraine to self-liquidate as a state entity. We do not manage risks, but risks dominate us.

The dilemma, which the model, the idea to put in the basis of the formation of the Ukrainian state - liberal-democratic or national-democratic, has been reduced to a discussion of pseudo-democratic principles, skalled from other societies. It is considered good form to start the development of the state by discussing the problems of forming an open civil society and trying to integrate into the surrounding world. Attached to this are global processes of democratization, as well as processes associated with regionalization and globalization.

After gaining independence, liberal ideas still have a hard time making their way to Ukraine, and they are needed.

After all, it is the liberal political paradigm that denies any totalitarian forms of government, protects freedom, affirming the inviolability of the principle of private property, protection of civil rights and freedoms. True, there is also a downside to the problem - the abuse of political and economic freedoms. All this together, in fact, constitutes the agenda of modern political life and exacerbates the problem of the ruling elite's compliance with the challenges of the time.

The process of the formation of a new national political elite is complicated by the difficult internal and external political circumstances that cause globalization tendencies. However, despite all the difficulties in Ukraine, the principles of liberal democracy, universal suffrage and competition for power between political parties are steadily being established.

It should be noted that all these liberal principles were embodied in the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine. Thus, Article 27 states that “everyone has the inalienable right to life. No one can be arbitrarily deprived of his life. The duty of the state is to protect human life ”. On the protection of freedom, Article 29 states: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.” Articles 13 and 41 are devoted to the protection of property rights. “The state shall protect the rights of all subjects of property rights ...” - we find in Article 13. And in Article 41 reads: "No one may be unlawfully deprived of the right of ownership."

So, the basic principles of liberalism are reflected in the Ukrainian Constitution. Post-Soviet Ukraine's path to liberal democracy is not easy. However, given the Christian roots of liberalism and the deeply individualistic Ukrainian mentality, this ideology is able to organically fit into Ukrainian political culture.

Conclusion

Having studied the concept, essence, history and considering the prospects for the development of liberal thought, the following conclusions were made.

Politics cannot be understood without realizing ideas or whole conglomerates of political ideas that mobilize people at all levels of political activity. And here we are not talking about outstanding leaders, charismatic orators, founders or leaders of political parties, but about the multitude of people who have found stimulus and inspiration in political ideals.

One of these ideals is ideology.

It should be noted that today liberalism occupies an important place among ideologies. Liberalism, in its current form, is not fully able to cope with the problems and difficulties of political life and the life of society, although, as the dominant ideology, it is actively fighting them.

Liberalism - social philosophy and a political concept (ideology), which proclaims that proactive (active), free, mainly economic and political, is the real source of advancement in public life. Aimed at establishing a parliamentary system, free enterprise, democratic freedoms, it defends the absolute value of the human person and the equality of all people with respect to individual rights.

Modern liberalism is represented by many forms, their status, content and influence changing in different conditions. This is a manifestation of the fact that liberalism is a fundamentally relativistic category that can be defined only for a specific specific society and its socio-cultural context. There is no "ideally liberal" state. At the same time, in any society there is no such institution that could not be liberalized to an even greater degree.

All stages in the development of liberalism have their own peculiarities, but they are characterized by an internal connection.

After gaining independence, liberal ideas still find it difficult to make their way to Ukraine, but lack of them is necessary.

After all, it is the liberal political paradigm that denies any totalitarian forms of government, protects freedom, affirming the inviolability of the principle of private property, protection of civil rights and freedoms. However, there is also a downside to the problem - the abuse of political and economic freedoms. All this together, in fact, constitutes the agenda of modern political life and exacerbates the problem of the ruling elite's compliance with the challenges of the time.

It should be noted that all these liberal principles were embodied in the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine. Thus, Article 27 states that “everyone has the inalienable right to life. No one can be arbitrarily deprived of his life. The duty of the state is to protect human life ”. On the protection of freedom, Article 29 states: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.” Articles 13 and 41 are devoted to the protection of property rights. “The state ensures the protection of the rights of all subjects of property rights ...” - we find in Article 13.

Of course, one should not apologize for the liberal regime, since it also has its own problems, the main ones being the social protection of certain categories of citizens, the stratification of society, the actual inequality of starting opportunities, etc. The use of this regime becomes most effective only in a society characterized by a high level of economic and social development. The population should have a sufficiently high political, intellectual and moral consciousness, legal culture. At the same time, it should be noted that today liberalism is the most attractive and desirable political regime for many states.

List of used literature

1. Aron R. Stages of development of sociological thought / General ed. and foreword. P.S. Gurevich. - M .: Publishing group "Progress", 1992. - 608 p.

A.P. Butenko State: its yesterday's and today's interpretations // State and law. - 1993. - No. 7. - P. 97.

Gadzhiev K.S. Political Science DJVU. Gadzhiev K.S. Political Science. M .: International relations. - 1995 .-- 400 p.

Gelei S.D., Rutar S.M. Political science. Educational posibn. - M .: Knowledge, 1999 .-- 426 p.

Gorlov I. Principles of Political Economy. - T.I. - SPb., 1859 .-- P. 147.

Grachev M.N. Democracy: research methods, perspective analysis. - M .: VLADOS, 2004 .-- P. 34.

Dragomanov M. Free Union-Vilna Spilka // Slyusarenko A.G., Tomenko M.V. History of the Ukrainian constitution. K., 1993.-P.53.

Ideology and politics: John Schwarzmantel - Moscow, Humanitarian Center, 2009 - 312 p.

Irkhin Yu.V. Zotov V.D., Zotova L.V. Political Science: Textbook. - M .: Jurist, 2002 .-- 511 p.

History of political and legal doctrines... Ed. V. S. Nersesyants. - M .: INFRA M, 1998 603 p.

Kirichenko M.G. Fundamentals of Political Science. - M .: Education, 1995. - 332p.

I. I. Kravchenko Liberalism: politics and ideology / I.I. Kravchenko // Questions of Philosophy. - 2006. - No. 1. - S. 3-14.

Kudryavtsev Yu.A. Political regime: classification criteria and main types // Jurisprudence. - 2002. - No. 1. - P. 199.

Leont'ev K. What and how is liberalism harmful to us? // Leont'ev K. Notes of a hermit. M., 1992.S. 319-351.

Liberalism. Experience in presenting the principles and programs of modern liberalism: G. Samuel - St. Petersburg, Librokom, 2010 - 490 p.

Liberalism. Evolution of ideas: A. A. Rakviashvili - St. Petersburg, Lenand, 2010 - 184 p.

Mukhaev R.T. Political science. Textbook for universities. Second edition.-M .: "Prior-Izdat", 2005. - 432 p.

Pliskevich N.M. The right to be a liberal // Social Sciences and modernity. 2008. No. 6. P.81-87.

Political Science: Textbook for Universities / Ed. prof. M.A. Vasilica. M .: Gardariki, 2005 .-- 588 p.

The Practice of Globalization: Games and Rules of a New Era. - M .: 2000, p. 210.

Pugachev V.P., Soloviev A.I. Introduction to political science M 2000 - 386 p.

Rachel Turner. Neoliberal ideology. History, ideas and politics. 2008.S. 22

Simakov O. I. Political science. - M .: Mir, 1994 .-- 592 p.

Theory of State and Law / Ed. A.V. Vengerova. - M .: Infra-N, 1999 .-- S. 159.

Theory of state and law: Textbook / Pigolkin A.S., Golovistikova A.N., Dmitriev Yu.A., Saidov A.Kh. / Ed. A.S. Pigolkin. - M .: Yurayt-Izdat, 2005 .-- 613 p.

Tocqueville A. de. Democracy in America: Per. with fr. Moscow: Progress, 1992.560 p.

French liberalism in the past and present: - Moscow, Moscow State University Publishing House, 2001 - 224 p.

Tsygankov A.P. Modern political regimes. - M .: Open Society Foundation, 1995. - P. 153.

29. Yuliya Krasnogolova Dilemma to liberalism and communitarianism

/ Yulia Krasnogolova // Viche - [Electronic resource] - Access mode: http://www.viche.info/journal/814/

Kuts G. M. Liberalism and Democracy: the vicissitudes of the relationship / KUTs G. M. // Viche - [Electronic resource] Access mode: http://www.viche.info/journal/600/

31. Rozputenko Ivan Іluzії chi reform? spivisnuvannya / Ivan Rozputenko // Viche - [Electronic resource] Access mode:

32. AfoninEduardPolitics- “foxes” daughters “leviv” spivisnuvannya / AfoninEduard // Viche [Electronic resource] Access mode: http://www.viche.info/journal/288/

Tutoring

Need help exploring a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Send a request with the indication of the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Topic 3. Liberalism in Russia

1. The evolution of Russian liberalism

Russian liberalism is an original phenomenon based on Russian spiritual experience and traditions. In its origin, it is associated with the emergence of the shoots of bourgeois civilization and was an adequate form of expression of this process

In Russia the social base of liberalism as an ideological and then a political trend was made up of landowners who switched to capitalist methods of management, the noble and bourgeois intelligentsia.

The formation of liberalism went through a number of stages and was interrupted by the October Revolution.

The origin of noble liberalism refers by the 60s. XVIII century - the beginning of the XIX century. (ideas of enlightenment, criticism of serfdom and autocracy, projects to limit absolutism ). The experience and ideas of liberalism in Western Europe had a significant impact on its formation.

Already in the second half Xviii v. in works Semyon Efimovich Desnitsky(c. 1740-1789), Yakov Pavlovich Kozelsky(c. 1728 - c. 1794), Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov(1744-1818) and others serfdom was condemned, freedom, education and self-government were defended ... These thinkers, without demanding the direct abolition of serfdom and the liquidation of the autocracy, offered the nobility acceptable ways of transforming them, in particular, limiting the sale of peasants and the power of the monarch by a representative body (Senate), strengthening the rule of law.

In the first half XIX century... liberal thought found its expression, first of all, in the program of social transformation Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky(1772-1839). Alexander's closest assistant I and Nicholas I , he tried to adapt the principle of separation of powers to a self-moderated form of government, to ensure the flexibility and efficiency of the state mechanism, its accountability to estates ... The reforms he proposed provided for some transformation of the autocracy in terms of its self-limitation by becoming a constitutional monarchy... This the main problem was never resolved in XIX century.

The theoretical provisions of classical liberalism were used noble revolutionaries-Decembrists... In justifying their protest against the autocracy, they proceeded from the theory of natural law, and above all, the right of every person to life, freedom, property, equality before the law. Moreover, they proposed to use the principle of separation of powers in the formation of institutions of state power .

In the pre-October period liberalism in Russia was presented several directions (conservative liberalism, "new" liberalism ).

The essence conservative liberalism - in the synthesis of the main ideas of classical liberalism (individual rights and freedoms, reformatism) and conservatism (strong power, order and stability, continuity in development, adherence to religious and moral values ). To designate this synthesis as a synonym, the term "liberal conservatism" is used. One of the leading representatives of this trend, P.B. Struve believed that the formula "liberal conservatism" arises at "some point where liberalism and conservatism, of course, converge ..." 1.

Conservative liberalism was a program of activities of the moderate intelligentsia in the post-reform period, which sought to expand and consolidate social transformations through dialogue with the authorities, participation in zemstvo self-government and enlightenment of the people. .

The founder of conservative liberalism was the professor of law Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin (1828-1904). The essence of the concept he developed was the synthesis of the principles of personal and public freedom with political traditions and moral and cultural principles of the people.

B.N. Chicherin paid considerable attention to the problem of the correlation of civil society and the state. In his opinion, the need for an independent, autonomous civil society stems from the nature of man as a self-determined being. At the same time, he pointed to the relationship between the state and civil society, considering civil society as the foundation of the state. B.N. Chicherin developed liberal ideas of legal the state, the rule of law, limiting any power ... However, he did not share the idea of natural and inalienable rights of citizens, since he believed that its implementation could lead to anarchy. According to B.N. Chicherin, rights to citizens should be granted by the state .

The most reasonable form of government for Russia is B.N. Chiche-rin considered constitutional monarchy which he believed able to guarantee the stability and flexibility of government ... This can be achieved through its rational distribution between legislative, government and judicial institutions under the auspices of the monarchy.

The idea of B.N. Chicherin that the renewal of political life is promoted by the principle of political pluralism ... A huge role in this process is played by opposition, which criticizes the authorities and makes them fulfill their obligations ... Political competition contributes to the emergence of the most gifted politicians.

B.N. Chicherin also noted the shortcomings of political pluralism. Party affiliation makes people's perception of the world one-sided, and constant political struggle weakens the government. The desire of parties to get the support of the population at any cost is forcing them to use such methods of struggle as lies and slander.

A prominent representative of conservative liberalism was Konstantin Dmitrievich Kavelin(1818-1885) - a prominent philosopher, historian and lawyer. His political ideal - unlimited monarchy combined with effective local government ... He believed that the premature introduction of a constitution limiting the power of the monarch could lead to the autocracy of the bureaucracy and the nobility.

K. D. Kavelin was an adherent of the philosophy of non-violence, asserted that all violence would perish not under the blows of other violence, but as a result of the exhaustion of its inner principles. To overcome social evil and injustice, from his point of view, it is possible only through the formation of public opinion and the development of legal awareness.

Famous thinker Peter Berngardovich Struve(1870-1944) as a result of long creative research came to the conviction of the priority of the religious and moral values of society and the individual ... Based on the principles of national-conservative liberalism, he substantiated the need to create a legal state in the form of a constitutional monarchy. According to P.B. Struve, the new Russian statehood should be based on the country's historical past, cultural traditions and creative activity of all patriotic forces.

On the issue of individual rights, P.B. Struve attached paramount importance to civil rights. In this regard, he sharply criticized socialism, which denies the human right to private property. Denial of this right leads to the undermining of the principle of freedom and responsibility of the individual.

P.B. Struve emphasized that he believed “in the power economic development based on freedom and property ”. However, he supported the "idea of reasonable state intervention in socio-economic relations" in the interests of economically weak strata of the population, that is, the principle of social justice.

The conservatism of P.B. Struve manifested itself in exaggerating the role of the state principle in public life. He saw in the state an independent force, rising above society and carrying out those tasks that are dictated by the logic of its own development. In his opinion, "it is the state that is, as it were, a certain person who has its own supreme law of being." This law is seen in the power of the state as the main measure of the country's vitality. Above the personality, they also place the national principle, which, like the state, has a super-intelligent and mystical character.

A weak point in the concept of P.B. Struve was also underestimating the role of democracy . On the issue of the relationship between the legislative and executive powers in a state governed by the rule of law, he clearly exaggerated the role of the latter. ... The prerogatives of the legislative branch are reduced only to "complicity in setting the budget" and other laws of the state.

Thus, the understanding of P.B. The structure of the nature of the state and democracy is in clear contradiction with the idea of the rule of law advocated by him.

During the years of emigration, P.B. Struve, a very productive idea was justified that For the political reorganization of post-communist Russia, it is necessary to establish a semi-democratic regime, which, acting in a liberal spirit, would introduce the principles of a market economy and civil society and thereby prepare the population for broad participation in politics. Russian philosophers I.A. Ilyin andG.P. Fedotov. Subsequently, the same idea was put forward by Russian scientists I.M. Klyamkin and A.M. Migranyan, writer A.I. Solzhe-nitsyn.

At the beginning of the XX century. liberal political thought acquired new features. The peculiarity of the so-called "New" liberalism consisted in the fact that he was formed in an atmosphere of sharp criticism of the idea of the rule of law from the left-wing radical and reactionary forces. So the most important tasks of liberal scientists and politicians were to substantiate the progressive role of the state in the history of mankind and to protect the basic principles of the rule of law. Russian liberals considered social rights as part of natural human rights, insisted on changing factory legislation, permitting trade unions, creating a system of state and public charity for the disabled, etc. These problems were reflected in the works of the outstanding philosopher and lawyer Pavel Ivanovich Novgorodtsev(1866-1924), famous historians and sociologists Bogdan Alek-sandrovich Kistyakovsky(1868-1918) and Nikolai Ivanovich Kareev (1850-1931).

P.I. Novgorodtsev developed the concept of socio-political values, including both basic values (freedom, equality, solidarity) and more specific values (rule of law, popular sovereignty, etc. .).

The main of the most common values of P.I. Novgorodtsev considered freedom. She understood not in a negative aspect - as the absence of coercion over a person by the state and other people, but in a positive - as “freedom with the help of the state”, which provides citizens with the opportunity to have adequate means (material and spiritual) for effective participation in socio-political activities.

P.I. Novgorodtsev goes beyond formal, legal understanding equality. This principle means for him not just the equality of all before the law, but the creation of social conditions for all citizens that are conducive to their development. - ensuring a certain level of education, material wealth, health protection .

The principle of solidarity was understood by P.I. Novgorodtsev as an agreement and voluntary cooperation of people in the socio-political sphere. Its specific manifestations should be agreement on the form of political government, the main directions of government activity, etc.

The values of freedom, equality and solidarity presented themselves P.I. Novgorodtsev universal for all eras, but with specific historical content .

P.I. Novgorodtsev defended the natural human right to choose the form of government, considered the rule of law as an obstacle to private arbitrariness ... He developed the idea of a welfare state, which should guarantee an individual a dignified existence. At the same time, the importance of such rights as the right to work, social insurance, professional organization and personal freedom was emphasized. P.I. Novgorodtsev was one of the founders of the Constitutional Democratic Party (Cadets) .

The basic principle of the rule of law P.I. Novgorodtsev believed political and ideological pluralism ... A dispute with opponents of this principle, according to P.I. Novgorodtsev, is "a life-and-death dispute." "Democracy," he wrote, "means, perhaps, the complete freedom of the individual, the freedom of his quest, the freedom of the competition of opinions and systems."

The rule of law P.I. Novgorodtsev could not imagine without division of powers into legislative, executive and judicial, balancing and controlling each other. He considered the teaching of C. Montesquieu on the separation of powers to be one of the most significant achievements of political thought.

A significant place in the works of P.I. Novgorodtseva is the idea of popular sovereignty, realized through parliament, parties, referendums, plebiscites etc. Parliament, he believed, cannot mirror the will of the people, since it consists of representatives of groups and classes with differing interests. Therefore, the authorities must look for acceptable, compromise solutions for the main subjects of politics. He regarded parties as an important link connecting society and the state. .

Democracy P.I. Novgorodtsev considered it impossible without an extra-parliamentary initiative ... “In the latter case,” he wrote, “everything is determined by the moral and mental forces of the people, but that is precisely why it is necessary and important for every ability to open freedom of expression in the political sphere.”

An important role in the mechanism of democracy P.I. Novgorodtsev was taken away from public opinion. According to P.I. Novgorodtsev, it especially significant in defining the goals of society, but much less effective in defining the means of achieving goals "This is an area that requires not only common sense of the masses, but also technical training and specialized knowledge."

P.I. Novgorodtsev highly appreciated the merit of the outstanding Russian thinker Vl. Solovyov in the defense and substantiation of universal moral and ethical ideals. In this area, from the point of view of P.I. Novgorodtsev, deepened and developed the Westernizing doctrine. “Since Westernism was precisely a doctrine, and not a simple product of imitation and borrowing,” noted P.I. Novgorodtsev, - it followed from one very important and deep dogma: from the belief in the existence of universal principles and universally binding ideals. Hence his confidence in the experience of Western Europe, which has gone further ahead of us, but is related to us in ideals and aspirations; hence his protests against the isolation and isolation of Russia. It is this dogma that attracts Soloviev to the Westernizers. What he himself used as a demand for universal unity and universal human solidarity coincided with the main belief of the Westerners. "

In general, P.I. Novgorodtsev was the most consistent thinker of the liberal democratic trend in Russia at the beginningXX century, surpassed their outstanding predecessors B.N. Chicherin and V.S.Soloviev ... Many of his thoughts are very valuable and relevant in the conditions of modern Russian realities.

According to another well-known representative of the "new" liberalism B.A. Kistyakovsky, in a state governed by the rule of law, power will be formed on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, popular representation, and a high political culture will facilitate the settlement of social conflicts ... Like P.I. Nov-Gorodtsev, B.A. Kistyakovsky was a supporter of the idea of a social state, which aims to ensure the right of citizens to a dignified existence .

However, B.A. Kistyakovsky was not in the full sense a liberal thinker, since He considered the socialist state to be the highest degree of development of the rule of law. The growth of the rule of law into the socialist stage was conceived through transformations in the economy and social sphere. In economics, the anarchy of economic life inherent in capitalist production must be replaced by "the organization of production that characterizes the socialist system." In the human rights system, he proposed to include socio-economic rights that could radically improve the situation of society. , - the right to work (understood as the right to use land and other means of production), the right to develop all abilities, the right to participate in all material and spiritual benefits.

The limitations of B.A. Kistyakovsky was tortured combine liberalism in politics with socialism in economics ... A society where there is no private ownership of the means of production and a market economy, by its nature, cannot be truly liberal

According to N.I. Kareev, the cultural and historical meaning of statehood lies in the consistent expansion of the sphere of social cooperation and the limitation of the area of social conflicts. He saw the reasons for the revolution in the unresolved social problems, and compared the revolutions themselves with storms and thunderstorms in nature, acute illness in organism.

N.I. Kareev prophetically warned about the main dangers of revolutions. A movement that began under the slogan of freedom could lead to a new dictatorship. After the revolution, the old power relations often emerge under new slogans, and the general goals of revolutions give way to individual desires.

The ideas of liberalism were at the heart of the program of the Cadet party, which united in its ranks the color of the intelligentsia, who dreamed of radical transformation of Russia by parliamentary means, on the basis of universal human values. Cadets consistently stood for the separation of powers, for the creation of the foundation of civil society and the rule of law ... In the field of foreign policy, they provided for the country's predominant orientation towards Western democracies .

The ideas of liberal reforms carried out by a strong state power determined the political course of P.A. Stolypin In particular, he made an attempt with the help of the state to turn the peasants into private owners, thereby creating conditions for the modernization of the country.

In this way, between 1861 and 1917 liberalism expressed the desire of the bourgeoisie to eliminate class privileges, transform absolutism into a constitutional parliamentary monarchy, and establish a legal system. Liberal theorists emphasized the identity of the paths of development of Russia and Western Europe, the unity of the historical process. As evolutionists, they were categorical opponents of social upheavals , considered them anomalies in the life of society.

The historical drama of liberalism was that it the current did not have a broad social base and was a hindrance totheir radical and conservative opponents seeking a clash. Liberal calls for dialogue were not heard, and the country was plunged into civil war. During the Civil War, the liberal-bourgeois parties took part in the armed struggle against the Bolsheviks. After its completion, the most famous liberals (P.B. Struve, M.I. and critics of the asserted totalitarianism.

Russian liberals expressed deep judgments about the reasons for the revolution that took place and the country's prospects. So, S.L. Franc I thought that socialism attracted the people not by its positive ideal, but by the force of rejection of the old order, not by what it aspired to, but by what it rebelled against. P.I. Novgo-rodtsev stated the crisis of the democratic idea in Russia, meaning the inapplicability of liberal democracy in the event of the overthrow of Bolshevism. Russian society was regarded by him as uncommon for democracy either in socio-economic or cultural relations. .

Published in 1917, the brochure "Political Freedom and Socialism" Sergei Iosifovich Gessen developed ideas liberal socialism. He considered the main value of such socialism to be the right that would make it possible to curb capitalist exploitation, limit the receipt of profits and carry out the redistribution of ownership of the means of production between social groups. - production associations such as guilds, consumer cooperatives, etc. Restructuring in the economic sphere will help to meet the needs of people and change the role of the state, which will turn into an intermediary between social unions, coordinating their activities, preventing and resolving conflicts between them. that is, expressing the interests of society. The restriction of the state by coordinating functions "is nothing but a penetration of the state by law to its logical end."

In general, the concept of S.I. Hesse is close to the ideas of guild socialism. The absence of private property and the market, which maximally stimulates the economic initiative of people, excludes the possibility of creating an effective economy , restructuring the social and political structure of society on the principles of liberalism.

The course of history in XX v. allows us to draw a conclusion about the correctness of the idea of bourgeois-democratic reforms put forward by the liberals within the framework of the constitutional monarchy as a stage on the way of Russia to the rule of law.

2. Modern liberalism

During the Soviet period national history the official position of the authorities in relation to liberalism consisted of silence and a sharply negative assessment of its "bourgeoisness". In the mass consciousness, the word "liberalism" acquired a negative meaning under the influence of Lenin's articles with offensive criticism of liberals. At the same time, even during the totalitarian regime, liberal values had staunch and courageous champions among the Russian emigration, domestic dissidents and human rights defenders.

In the absence of a market and a rule of law, the liberal orientations of Russian citizens for a long time were a factor primarily of a spiritual order, a style of thinking. They were characteristic, first of all, of elite groups that professionally combined a high level of education with the need to make responsible decisions, with a variety of public contacts.

A significant role in the spread of Soviet liberalism in the USSR was played by the "sixties ", Whose worldview was formed during the" Khrushchev thaw " In the second half of the 1980s. they initiated modernization, transforming Soviet liberalism, first into liberal-democratic socialism, and then into liberal democracy .

The assimilation of liberal principles was greatly facilitated by Gorbachev's reform course focused on combining socialism with democracy ... Democratization included not only democratic measures proper (introduction of alternative elections, separation of powers, abolition of censorship), but also a number of liberal ideas (natural and inalienable human rights, market competition, civil society).

Formulated by M.S. Gorbachev and his entourage, the concept of "universal", "universal human values" in essence, was a domestic version of the theory of convergence of capitalism and socialism, put forward by Western liberals in the 1960s. As you know, the creators of this theory predicted the assimilation of the best features of each other by capitalism and socialism andtheir gradual transformation into a "single industrial society".

On the whole, the ideological and political concept of perestroika has evolved from a democratic to a liberal-democratic one, paving the way for the Westernization of Russian society, that is, the introduction of models and mechanisms that functioned in the West. In 1991, liberal democracy finally replaced democratic socialism as the main direction of modernization in Russia.

1990-1991 liberalism achieved "mass" success in Russia, playing the role of "anti-communist ideology". It seems, however, that this success was more likely caused by the emotional upsurge that gripped society, accompanying the collapse of "real socialism." Liberal rhetoric was present in the statements of politicians and programs of political trends of various orientations (a classic example is the name of the "Liberal Democratic Party of the USSR", created in March 1990).

However, in the same period, those features of domestic liberalism were formed, which served as the reasons for the steady decline of its influence. The main ones were:

Ø speculative copying of the Western model of social structure, and mainly of the period of its formation;

Ø underestimation of the problem of adapting the principles of liberalism to Russian conditions.

A definite role in the rooting of these traits in Russian liberalism played by the absence of any lengthy philosophical, theoretical and ideological maturation ... For several decades, the liberal tradition was essentially interrupted and resumed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. in the form of a political and publicistic attack on totalitarianism. At the same time, the highest achievements of Russian pre-October liberalism were almost completely ignored. The evolution of the outstanding liberals B.N. Chicherin, K. D. Kavelin, P.N. Milyukova et al. Contained important lessons that would help modern liberals avoid many mistakes and costs.

One of the main tendencies of pre-October Russian liberalism was that it was consistently formed into social liberalism, which rejected the idea of non-interference of the state in social development and cultivated the principle of mutual obligations of individuals, classes and the state in relation to each other. to friend ... This trend in the conditions of the 1990s. was not taken into account and was not reflected in practical politics.

Russian liberals did not properly take into account the experience of the leading trend of Western liberalism XX century - neoliberalism associated with the names of J. Keynes, F.D. Roosevelt, J. Galbraith and synthesizing in himself individualism, democracy and social reformism.

One of his lessons concerns the problem of the relationship between the individual and society. Neoliberals rejected the postulate of liberalism of previous centuries that individual interests in conditions of freedom automatically satisfy the general interest ... In fact, in their opinion, in the regime of "natural freedom" innate selfishness is not able to curb even the best representatives of the human race ... Therefore, guided by the interests of all classes and the principles of humanism, the state and civil society are obliged to develop and maintain the “rules of the game” in the social sphere and the economy.

Another lesson from Western liberalism concerns the relationship of freedom and democracy. Domestic liberals in the approach to this problem, in fact, demonstrated economic determinism, when argued that economic freedom, market competition and private property are the conditions and guarantors of political democracy. This concept is extremely simplistic, since democracy does not automatically follow from the freedom of private property and the market. In reality, the correlation between them is quite complex, excessive manifestation of economic freedom can damage democracy, and vice versa. Western liberalism XX v. considers them as independent values and is aimed at finding the optimal measure in their interaction.

The next lesson of the liberal reform of the 1990s. touched problems of state participation in the regulation of the social sphere... The liberals opposed the equalities of the socialist system the idea of "equal starting opportunities", based on the fact that government intervention aimed at leveling the conditions of existence of individuals is vicious and anti-liberal ... In their opinion, each person should get what he deserves due to his individual qualities.

From the standpoint of Western liberalism, this approach is an anachronism. The simple removal of the state from participation in the development of social relations does not at all ensure “equality of opportunity”, since “starting opportunities” will be determined, first of all, by social origin and material the position of individuals. For this reason the state is obliged to provide conditions for the realization of the individual abilities of those social groups, who for various reasons are deprived of access to such vital areas as education and medical care.

One of the main mistakes of the reformers of the 1990s. was underestimation of educational activities for the dissemination of liberal ideas, which the classics of liberalism attached paramount importance to. So, Ludwig von Mises considered the most important task of liberals "to convince fellow citizens of the need to adopt a liberal program."

Retains its relevance criticism by L. Mises liberals for neglecting education. “Liberals were of the opinion that all people have the intellectual ability to correctly interpret difficult problems of social cooperation and act accordingly. They were so struck by the clarity and self-evidence of the argumentation with which they came to their political ideas that they were simply unable to understand how someone failed to grasp them. They never learned two things: Firstly, the masses do not have the ability to think logically; Secondly According to most people, even if they can recognize the truth, a short-term, even partial, benefit that can be used immediately seems to be more significant than a permanent global benefit, which should be postponed. Most people do not have the intellectual abilities necessary to ponder the ultimately very complex problems of social cooperation, not to mention the fact that they do not have the willpower and cannot make temporary sacrifices, without which it is impossible - social interaction is possible. The slogans of interventionism and socialism, especially proposals for the partial expropriation of private property, always find enthusiastic approval among the masses, who expect to receive immediate and immediate benefits from this. "

From the above, it is obvious that the Russian liberals did not comprehend the most important lessons of liberalism, the dilemmas and contradictions of Western civilization.

In retrospect, it becomes apparent that a feature of Russian liberalism as utopianism, expressed in an inadequate assessment of the real state of society and the country's capabilities for the embodiment of Western models. With consideringThese factors were unrealizable plans for a quick and not reducing the economic situation of the population to transfer the economy to market rails, forced mass farming in the absence of the necessary production and technical base and socio-cultural prerequisites, the creation of a middle class as the basis of social stability. Expectations for the reorganization of the political sphere in a short time - the establishment of political pluralism, multiparty, separation of powers and legal statehood - turned out to be overly optimistic.

In the course of radical reforms, the tendency of transformation of power into property, which emerged during the perestroika period, triumphed. ... Its result was replacement of nomenklatura socialism with nomenklatura capitalism. The relatively massive and active stratum of qualified public sector employees in large cities, which constituted the social base of the liberal-democratic wave, was eroded and demoralized by the reforms. A huge property gap has formed between the new elites and the bulk of the population. In general, instead of the creation of an American or European model of social order, which was planned by radical liberals, a bizarre symbiosis of early capitalist and Latin American models has emerged. .

The reaction of society to the high social cost of radical modernization was a crisis of confidence not only in the authorities, but also in liberalism as an ideology that personified reforms in the eyes of citizens. ... A dramatic consequence of the course of the radical liberals was the growth of the influence of communist and national-patriotic ideas and movements, which endangered the process of the formation of democracy.

Despite the colossal costs of "shock therapy" in the 1990s, the historical role of radical liberalism should not be underestimated: it contributed to the dismantling of the totalitarian regime, the formation of the foundations of a market economy and a political system based on the separation of powers and a multi-party system. , marked the beginning of Russia's integration into European and world economic and political structures. In the opinion E. Gaidar, positive results of reforms in the 1990s. are as follows :

Firstly, in the fall of 1991 Russia faced a real threat of hunger , comparable in scale to that which she experienced during the revolution of 1917. And this is evidenced by the newspapers. Thanks to the reforms carried out and the launch of market mechanisms, the threat did not materialize. But such things are quickly forgotten;

Secondly, privatization of public housing was free and more liberal than in Eastern Europe, where even now in many countries people pay debts to the state for apartments that were privatized in the early 1990s;

third, in Russia market economy, competition, convertible currency have become a reality accepted by the society, which is also an achievement of the reforms carried out in the 1990s.

Starting out since 1993, an important qualitative change is taking place in Russian liberalism - strengthening the position of social liberalism as a democratic alternative to radical liberalism ... This ideological trend is represented, first of all, by the Yabloko party, for a long time headed by G.А. Yavlinsky.

Social liberals consider it necessary to revise the vulgar approaches to reforms, given the scale of social stratification and imbalances regional development countries threatening its integrity ... The civilized distribution of national income should be as much a public policy priority as its growth.

The features of social liberalism are present in the programs and slogans “ United Russia"," Fair Russia "and some other parties and movements. Social liberalism relies on broad strata of urban and rural entrepreneurship and the intelligentsia.

With the formation of a competitive environment in Russia, liberalism acquires a material base and ceases to be a factor of the main image of the spiritual order. He is currently represented in various fields:

in the field of economics - This is freedom of entrepreneurship, domestic and foreign trade;

in politics - a liberal constitution, a social system and a multi-party system;

in the field of ideological - ideological pluralism, free dissemination of philosophical and religious views.

The social base of domestic liberalism - primarily highly educated, in-demand people, residents of capitals and megalopolises, possessing large adaptive resources .

In the political spectrum of Russia, there are two liberal parties - "Just Cause" and "Yabloko". They are supporters of a socially oriented market economy, minimizing government intervention in the economy. They are characterized by adherence to the universal principles of political democracy - the separation of powers, a multiparty system, the provision of individual rights, the independence of the media, etc. Sharing these principles, liberals are convinced that their further dissemination and establishment in Russia is possible only on the basis of their own experience. the flow of liberalism. In the field of foreign policy, they speak out against imperial traditions, isolationism and confrontation, for the integration of Russia into the community of civilized states.

In a liberal environment, conservatism is popular as an antithesis to socialism ... The word "conservatism" is widely used in the program documents of the Union of Right Forces and Yabloko, the center-right "party of power" - United Russia.

The political party "Union of Right Forces" sees its primary task in strengthening and developing institutions of democracy and free market, spreading liberal ideas and values among all segments of the population of Russia, and especially among those. which represent the social basis of national liberalism

At the beginning of XXI in the PCA the following problems seem to be the most significant

Fostering a new democratic civic consciousness based on understanding the state only as a tool for realizing the right of citizens to a dignified life.

Formation of a new image of the Russian state and a new patriotism, the source of which would not be nostalgia for great power, but the awareness of the freedom of citizens as the basis of the true greatness of the country.

Assertion of property rights as sacred and inviolable, the irreversibility of legal guarantees for effective entrepreneurship,

Creation of a compact and most effective "state of professional management" and the fight against corruption that corrodes the social organism of Russia,

Ensuring the rule of law and effective guarantees of human rights,

Creation of a representative All-Russian Liberal Party,

Overcoming monopoly in the information and communication system,

Conducting step-by-step federal reforms by gradually equalizing the rights and obligations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation while preserving their regional and ethnocultural identity,

Ensuring the rights of all peoples and ethnic groups of Russia to preserve their original culture, language and traditional way of life,

Full-scale liberalization of the labor market, ensured by the legally enshrined freedom of movement of labor resources, effective protection of the rights of employees,

The earliest possible construction of a competitive market economy capable of generating funds both for creating new jobs and for introducing reliable environmental protection technologies into production,

Conducting a nationwide education reform, subordinate to the logic of long-term global competitiveness of the economy

The goal of the Russian Democratic Party "Yabloko" - a democratic, prosperous Russia, a strong country capable of:

Ø create world-class public education and health care systems;

Ø overcome a deep ecological and demographic crisis;

Ø compete on equal terms with the leading countries of the world;

Ø to enter as a full member of the European Union and other European economic and defense organizations.

Landmark of the Russian Democratic Party "Yabloko" - a society of equal opportunities based on the principles of social justice and social solidarity between the strong and the weak. She sees the most important condition for the existence of a free society in Russia not only in the expansion of private initiative, but also in the creation of a developed system of social support.

The party sets itself the task the rehabilitation of democratic values in the eyes of the majority of the population, the formation of a stable democratic order, which includes the rule of law, market economy, civil society, a modern security system and a post-industrial strategy within the framework of European development.

Considering sustainable democracy as a prerequisite for dynamic development in XXI century, vital for Russia, the RDP believes that in the absence of developed democratic institutions, attempts by the ruling elite to establish an authoritarian system serving the interests of a narrow group of individuals will lead Russia to bureaucratic stagnation, irreversible backwardness and final transformation into a third world country .

The RDP proposes a wide range of measures to protect democratic institutions, fully realize the rights and freedoms of citizens, form a middle class as a guarantor of democracy, create a social market, maintain public order and improve the moral image of society, overcome environmental problems, ensure security and the fight against terrorism, post-industrial modernization of the country.

Social liberals declare their Russian patriotism, but not the kind that puts the state above the individual, leads to incitement of national hatred and is capable of destroying the integrity of the country and causing its international isolation. They consider Russia's national interests to be incompatible with imperial myths and chauvinistic hysteria. For them to be a patriot means to work for the good of the country and its citizens, and not to pronounce "beautiful" words, to look for internal and external enemies ... Preserving the integrity of the country within its current borders is considered as a strategic task of the nation in XXI century.

Liberals associate the future of Russia with Europe and the European path of development as it is a European country by virtue of its historical destiny, cultural traditions and geographic location. They believe that the potential of the Russian nation can be revealed through the prism of creative assimilation of the values of the European civilization, to the formation of which the great Russian culture made a significant contribution. The European path means the growth of the well-being of Russian citizens, its approximation to European standards through the formation in our country of a socio-economic, political and environmental model of the European type The development of Russian legislation in accordance with the principles of the Council of Europe is a powerful impetus that Russia will receive from integration with the European Union. Such integration, according to the liberals, is required by the interests of the country's national security - in the face of global challenges, Russia and Europe can only survive together .

In the context of Russia's ongoing search for a new identity, it seems realistic and constructive position of those domestic scholars of liberal orientation, who understand its integration into Western society not a physical connection to certain international institutions, but the creation within the country of modern institutions of a post-industrial society, ensuring its competitiveness ... They see the problem not so much in the consolidation of Russia in the West, but in consolidation within its modern institutions, technologies and practices, transformation into a "new West". Such integration will not only not lead to Russia's loss of its identity, to become like the United States and the European Union, but will be almost the only reliable way to strengthen the international status of Russia.

Russian liberals declare their solidarity with the international liberal community in an effort to adequately meet new challenges to humanity in XXI v. They are convinced that the survival of all peoples in the new century largely depends on how widespread liberal values are.

The most famous representatives of modern expert liberalism in the area of:

Ø political science and international relations - A.G. Arbatov, I.M. Bunin, V.L. Inozemtsev, A.A. Kara-Murza, S.A. Karaganov, I.M. Klyamkin, S.A. Markov, A.M. Migranyan, B. A. Nikonov, A.M. Salmin, G.A. Satarov, D.V. Trenin, K.G. Kholodkovsky, L.F. Shevtsova, F.V. Shelov-Kovedyaev, V.L. Sheinis;

Ø the economy - E.T. Gaidar, A.N. Illarionov, G.A. Yavlinsky, E.G. Yasin;

Ø jurisprudence - S.S. Alekseev, M.A. Krasnov, A.V. Obolonsky;

Ø national relations and federalism - V.A. Tishkov.

The development of liberal ideology and the substantiation of the principles of liberal policy, corresponding to modern Russian realities, is the main task the Liberal Mission Foundation, created in 2000. The Foundation publishes publications, discusses topical issues of Russian and world politics, initiates Internet discussions with the participation of not only adherents of liberal views, but also representatives of other political and ideological trends, including open opponents of liberalism.

In the publications of the "Liberal Mission" it is noted that dialogue is an integral part of the liberal discourse, a way of public existence that is inherent in it. The development of a dia-logical culture is considered by the foundation as one of the main missions of the liberals. At the same time, the task is not set to convince the opponents, forcing them to abandon their convictions. The problem looks different: Liberals can realize their own ideals and views only if a dialogical culture is rooted in society, which makes it possible to overcome the irreconcilability of ideological confrontations, to achieve the minimum necessary public consensus on basic values .

The most famous studies of domestic liberals, published in recent years :

E.T. Gaidar - « For a long time... Russia in the Modern World: Essays on Economic Strategy (M., 2005), “The Death of an Empire. Lessons for Modern Russia (M., 2006);

E.G. Yasina- “New era - old worries. Political Economy "(M., 2004) and" Will Democracy Take root in Russia "(M., 2006);

G.A. Yavlinsky- “Perspectives of Russia” (Moscow 2006), “Incentives and Institutions. Transition to a market economy in Russia "(M., 2007),

"After the Empire" (Ed. THEM. Klyamkina... M., 2007).

The first of these books claims to be a kind of manifesto of neoliberal ideology. XXI v. Studies of domestic liberals represent, in our opinion, an importantpart of the intellectual preparation for Russia's transition to a legal democratic system.

We share the point of view of those scientists who believe that liberalism is again becoming relevant for Russia due to the need for post-industrial modernization of the country, which cannot be carried out by an authoritarian regime. Such modernization requires a developed innovation sphere, freedom of business and its legal protection. It is liberalism with its emphasis on the institutions of property and competition that is capable of leading Russia along the path of modernization reforms, providing the necessary technological breakthrough into post-industrialism.

To return to big politics liberal and democratic forces have to solve a number of tasks:

Ø unite disparate parties into a single structure;

Ø create a broad coalition of like-minded people;

Ø to formulate a new ideologeme, which would not only proceed from the liberal paradigm, but also take into account the prevailing left trend in public sentiment - a strong nostalgia for Soviet times, a much greater demand for ideas of justice and equality than for the ideas of civil society, and inviolability of private property.

It seems likely that the democratic parties will drift towards social liberalism, and the social component will be strengthened in their programs. The idea of the domination of individual rights and the protection of the interests of an ordinary person can become a platform for the convergence of democratic parties and the main one for the liberal movement, capable of uniting millions of people around it. On the basis of this idea, society should be offered a project that would meet its needs as much as possible, be able to explain to an ordinary person the opportunities for self-realization that a democratic system will open up to citizens.

Despite all the difficulties in the formation of Russian liberalism, its long-term prospects seem to be favorable. ... With the strengthening of the bourgeois and middle strata - carriers of liberal consciousness, the formation of a competitive environment in Russian society, the transformation of Russia into one of the competing centers of power of the multipolar world, one can expect an increase in the influence of liberalism, the expansion of the electorate of liberal parties and their acquisition real chances for a political future.

Domestic and foreign researchers associate the future of liberalism in Russia with the formation of its new, viable variety, corresponding to modern conditions. At the same time, the author emphasizes the relevance of referring to the unclaimed ideas of Russian liberals, which remain relevant.

Literature

Vlaskin A.G. Russian liberals (social philosophy of the liberal direction of the first half XX century). St. Petersburg: Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University of Economics, 2007.

Gaidar E.T. The death of the empire. Lessons for modern Russia. M .: ROSSPEN, 2006.

Gaidar E.T. For a long time. Russia in the Modern World: Essays on Economic Strategy. Moscow: Delo Publishing House, 2005.

Zaitseva T.I. In Defense of Russian Liberalism // Polis. 2006. No. 1.

Kara-Murza A.A. Liberalism against chaos (The main intentions of liberal ideology in the West and in Russia) // Political Science in Russia: Intellectual Search and Reality. Reader. M .: MONF ITsN and UP, 2000.

Leontovich V.V. The History of Liberalism in Russia: 1762-1914. M .: Russian way, 1995.

Liberal Conservatism: History and Modernity. Mat. Vseros. scientific-practical conf. M .: ROSSPEN, 2001.

Russian liberalism: ideas and people / Under total. ed. A.A. Kara-Mur-zy. M .: New publishing house, 2004.

Sidorina T. The origins of the crisis of liberalism in the Russian way // Free thought. 2008. No. 1.

Yavlinsky G.A. Prospects for Russia. M .: GALLEYA-PRINT, 2006.

Yavlinsky G.A. Incentives and Institutions. Transition to a market economy in Russia. M., 2007.

Yasin E.G. New era - new worries. Political Economy. M .: New publishing house, 2004.

Yasin E.G. Will democracy take root in Russia? 2nd ed., Rev. M .: New publishing house, 2006.

We bring to the attention of our readers the text of the first part of the new book by Yuri Kubasov "Liberalism"

Introduction

There is probably no more popular political term now than "liberalism".

Russian society is divided by this term into three unequal parts. The first part, rather small in number, considers liberalism to be a salvation for Russia. The second part of society, a little larger than the first, mercilessly scolds liberalism, accusing it of all mortal sins. And the third, the most numerous part of society, in confusion looks at these altercations, unable to make a decisive choice between them.

And indeed! How can an intelligent choice be made when liberalism itself is completely undefined. Formal definitions, of course, exist in abundance. But it is completely unclear where, when and why liberalism appeared, why it has spread so widely and successfully across the planet.

The violent debates between liberals and their opponents are interesting to watch - they are emotional and vivid. However, disputes are ongoing and cannot identify an absolute winner - in this sense, they are ineffectual. Neither liberals have a clear advantage in defending liberalism, nor their opponents, because there is no common view of liberalism - each defends his point of view and uses his own argumentation. Liberalism, therefore, is an extremely speculative concept on the basis of which anything can be formulated. This is the "secret power" of his world triumph.

The aim of this work is to define liberalism as a historical phenomenon. It is necessary to find out the time and reasons for the emergence of liberalism. It is necessary to understand its roots and fruits. It is necessary to conduct a historical analysis of its development, distribution and victorious march across the planet.

Only by creating an exhaustive and understandable image of liberalism can we talk about accepting or overcoming it. Only then can one begin to talk about the salvation of Russia.

Work logic

The path to this study began with a statement of the fact that the world is on the verge of a grandiose systemic crisis.

The constituent parts of the modern world systemic crisis are

The financial crisis as a result of a person's perverted ideas about the organization of the world financial system;

Economic crisis as a consequence of man's perverted ideas about the organization of the world economic system;

The ecological crisis as a consequence of man's perverted ideas about progress;

Social crisis as a result of perverted ideas of a person about humanism;

Cultural crisis as a result of perverted ideas of a person about a person.

We will not now list all aspects of the current global systemic crisis. Let's just note that this crisis covers all aspects of human life and activity, without exception.

All crises have so far been resolved traditionally - at the expense of a weaker neighbor. The way out of the modern systemic crisis of the world is not so obvious because no one wants to be “extreme” in the modern world.

The uniqueness of the current situation is that the traditional attempt to overcome the crisis will inevitably lead to a world massacre with unpredictable consequences, and the civilization of the New Age simply does not know other ways to overcome the crisis.

Therefore, the liberal world of the "advanced and progressive" countries now seems to be hovering over an abyss, not seeing any other way out of the crisis besides the traditional violence against the weakest, and fearing to unleash a carnage in which it may well disappear.

After the fact of the inevitability of the impending destruction of the European civilization of the New Age has been understood and accepted, the question should be asked about how this civilization came to life like this - why did it fall into a modern systemic crisis and who is to blame that this fall was possible?

It is unlikely that the current crisis was the result of a conspiracy of any "dark forces". Having nothing, in principle, against the conspiracy theory, we only note that, in our opinion, the human mind is unlikely to be so sophisticated as to purposefully lead the world to total self-destruction for many centuries, which may occur as a result of a global systemic crisis. In all likelihood, the current crisis is the result of ordinary human greed and incompetence. Selfishness and ignorance, human vices - these are the parents of any crisis.

The creator of the global systemic crisis is the lifestyle of a free European person based on selfishness and unrestrained consumption. Every modern state boasts of its achievements in the production and consumption of products per capita. There is a world race under the slogan "The biggest consumer". In this race, the "developed capitalist countries of the world", or the countries of the "golden billion", or "civilized" countries ", or the OECD countries, or the countries of Euro-America have succeeded - whatever we call them, we are always talking about the countries with the highest the level of GDP per capita in the world.

Consumption in the most developed countries of the world is so great that it is many times higher than consumption in other countries. If the consumption level of "backward" countries suddenly rose to the level of consumption of "rich" countries, the planet would instantly be inundated with garbage and suffocate from greenhouse gases. Already now, "rich" countries do not have enough area of the globe to clean up their emissions without harm to the world's ecology.

Here are ... strange people do you need to continue to uncontrollably increase the economy of consumption in economically developed countries?

The current global systemic crisis - economic, financial, political, demographic, environmental, moral, and so on - threatens the European world with a terrible catastrophe in the coming decades.

If the problems of human life in the modern world are only exacerbated, this means one thing - "Homo sapiens" misunderstands the world. If a person cannot live in a world without wars, violence, cruelty, inequality and injustice, then does a person live correctly? Did the person put the right ideas into the basis of his life? The immensity of the current global systemic crisis and the inevitability of the subsequent destruction of European civilization indicate that it is based on false principles.

The European world (and Russia, as an integral part of the European world) is now in a state of some new primitiveness in understanding the foundations of its existence: to live in the old way means to inexorably move into the abyss, and a modern European simply does not know how to live differently.

This means that human society is faced with the task of redefining the foundations of its existence, rethinking its understanding of the world in order to try to stop the impending catastrophe.

The European part of humanity again, as more than once in its history, stands at a crossroads: the path beaten by centuries leads the European world to the grave, it would be necessary to leave it, and where is unknown. This means that in search of ways out of the crisis, it will be necessary to rethink the development of European civilization over the past thousand years.

It is not only post-Soviet Russia that has entered a period of decline - the entire European world has long been plunging into an ocean of storms, which many European thinkers have warned about more than once. And in order to stop this sinking, it is necessary to revise the ideological foundations of the existence of European civilization - it is necessary to understand the values of European ideology, on which the entire European civilization of the New Age is built - the ideology of liberalism.

If this ideology has led European civilization to a modern impasse, from which it is impossible to get out without a world massacre, then it is necessary to understand why this ideology became possible at all, what is its appeal and why it captured the minds of hundreds of millions of people, forcing them to build such a world.

How did it happen that the people of the 21st century turned out to be so ignorant and vicious that they led the world to the abyss? Where did such a greedy and insignificant person come from? Who is generally responsible for the spiritual and moral development of a person?

The modern world is the result of the centuries-old development of mankind in modern times, which took place under the sign of liberalism - the liberation of man from all forms of dependence. The modern world is the long-awaited and come (for some "advanced" countries) kingdom of freedom on earth. Almost the whole world now lives within the framework of a liberal ideology, the main symbol and slogan of which is freedom and human rights.

It is not in vain that the “developed world” is also called the “free world”, rightly believing that the material success of capitalist countries depends primarily on the amount of freedom in these countries.

Liberal ideology shaped all the ideas of a European person, on the basis of which that way of life was formed - a liberal way of life, a way of life of a free person - which led the world to a modern systemic crisis.

The liberal ideology, according to which life is built in the overwhelming majority of countries, has brought the world to the edge of an abyss, to the edge of an abyss, from which there is no peaceful way out within the framework of liberal ideology.

Where did the ideology of liberalism come from, which is responsible for the current global systemic crisis, which is responsible for the impending fall of earthly civilization into the abyss of conflicts and bloody wars?

Only after understanding the conditions for the emergence of liberalism, it is possible to understand the problems of the modern world and try to find the keys to changing the modern liberal (consumer) way of life, pushing people to a thoughtless selfish race for material consumption. Only by understanding the genesis of liberalism can we talk about a new ideology - the ideology of salvation for Russia and humanity.

Until we understand why and how liberalism has led the world to the modern systemic crisis of human civilization, we have no other alternative but death along with liberalism.

If liberalism has led the world to a global systemic crisis, then it is necessary to know exactly why and how this ideology appeared in order to be able to find other ideological foundations for the development of mankind that do not lead the world to catastrophes.

This study is devoted to the answers to these questions.

From idea to ideology

Liberalism is a doctrine of freedom, it is a system of views aimed at "freeing a person from all forms of dependence", it is an ideology of freedom, theory, program and practice of liberation.

Man, one way or another, is dependent on many things. He is physically dependent on the natural environment, on the social environment. Generally speaking, a person cannot but be dependent on the external world, since he himself is an integral part of it. However, in his fantasies, in dreams, a person sometimes imagines himself “completely free”. And since a person is always dependent on the natural environment, from which to free himself means to die, then freedom, in practice, means the liberation of a person from the will of another person, other people, society, and the state.

The idea of liberating a person from this or that dependence accompanies a person at all times.

The slave dreamed of freedom from the master. The artist dreamed of freedom of expression. The merchant dreamed of freedom of the roads from robbers, and of the seas from pirates. The robber dreamed of freedom from responsibility for the crimes he had committed. The manufacturer dreamed of freedom from the arbitrariness of an official. The official dreamed of the freedom to impose extortions on his own. The monarch dreamed of the freedom to rule without laws. The feudal lord dreamed of the independence of his fiefdom from the lord. The husband dreamed of the freedom to manage his time himself. The wife dreamed of freedom from family affairs. The adulterer dreamed of freedom of intercourse with anyone and everyone. The pervert dreamed of freedom of intercourse with just anyone, with anything, and whenever. And so on and so forth.

Thoughts about freedom and liberation from any kind of dependence have always been inherent in a person simply due to the fact that the mind, in principle, cannot be limited in thoughts without killing him. Freedom is an integral attribute of reason, its natural property.

The striving for freedom is the natural striving of the mind.

Where did the ideology of freedom come from? Where are the origins of modern liberalism?

CONDITIONS FOR THE APPEARANCE OF LIBERALISM.

The prerequisites for the emergence of liberalism are

Monotheism,

Formalization of faith,

The total domination of the immoral Catholic Church in Europe.

Monotheism, which came to Europe along with Christianity, completely supplanted paganism already in the first millennium from the birth of Christ.

We will not consider here the advantages of monotheism over paganism - many thinkers have done this beautifully before us. Let us note only one feature that opens with the adoption of monotheism - only monotheism allows in one act to abandon faith in God, religion in general and switch to the position of atheism.

In paganism, this is impossible in principle - one cannot doubt the non-existence of all the gods at the same time. You can reject one or the other god, but not all at once. Pagan atheism is not a rejection of gods in general, but only a rejection of their primacy, exclusivity. Pagan atheism can do whatever it wants with the gods, belittling them as it pleases, rejecting one or the other, but is unable to abandon the gods in general.

And only with the emergence of monotheism it becomes possible to reject God and religion in general. But in order for this to become possible, several more conditions are required.

Formalizing faith in God means replacing God with the "infallibility of the Pope." This is a centuries-old process of replacing true faith in God with formal relations with Him, when all issues can be settled through the Catholic Church. The formalization of faith was needed by cunning and hard-hearted people to carry out their affairs on earth, hiding behind the name of God.

The formalization of faith in God, that is, the separation of faith in God and moral behavior in life, took place over the course of almost a thousand years of Catholic domination in Europe before the Renaissance - the Catholic Church taught how to behave in life, based on their own interests. Having stood as an impenetrable wall between God and man, she arrogated to herself the right to speak on behalf of God. Broadcasting Christian truth to the poorly educated medieval European flock in an incomprehensible Latin language, Catholic churchmen pursued far from Christian interests.

Belief in God in the Catholic interpretation does not mean compulsory adherence to His commandments in life, but only the fulfillment of the orders of the Catholic Church. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church gradually subordinated the population and power in Europe to its influence. In the name of God, she severely punished all those who dared to think and speak differently than she allowed. Not by the word of God, but by monstrous torture, violence, fire and iron, the Catholic Church brought up the obedience of Europeans to their orders.

It was during the Middle Ages that one Christian army sheds the blood of another Christian army, and both opponents go to battle with each other "in the name of Christ" - it is difficult to imagine a more monstrous perversion of Christ's commandments! The Catholic Church has completely perverted the teaching of Christ, so that some Christians shed the blood of other Christians "for Christ's sake," but in fact - for the material interests of the ministers of the Catholic Church.

The final victory of the Catholic formal approach in the interpretation of Christianity was consolidated by the church schism of 1054. Then Catholic Europe proclaimed itself the mortal enemy of Orthodoxy, which remained faithful to Christian traditions, as heretical Christianity. And since then, not only the church schism has taken root, but also the split of Europe into two Christian civilizations: Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Catholic).

This split occurred not only in the interpretation of biblical texts, in the rite of worship. This was a split in the understanding of the foundations of human society, a split in the approach to man. Two mentalities have formed, which sharply contradict each other.

Two value systems were formed on a Christian basis, forming different people: the obedient slaves of Catholicism and the free followers of Christ. That is why Catholicism has always treated Orthodoxy as a mortal enemy - Orthodoxy prevented the spread of a formal approach to faith and thereby prevented the further enslavement of peoples into Catholic slavery.

This hatred explains the reason for the complete destruction of Orthodox Constantinople in 1204, when the crusaders, instead of an Eastern campaign against Muslims, ravaged the richest city in the world, plundering Christians providing Europe with the initial capital to create the foundations of capitalism.

This hatred of the informal faith in Christ also explains the cruel sentence of Jeanne dArc - she was condemned as a heretic jointly by the Catholics of France and England. Condemned for the fact that she dared to believe in God not formally, as taught by the Catholic Church, but as Orthodox, without intermediaries, in the person of the Pope. Moreover, she dared to inspire the French not to spare their lives for the sake of victory over the British, using the Orthodox interpretation of faith in God, making them invincible. Therefore, they executed her not as the victor of the British, but as a heretic who dared to believe as Orthodox.

This hatred explains all the “misunderstanding” of the Russian people by the Europeans - it is easier to label the enemy as “barbarians” in order to exclude forever any sympathy for the people of “this wild country”. This explains the constant cruelty that the Europeans have always shown towards the Russians - none of the European capitals was touched by the great Napoleon, but ordered to blow up the Moscow Kremlin.

And it was precisely from the time of the split in 1054 that the Russians gradually became invincible to the Europeans. Russians, brought up by Orthodoxy, fought with the enemy not for fear, but for conscience, not sparing their lives, because bodily life is short and frail, and the soul is eternal. Life, according to the Orthodox, should be given for the sake of truth and justice, for the happiness of the motherland, for the sake of people, because only in this way can one deserve eternal life. Europeans, the more formal faith changed their thinking, the more they fought for money - for earthly, bodily life.

The most terrible regime in the history of Europe was the period of domination of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, when it established its total control over the thoughts and actions of Europeans. The role of totalitarian ideology was then played by the Catholic interpretation of Christianity. Then the Catholic Church turned into an apparatus of persecution and suppression of any dissent. With the help of the secular authorities completely subordinate to her, the Catholic Church controlled the entire life of society. Relying on the indisputable authority of the Pope, infallible and non-judgmental, the Catholic Church established in Europe a total regime of control over people, bloody and despotic.

Gradually, the Catholic Church overshadows secular power with its wealth and luxury - what is this if not worship of the "golden calf"? Not only did the Catholic Church not kick the merchants out of the temples, it itself became a street vendor selling "blessings and forgiveness." No matter how moral a freak a person may be in his life, through the Catholic Church he can buy himself a place in paradise for money. And the mercy, which the Catholic priest repeated in his sermons, in real life turned into bloody torture chambers - tens of millions of Europeans were tortured and spiritually broken in torture chambers.

Most of all, the human conscience suffered - the responsibility of a person before the higher spiritual forces, before God. Catholic ministers instilled in the parishioners the need to live according to Christ, while in real life a European was constantly faced with the fact that the Catholic Church itself was far from being Christian. The Catholic Church corrupted the Europeans with its immorality and itself completely corrupted as a result of its total domination over the Europeans. She, with her desire to rule over people, did everything in her power to deprive a person of the desire to live according to the Christian commandments.

In Europe, there was gradually growing protest against the lies, cruelty, meanness and deceit committed by the Catholic Church. Europeans were less and less inclined to obey the Catholic calls to live according to Christ, seeing that the Catholic Church itself at every step violates the commandments of Christianity. A terrible split of the European personality has taken place: in words, all Europeans glorify Christ, but in practice, in life, they do evil and lawlessness at every step.

For a thousand years, by the time of the Renaissance, Europe experienced such a deep moral decline of society that it was natural to abandon the Catholic God, who served as a purely formal cover for the total domination of the immoral Catholic Church over the soul and body of man.

THE BEGINNING OF A LIBERAL ERA.

When you touch the Renaissance, you immediately imagine its cultural achievements - masterpieces of world art, the work of masters, canvases and sculptures of European artists, the creations of architects. The revival is seen as a flourishing of culture and art, a striving for light, for truth, for justice.

As a rule, the most positive thoughts and feelings are associated with the Renaissance. The revival is perceived as a celebration of the liberation of man from the dark medieval Catholic stagnation. At the same time, there is a feeling of the flight of human thought towards freedom and towards light. Figures of the New Age - the spiritual children of the Renaissance - created such a festive idea about her.

However, if we talk about the origins of the ideology of liberalism, then it was in the Renaissance that the ideas appeared on which this ideology was later built.

The lies preached by Catholicism in the form of truth, and the evil that Catholicism has been doing for thousands of years in Europe, could not fail to give the appropriate shoots. In the end, Catholicism turned the Europeans away from Christ and his teachings and created all the conditions for the fall of European man into immorality.

Ferocious cruelty, power, and wealth are the role models the medieval Catholic Church provides to its parishioners. And if God tolerates such immorality of Catholic ministers, without punishing them immediately according to their atrocities, then it means that He does not care about human affairs in general. If God allows evil on earth, even from people speaking on His behalf, then either God is indifferent to the earthly affairs of man, or ... He simply does not exist - this is the result of a thousand-year total Catholic domination in Europe.

The idea of freedom becomes an ideology after the European realizes that his behavior is ultimately governed by Catholic moral norms. This means that in order for a European to become free, it is necessary, first, to get rid of the Catholic Church. Getting rid of Catholicism is the path to freedom for the European.

Thus, the Catholic religion and faith in God become the main enemies of the European man on the path of his liberation - the European man transferred his hatred of Catholicism to God. Awareness of this fact during the Renaissance and became the beginning of the ideology of liberalism.

God is the main obstacle to the liberation of man.

Since the Renaissance, European thought has moved away from God as the supreme arbiter of human deeds. From now on, the person himself, and only himself, evaluates his actions. Now a person decides for himself what principles he should live by. The European of the Renaissance began to feel that he was a great master of his destiny, independent of divine providence.

The Renaissance figures, fearing reprisals from Catholicism, have not yet dared to directly reject the existence of God. But since their faith followed the Catholic rite, that is, more formally than in essence, the commandments of Christ had practically no effect on the daily life of Europeans.

Genuine Christian faith means daily living based on the commandments of Jesus Christ. And Catholicism actually separated the faith in God from the morality of Christ, thereby perverting the whole teaching. Therefore, although there was no formal refusal of the leaders of the Renaissance from God, in fact, belief in God even then turned into an empty formality.

And gradually admiration for the scientific and technical achievements of the New Age instilled in the minds of European intellectuals such confidence in the power of the human mind that they began to abandon God altogether, moving to the position of a rational, that is, godless, understanding of reality. Rationalism did not need "this hypothesis" explaining the structure of the world.

Europeans in modern times, by inertia, still continue to call themselves people who believe in God, but in real life they completely reject the morality of the Sermon on the Mount. It is the New Age that shocks the imagination with the monstrous genocide committed by Europeans (Catholics and Protestants) against the inhabitants of Asia, Africa and America. Hundreds of millions of people on both sides of the Atlantic were ruthlessly exterminated by Europeans for the sake of European prosperity.

How could Christ bless such deeds? It was necessary to completely pervert the teaching of Christ, it was necessary to completely reverse the meaning of his words so that people could be killed, covering up their cruelty every time with His name. And so Europeans, who do not believe at all and supposedly believe in Christ, are doing evil, and at the same time a donkey chorus of those thirsting for freedom accuses God and his teaching of this evil done by “Christians”, shifting the blame for human atrocities from the Catholic Church to Christ. What amazing cynicism and ignorance have merged in their desire to freely create lies and reprisals on earth!

An example of mental speculation aimed at abandoning faith in God, for example, is the work of Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525). Speaking about the general decline of morality in contemporary society, the philosopher tragically exclaims:

“And is there nothing to be surprised at seeing that the path of virtue is strewn with obstacles, that an honest man is everywhere subjected to sorrow, torment and suffering? It turns out as if God punished people for walking the path of virtue, while the villains are surrounded by honor, prosper and inspire fear. "

Interestingly, the Catholics do it! Catholics invented their own understanding of God, forced the Europeans to believe in their caricature with iron and blood, and then they accused God of human villainy - very cunningly, however!

Deception and hypocrisy organically passed from the Catholic Church to the ideologues of liberalism. When a liberal declares that he believes in God, it means that we are either not a liberal at all, or God is “not real” - Catholic or Protestant. Liberals who believe in God do not exist in nature - this is an oxymoron.

Liberalism is the ideology of human freedom and liberation, and since human freedom is initially regulated by religion and God, then human liberation, that is, liberalism, begins with the rejection of religion and belief in God.

BASIC POSTULATE OF LIBERALISM.

What is the basic principle of liberalism, what is liberalism based on? Liberalism begins with the rejection of faith in God, first the rejection of the formal and then the actual.

The main dogma of liberalism says: there is no God, man invented God for his own purposes, man is his own master in the world, which exists by itself, was not created by anyone. It was the leaders of the Renaissance, still hiding behind the name of God (Catholic), who carefully introduced into the minds of Europeans the basic dogma of liberalism - man is his own master and master in this world, and there is no other world.

At first, God was removed from the earthly affairs of man, and then became unnecessary in the affairs of heaven - "I do not need this hypothesis" (Laplace). Since the 16th century, since the Renaissance, the idea of the uselessness of God for the prosperous life of people gradually captures the minds of the population of Europe. It was during this period of history that Europe became the center of the world: economic, political, scientific, cultural. Europe is becoming a world hegemon precisely on the basis of liberal ideology, on the basis of the complete freedom of man from God, on the basis of rejection of God as a judge of people for their earthly affairs, on the basis of refusal to subordinate worldly life to the moral commandments of Christ.

Liberalism frees a person from faith in God, from the Catholic Church, from Catholic dogmas that claim to be the norms of human life. A person should not submit to religious Catholic norms of behavior that limit his freedom, the leaders of the Renaissance believed. Liberalism, in order to destroy the claims of the Catholic religion on the teacher of morality, had to discredit the belief in God in general, as the only source of morality. Liberalism, therefore, is the ideology of a godless person.

Rejecting the Catholic interpretation of faith in God, the Renaissance leaders did not even think about looking for other interpretations of faith in God, brought up by Catholicism in the spirit of irreconcilability towards dissent. This led to the fact that, together with immoral Catholicism, the search for the "correct" faith was also naively rejected. Scientists - former Catholics, considered it was religion in general responsible for the moral downfall of Catholic society - not Catholicism, but religion in general! Only the excessive conceit of European thinkers did not allow them to return to Orthodoxy and to genuine Christianity.

Liberalism is, in fact, the religion of modern man, since it is based on the belief in the non-existence of God. On the belief that a person on earth can do without faith in God.

Faith in God is replaced by faith in the omnipotence of man, in the omnipotence of the human mind, in the ability of the mind to cognize the world and remake it to fit your needs at your own discretion - this is a new human faith, a new religion. At first, this new faith still tolerates God in one form or another (deism, pantheism), but later completely abandons it, proclaiming rationalism and "scientific atheism".

God was removed from the pedestal, but "a holy place is never empty" and in the place of God was the man himself with his passions and phobias. However, gradually becoming disillusioned with his abilities to organize a human-loving world, a person, in search of something eternal, absolute, independent of human arbitrariness, tries to perch something "beyond doubt" on a pedestal.

The atheistic mind, rejecting God, creates idols for itself, with the help of which it tries to improve human life. An idol is the deification of everything, anything, in return for the recognition of God. Such an idol for the classics of Marxism was the class struggle, through which, allegedly, history moves. The Leviathan state was also an idol at one time. Children were announced as idols: "the mouth of a baby speaks the truth." A woman became an idol: "What a woman wants, God wants." Anything can be an idol, but in the twentieth century, after numerous disappointments in the dignity of this or that idol, money took the place of the universal idol. By the end of the last century, everything in the world has come to a common denominator - money is above all!

"Time is money" - this is the meaning of liberalism for all time!

HUMANISM INSTEAD OF CHRIST'S MORALITY.

True faith in God involves daily strict adherence to His commandments. To be a true Christian is to live according to Christ, that is, to keep His commandments in real life.

Or a person accepts God and, therefore, imposes on himself the obligation to behave in life according to His commandments. Or the person wants to behave according to their own concepts. Then he either formally recognizes God, like Catholics and Protestants, but in fact ignores His commandments, and behaves in life in no way reconciling his behavior with the norms of behavior set by God. Or a person simply denies the existence of God in order to completely reject His moral standards together with God, which is done by atheists.

There are only two sources of regulation of human behavior. Or live according to the commandments of God, strictly controlling your actions with His commandments. Or live how you want, how you think up for yourself. And some figures of the Renaissance - the first liberals, rejecting the millennium of Catholic lies, chose the second option. This is how a new morality was born: humanism - the doctrine of philanthropy without God.

Renaissance figures understood the need for a criterion for assessing human behavior. Denying the existence of an immortal soul and the Lord, judging it for earthly affairs, that is, denying the superhuman criterion for assessing human behavior, the thinkers of the Renaissance guessed that the absence of a criterion in general could lead to general chaos, when everyone is his own master and nothing will keep a person from violence against relationship to another person. To prevent this from happening, the leaders of the Renaissance come up with a basis for moral behavior, introducing the concept of humanism.

Humanism offers as a criterion for assessing human actions "the good of man." It is a speculative criterion according to which everything that contributes to human well-being is moral. The admiration of the philosophers of the Renaissance and the New Age before the human mind and belief in the ability of the human mind to understand the world made the human mind an evaluator of moral behavior: a reasonable person does what contributes to the well-being of society and man.

However, the insoluble problem of humanism lies in the fact that a person cannot find non-speculative grounds for the concept of “the well-being of a person and society,” for example.

What does “human and social welfare” mean? What kind of person, what kind of society should be in the first place? A free man, not limited in his desires, must by a strong-willed effort limit his desires for the sake of some ephemeral "welfare of mankind"? Humanity is far away, and desires constantly tempt a person, and the overwhelming majority of people do not understand why you need to limit yourself when there is an opportunity to satisfy your desires, albeit at the expense of other people.

Without God, people cannot limit their desires, therefore humanism in real life extends only to the inner circle, when people are forced to correlate their desires with their “neighbors” and when they don’t think about the “distant ones” who live “somewhere out there”. So the Europeans, hiding behind humanism, arranged a warm world for themselves in the New time at the expense of robbing the rest of the world.

Liberalism renounces not just norms of behavior, but also religious norms of behavior. It arises as an ideology for the liberation of man from the guardianship of the Lord God. But the whole problem is that without the authority of religion and God, atheistic morality does not work and humanism is powerless to stop European violence against the peoples of the world.

To prevent the self-destruction of the godless society, humanism was invented - the norms of morality written by people. But no moral norms work if they are not backed up by the meaning of human existence in this world.

If the meaning of life is to deserve eternal life, then a person will try to act so as not to offend other people, knowing that this is what God wants. But if there is no meaning in life and we are all just random moments of life in the endless abyss of space and time, then what will make a person overcome himself, overcome the world and take care of others, if his memory is erased without a trace the next day after death?

On this occasion, Gorfunkel A.Kh. cites a very interesting statement by the theologian of the XIII century Pietro de Trabibusa: “If there is no other life ... a fool who commits virtuous deeds and refrains from passions; a fool who does not indulge in voluptuousness, debauchery, fornication and filth, gluttony, extravagance and drunkenness, greed, robbery, violence and other vices! "

Honest European thinkers of the twentieth century (Albert Camus, for example) also understood all the futility, meaninglessness, showed the whole tragedy of the existence of the universe and man without God. Their confessions reveal the insignificance of the claims of humanism to be a moral teacher of man. Rejection of God deprives a person of the meaning of existence and nothing will force him to follow human laws. Nothing will force a person to love people “just like that”, because a person is not a dog, which “loves” any person who will play with her and feed her.

The Renaissance epoch, which rejected God and opened the way to freedom for man, proclaimed humanism as the moral basis of human community. Humanism is morality based not on God, but on the mind of man. Reason, freed from faith in God, itself develops the norms of behavior necessary for society. Previously, the Lord set the norms of human behavior, but now the human mind began to set the norms of behavior in accordance with humanism, that is, with "philanthropy without God."

But a person freed from faith in God, from the need to follow His moral commandments, is not inclined to blindly accept the reasoning of "ordinary people", which undoubtedly were the leaders of the Renaissance, but begins to draw up his own code of conduct, in accordance with his own ideas about good and evil.

Catholicism was far from encouraging a person to follow the commandments of the Lord in everyday life. So the man of the Renaissance, freed from God, completely "went off the rails" - never a man treated a man so cruelly as a European man, freed from the "moral fetters of religion" in modern times.

At the same time, humanism remains the subject of armchair reflections of highbrow enlighteners. Cabinet hackers, far from understanding life, composed beautiful odes to "a free man who realized his perfection." Everything worked out smoothly on paper. A person freed from God realizes his responsibility for himself, for people close to him, for society and for humanity. And he acts in life in accordance with this responsibility. It's that simple!

However, this is in theory. Practice shows a slightly different picture. Not all people take responsibility for themselves, poisoning themselves with alcohol, smoking and drugs, doing stupid things, encouraging their laziness and whims, corrupting themselves with pride and ignorance. Very few people realize their responsibility for their loved ones, harassing them with nagging to hysterics, or trying to completely subordinate them to their whims, or introducing them to their vices, or trying to "get rid of the burden", "accidentally" killing them in a tightly closed car, standing for many hours in the sun. And very few feel their responsibility for society, which sometimes people call "a herd of sheep", and for the state, which the liberals call "an instrument of oppression." And people who are aware of their responsibility for humanity generally cause laughter and become patients in psychiatric hospitals.

Humanism, thus, was and remains a "figure of thought", caused by the beautiful-minded idea of man, a utopia that leads society to self-destruction, and the world to wars.

On the basis of his own reason alone, a person must resolve the contradiction between personal freedom and social necessity. That is, each person during his life must for himself, independently, without relying on God, solve the problem of self-limiting his own needs. Isn't humanism demanding too much from a person? Of course, with appropriate upbringing and education, a person can rise to the realization of his responsibility for the reality around him. But this is a very costly mechanism that requires the efforts of the entire society and a strong state for the moral and intellectual development of the individual.

Perhaps humanism could play the role of a moral regulator in people's lives, but for this it would be necessary to organize a serious upbringing and education of a person, so that every person at a high level would realize the intellectual and moral development of mankind, so that each person would really become a highly educated person and abstract humanist. But for this it would be necessary to limit the freedom of a person in his desire to be lazy, run away from lessons, cheat and carelessly treat homework and generally strengthen the role of the state in the upbringing and education of a person, which is clearly contrary to the liberal principles of liberating a person from the "yoke of the state" ...

On the one hand, it is necessary to free a person from dependence - to give a person freedom. On the other hand, it is necessary for a person to perform a certain social function for the sake of preserving society. It is this contradiction between the thirst for complete freedom and the need to preserve society that humanism had to resolve - the moral teaching about a person freed from faith in God.

The norms of morality and ethics uniform for all people do not exist outside of faith in one God.

The first question that the little man asks is "Why?" "Why should I love people?" "Why do you need to love your homeland?" Why care for your elders? "Why is it necessary to keep the family?" "Why" where was he born - there he came in handy? "

To all these and many other questions, religious morality gives an unambiguous answer that does not require reasoning - this is what God wants. A man without God answers these questions with endless reasoning and doubts, unable to prove or refute a single position, for "The word spoken is a lie."

No one will ever rationally, without relying on God, be able to prove to a person why he should act this way and not otherwise.

Humanism - an attempt to come up with a rational morality, turned out to be so "effective" that it managed to lead Europe and the world through the bloody path of the wars of the New Age to the bloody catastrophes of the twentieth century. Humanism - rational morality - is a phantom, a desire to build a prosperous life for people on earth without God. The modern systemic crisis of the world shows all the disastrous for man and mankind of this historical delusion.

Nothing will convince a person not to torture or kill other people, except for the confidence that his immortal soul will be rewarded according to its merits for all its deeds in earthly life.

THE MEANING OF THE RENAISSANCE.

The meaning of the Renaissance is to raise the question of the rejection of God, of the norms of behavior associated with God - in the rejection of man from Christian morality. Man threw away the Commandments and Sermon on the Mount, as regulators of their behavior, replacing them with their own lawmaking. From now on, it is not God who determines the norms of behavior - the norms of behavior are rationally deduced by each person from the analysis of the surrounding reality.

The meaning of the Renaissance is to change the criterion of the truth of human behavior. If earlier such a criterion was the Lord God with his covenants, now it is the human mind. The Renaissance era marked the beginning of the following of humanity along the road leading to self-destruction and self-destruction, leading to the self-destruction of the world.

Instead of the Lord God establishing what is good and what is bad, man must now decide for himself what is good for him and what is bad. Instead of an external Judge who judges a person's behavior according to his absolute concepts and condemns a person either to Paradise or to Hell, a person from the time of the Renaissance gets the opportunity to judge himself on earth, according to the laws drawn up by himself.

There has been a revolution in consciousness, according to which a person lives not in order to deserve Salvation, but in order to make his only and short life on earth happy (according to his concepts). There is no need to think about the “afterlife”, which has been declared a “priest’s invention,” but you need to think about how best to arrange your short earthly life.

Renaissance marks the final separation of faith in God from moral conduct in life. By separating morality from God, Catholics provoked the emergence of humanism as the basis of "morality without God." The meaning of the Renaissance is that, for the first time in the history of mankind, morality was completely divorced from religion. The depth of the moral decline of the Catholic faith gave rise to the idea that morality may have a different origin, not related to faith in God.

Since Catholic Christianity for a thousand years before the Renaissance trampled on all the norms of morality that it itself preached, and at the same time nothing happened to the moral monsters in robes, this meant, according to the leaders of the Renaissance, only one thing that God did not interfere at all into the earthly moral chaos, that the moral behavior of people in real life is not controlled by God.

Hence, it is no longer far to a complete rejection of God - if God allows such a horror created by His name, then He simply does not exist (other interpretations of faith in God were not considered by "advanced" European thinkers).

For such an extreme conclusion to become obvious, centuries of gradual departure from the teachings of Jesus Christ are needed. It was necessary to discredit faith in Christ so much, to pervert His teaching so much that people simply lost all faith. The responsibility of Catholicism is that this interpretation of the appearance of Christ fell so deeply into immorality, so far removed from the teachings of Christ that it corrupted all peoples under its dictate.

The Renaissance was the natural result of Catholic lawlessness and debauchery in Europe.

The European Renaissance is a rejection of faith in God after thousands of years of discrediting the teachings of Christ by Catholicism. This is humanism as an alternative basis for religious morality. And this is progress as a reward for giving up faith in God.

Liberalism is the vicious child of the Catholic perversion of Christianity.

ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS OF EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION.

Modern earthly civilization is not Chinese, not Indian, not Mayan civilization, not Germanic and not French, this is not Russian civilization and not Japanese ... This is precisely European civilization, because all the terms that earthlings use when describing modern civilization have European origin.

Europe in modern times made the whole world live in accordance with its vision. World science, technology, culture are of European origin in the overwhelming majority of cases. In everything that is built and produced on earth, there is European participation - scientific, economic, technical, cultural. We can say that Europe "made" this world with its temperament and ideas. As well as aggression, cruelty, greed, greed, selfishness, arrogance.

Deception, lies and robbery - these are the economic foundations of the European civilization of modern times. The whole world has become a free hunting zone for Europeans. All the peoples of the world were treated by Europeans (atheists, Catholics and Protestants) as dismissively as Indians, exchanging Manhattan for a handful of beads.

When a liberal says "civilized countries", he most often means the countries of the "golden billion". We also call such countries “advanced”, “progressive”, meaning by this their leading indicators of economic development. It was in modern times that Europe taught all countries of the world to understand civilized development, first, economic development, making it the defining criterion of progressiveness. Speaking of an "advanced" country, we mean precisely its first positions in economic development. In this, progress began to be understood - as a primacy in the country's economic development.

Progressive development - civilized development - economic primacy in the world. It is the indicator of economic development that matters, and at the same time, few people are interested in the origin of this development. The most important thing is economic success. And by what means it is achieved - the tenth thing.

"Sheep ate people in England" - so who cares about mere mortals, if the meadows freed from the peasants allowed the free landlords to enrich themselves.

What would you say about your neighbor who ruined your household, destroyed your house, robbed and raped your family, and made you work for himself? With your money, your insolent neighbor built a house for himself, started a "civilized" farm and sells you products at their own prices. And what is the most unbearable - this robber teaches you “how to live”. Isn't this what Europeans have been doing for the last thousand years?

Modern European civilization is based on blood, robbery, on the mountain of innocent people around the world. Indeed, for the "virtuous" European, all people are enemies. Even Catholics, even Protestants, even Orthodox, even Muslims, even pagans! A European treats everyone equally mercilessly - either a Catholic who reveres the Pope with the "infallible voice of Christ", or a Protestant "believing in the atoning sacrifice of Christ", or an atheist who lives "only once"!

The farther a religion or a country is from God, the less moral norms restrain the exploitation of man by man, the higher the rate of economic development. This is clearly demonstrated by the history of the development of the capitalist countries of Europe and America in modern times.

Without denying in the least the honest and truthful view of Max Weber on the development of capitalism, you only need to make a small addition. Yes, Protestant values contributed to the more successful development of capitalism in America, for example, in comparison with Catholic Europe. But, speaking of Protestant values, along with hoarding, avarice and rationalism, the main place should still be given to Protestant immorality, which made it possible to rob and exploit a person much more harshly than Catholicism and even more Orthodoxy could afford.

It was the immorality of Protestantism - the inhuman attitude of man to man - that allowed Protestant countries to take the lead in economic competition, having robbed half the world beforehand.

The more inhuman, that is, the more distant from God, the ethics underlying state building, the higher the rate of economic development of the country. This is clearly seen from the comparison of the economic development of England, Germany and France in modern times: Protestant England gradually pulled ahead in economic development in comparison with Catholic France. In the end, France lost in economic competition to Protestant Catholic Germany.

The Crusades marked the beginning of the "progressive development of Europe". The plundering of Muslims continued for more than one century, and the devastation of Christian Constantinople made it possible to obtain the initial capital for the economic breakthrough of the Europeans. It was the crusading plunder of its neighbors that allowed Europe to make a successful start in economic development. It is not our own production, not the progress of the productive forces, but the primitive plunder of neighboring peoples that underlie the European economic recovery in the Middle Ages.

And in modern times, Europeans continue to amass their capital, making the whole world a zone of their interests, of their free hunting. And the blood poured in streams ...

THE VICTORY PROCESS OF LIBERALISM.

Liberalism is a doctrine or ideology of human liberation.

Liberation from what? Or from whom?

"Liberation from all the fetters that bind a person, from all forms of dependence" - we are told. But since we are not talking about material dependence on the reality around a person (since a person, as a material being, obeys the laws of nature), it means that we are talking about the liberation of a person from dependence on another person. But in society, all people are always necessarily dependent on each other. This means that all people must follow some kind of norms of behavior in order to coexist peacefully. The question is, where is the source for the norms of human behavior?

Or a person accepts norms of behavior from God and unquestioningly obeys them in the hope of eternal life. Or a person himself invents norms of behavior for himself, “living once”, but then they will inevitably constantly change according to human arbitrariness, depending on their profitability for this or that person.

Without generally accepted norms of behavior, human society turns not into a herd of animals, because animals in a herd can perfectly exist with each other, multiplying their livestock, but in a bunch of crazy people who do not take into account the interests of each other, living only for the satisfaction of their own animal instincts. But such a human gathering is inevitably doomed to physical destruction - either in the struggle with each other, people will eat one another, or by means of an outside organized force - "Whoever does not want to feed his army will feed someone else's."

The Renaissance man declared himself the master in this world, free from any divine dictate. Thus, the main seal was torn off, and all subsequent centuries the triumphant march of liberalism continues across the planet. Liberalism, like progress, cannot be stopped. And it’s just a matter of time when he will capture all countries and establish his dictatorship in them.

Having renounced God, a person, indeed, becomes completely free in his actions - he has no judge for earthly affairs in heaven, but on earth he is his own judge.

No matter how many people oppose the abolition of the death penalty, no matter how much they try to stop gay pride parades, no matter how much they reject juvenile justice, no matter how much they fight for the protection of the environment, no matter how much they worry about the decline of morality in society, no matter how much they criticize the quality education, no matter how much they grieve over the decline in the birth rate, no matter how much they scream about depopulation, no matter how much they resent uncontrolled migration, nothing will help stop the victorious march of liberalism around the world and the cause of liberalism will inexorably continue.

And all because liberalism does not and cannot have any self-restraints by definition. Freedom, damn it!

To be continued

The illustration shows a fragment of an Italian anti-liberal poster from the Second World War

Liberalism (from Lat. Liberalis - concerning freedom, inherent in a free person) is a fairly broad ideological, social and political movement with a certain social base, a system of political parties with programmatic strategic and tactical guidelines. Today, the thesis about the plurality of manifestations of liberalism for different eras (traditional and new), stages (early and late), regions (Western and Eastern European), ideologies of social strata (noble, bourgeois) or different trends (Christian, national or even socialist).

Liberalism is associated with such concepts and categories that have become familiar to the modern socio-political lexicon, such as:

- the idea of the intrinsic value of the individual and his responsibility for his actions;

ь the idea of private property as a necessary condition for individual freedom;

ь principles of free market, free competition and free enterprise, equality of opportunities;

ь the idea of the rule of law with the principles of equality of all citizens before the law, tolerance and protection of the rights of minorities;

l guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual;

l universal suffrage.

The concept of "liberalism" entered the European socio-political lexicon at the beginning of the 19th century. Initially, a group of nationalist delegates in the Cortes, who met in Spanish Cadiz in 1812, was called liberals. Then it was included in English and French, and after them in all major European languages.

Traditionally, the first liberal ideas are attributed to the era of antiquity, in particular, to the teachings of Socrates about truth and his views on a just state. The newest philosophical dictionary // Academician [site]. URL: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_new_philosophy/ 680 / LIBERALISM (date of access: 04/11/2014) .. Later, the Roman Stoics developed the idea of the universal nature of man, and their ethical doctrine of inner, spiritual freedom personality and natural law again attracted the attention of many philosophers and political thinkers of the XVII-XVIII centuries. In the XVII century. the critical philosophical views of Descartes, Milton and Spinoza on the state, on man as a social and rational being, on religion, law, etc., predetermined the nature of the development of liberal ideas in Europe. An important role was played by the Protestant-Reform movement, which demanded freedom of religion. The religious worldview began to weaken in the ensuing century of the flowering of knowledge and scientific and technical discoveries, which were the basis for the development of capitalist production.

Bourgeois revolutions in England and France of the 17th-18th centuries led to the destruction of feudal relations, the fall of absolutism and the restriction of the privileges of the aristocracy, as well as the emergence of a new commercial and industrial class - the bourgeoisie. With the emergence of this class, a period of development of capitalism begins, to which a certain system of values, embodied in liberalism, corresponds in ideology, in the economy, and in politics. The latter saw in the state a potential threat to the freedom of the individual in society. The ideas of ancient thinkers and their followers about the natural rights of the individual, about the rule of law - constitutional rule based on the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, inalienable human rights to freedom of speech, religion, association in political organizations constituted the political credo of liberalism.

At the origins of liberalism were such different personalities as J. Locke, S.-L. Montesquieu, J.-J. Rousseau, I. Kant, A. Smith, W. Humboldt, T. Jefferson, J. Madison, B. Constant, A. Tocqueville and others. Their ideas were continued and developed by I. Bentham, J. S. Mill, T. H. Green, L. Hobhouse, B. Vozanket and other representatives of Western socio-political thought. Representatives of the European and American Enlightenment, French physiocrats, adherents of the English Manchester school, representatives of German classical philosophy, and European classical political economy made a significant contribution to the formation of the liberal worldview.

liberalism classical law freedom

Several years ago, the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion conducted a survey of the population, the main question of which was: "What is liberalism, and who is a liberal?" Most of the participants were misled by this question, 56% were unable to provide a comprehensive answer... The survey was conducted in 2012, most likely, today the situation has hardly changed for the better. Therefore, now in this article we will briefly consider the concept of liberalism and all its main aspects for enlightening the Russian audience.

In contact with

About the concept

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

political trend or ideology that unites fans of democracy and parliamentarism;
worldview, which is characteristic of industrial, defending their rights of a political nature, as well as entrepreneurial freedom;
a theory that absorbed philosophical and political ideas, which appeared in Western Europe in the 18th century;
the first meaning of the concept was freethinking;
tolerance and tolerance for unacceptable behavior.

All these definitions can be safely attributed to liberalism, but the main one is that this term denotes an ideology that affects the structure and the state. WITH Latin translates liberalism as freedom. Are all the functions and aspects of this movement really built in freedom?

Freedom or restriction

The liberal movement includes key concepts such as about public good, personal freedom and human equality within the policy and. What liberal values does this ideology promote?

Common good. If the state protects the rights and freedom of the individual, as well as protects the people from various threats and monitors the observance of laws, then such a structure of society can be called reasonable.
Equality. Many people shout that all people are equal, although it is obvious that this is not at all the case. We differ from each other in different ways: intelligence, social status, physical characteristics, nationality, and so on. But liberals mean equality in human opportunity... If a person wants to achieve something in life, no one has the right to interfere with this on the basis of race, social and other points. . The principle is that if you make an effort, you will achieve more.
Natural rights. British thinkers Locke and Hobbes came up with the idea that a person has three rights from birth: to life, to property and to happiness. It will not be difficult for many to interpret this: no one has the right to take a person's life (only the state for certain misdeeds), property is viewed as a personal right to own something, and the right to happiness is that very freedom of choice.

Important! What is liberalization? There is also such a concept that means the expansion of civil liberties and rights within the framework of economic, political, cultural and social life, and this is a process when the economy gets rid of the influence of the state.

The principles of liberal ideology:

there is nothing more valuable than human life;
all people in this world are equal;
everyone has inalienable rights;
personality and its needs are more valuable than society as a whole;
the state arises by common consent;
a person forms laws and state values independently;
the state is responsible to the person, the person, in turn, to the state;
power should be divided, the principle of organizing life in the state on the basis of the constitution;
only in fair elections can the government be elected;
humanistic ideals.

These principles of liberalism formulated in the 18th century English philosophers and thinkers. Many of them never came to fruition. Most of them look like a utopia, which humanity strives so fervently for, but cannot achieve in any way.

Important! Liberal ideology could become a lifeline for many countries, but there will always be some “pitfalls” that impede development.

Founders of ideology

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

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

The founders of liberalism can be considered the English scientists J. Locke and T. Hobbes (18th century) along with the French writer of the Enlightenment Charles Montesquieu, who was the first to ponder and express his opinion about the freedom of man in all spheres of his activity.

Locke initiated the existence of legal liberalism and declared that only in a society in which all citizens are free can there be stability.

The original theory of liberalism

Followers of classical liberalism gave more preference and paid more attention to the "individual freedom" of a person. The concept of this concept is expressed in the fact that a person should not obey either society or social orders. Independence and equality- these are the main steps at which the entire liberal ideology stood. The word "freedom" then meant the absence of various prohibitions, limits or vetoes on the implementation of actions by an individual, taking into account the generally accepted rules and laws of the state. That is, that freedom that would not run counter to established dogmas.

As the founders of the liberal movement believed, the government should guarantee equality between all its citizens, but a person already had to take care of his financial situation and status on his own. Limiting the scope of government power was what liberalism in turn tried to achieve. According to theory, the only thing the state had to provide for its citizens was safety and order protection. That is, the liberals tried to influence the minimization of all its functions. The existence of society and power could exist only under the condition of their general subordination to laws within the framework of the state.

It became clear that classical liberalism did exist when, in 1929, a terrible economic crisis arose in the United States. Its consequences were tens of thousands of bankrupt banks, the death of many people from hunger and other horrors of the state's economic recession.

Economic liberalism

The main concept of this movement was the idea of equality between economic and natural laws. State interference in these laws was prohibited. Adam Smith is the founder of this movement and its basic principles:

personal motivation is needed to boost economic development;
government regulation and the existence of monopolies harm the economy;
economic growth must be fostered imperceptibly. That is, the government should not interfere with the emergence of new institutions. Enterprises and suppliers acting in the interest of income and within the market system are discreetly directed by an “invisible hand”. All this is the key to competently meeting the needs of society.

Neoliberalism

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

The main principles of neoliberalism are constitutionalism and equality between all members of society in the country.

Signs of this trend: the authorities should contribute to self-regulation of the economy in the market, and the process of redistribution of finances, first of all, should take into account the strata of the population with a low level of income.

Neoliberalism does not oppose government regulation of the economy, while classical liberalism denies this. But the regulation process should include only a free market and the competitiveness of subjects to guarantee economic growth along with social justice. The main idea of neoliberalism - support for foreign trade policy and domestic trade to increase the gross income of the state, that is, protectionism.

All political concepts and philosophical movements have their own characteristics, and neoliberalism was no exception:

the need for government intervention in the economy. The market must be protected from the possible emergence of monopolies, and a competitive environment and freedom must be ensured;
protection of principles and justice. All citizens must be involved in political processes to maintain the desired democratic “weather”;
government should keep different economic programs, associated with financial support of social strata with low income.

Briefly about liberalism

Why is the concept of liberalism distorted in Russia?

Conclusion

Now the question: "What is liberalism?" will no longer cause dissonance among respondents. After all, the understanding of freedom and equality is simply presented under other terms that have their own principles and concepts that affect different areas of government, but remain unchanged in one thing - only then the state will prosper when it ceases to largely restrict its citizens.