Term "liberalism" comes from lat. liberalis- free. Liberalism took shape in the struggle of the bourgeoisie against the feudal order in the 17th and 18th centuries. The classics of liberal thought include J. Locke, D. Hume, C. L. Montesquieu, Voltaire, B. Constant, F. Guizot, T. Jefferson, J. Madison, A. Smith, J.S. Mill, W. Humboldt, I. Bentham, A. de Tocqueville, etc. In Russia, liberal ideas were developed at the beginning of the 20th century by P. Struve, P. Milyukov, and others. The Declaration of Independence of the United States (1776) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789).
Basic values of liberalism
Freedom, which in liberalism is:
a) negative("Freedom" from interference, invasion of privacy, from the arbitrariness of the authorities, etc.), i.e. it is assumed that a person should not meet external obstacles for the realization of his interests, which do not contradict the norms of the law;
B) abstract, those. freedom of a person in general, without taking into account his gender, age, racial, national, social and other characteristics;
V) individual, those. its bearer is an individual, a single person, and not a group, class, nation, state, etc.
Human rights are, first of all, the natural inalienable rights to life, freedom and property.
Individualism, manifested in the possibility of giving a person the right to arrange himself own life... As J. Mill noted, "a man himself knows better than any government what he needs."
Nomocracy - the rule of law, and egalitarianism - assuming the equality of all before the law, the possession of equal rights.
Pluralism of opinions, views, based on the recognition of the existence in society of various professional, religious, political and other associations, none of which can have superiority over others.
For classical liberalism the denial of paternalism, which manifests itself in the guardianship of the state over its subjects, is characteristic. I. Kant considered state paternalism "the worst despotism one can imagine." As an alternative, A. Smith proposed to assign the role of the state "Night watchman" limiting its activities to the implementation of three functions:
2. Provision of justice, which consists in the duty of the state to establish legal norms and to promote their universal observance, as well as to protect every citizen from injustice and to ensure impartial justice.
3. Creation and content public institutions, which pay off for society as a whole, but do not give benefits to private owners.
Economic crises and labor movements have forced liberals to seek new ways to defend individual freedom. There was a need to revise the relationship between the state and society. First neoliberal the model was tested in practice in the United States during the New Deal of President F. Roosevelt in the 30s of the XX century. To bring the country out of the lingering economic crisis, an attempt was made to introduce levers of government into the economy while maintaining political pluralism and the foundations of the capitalist system. This model, based on a flexible combination of state and non-state methods of economic management, is called Welfare states. In the second half of the 20th century, the ruling liberal parties of many countries Western Europe recognized some state intervention in the economy as permissible, and in social sphere decided on a policy of paternalism.
Distinctive features of neoliberalism:
Refusal of non-interference of the state in the economy.
State arbitration. The idea of society as a self-developing mechanism was supplemented by the thesis on the need for its correction by the state, as well as on the pursuit of a policy of active social assistance unprotected segments of the population.
Expansion of the functions of the state, which is seen as an inevitable process that balances the power of other organizations (business and trade unions).
Currently, liberal and neoliberal ideas are being implemented in practice in the activities of various liberal parties, which have formed several international associations, the largest of which is the Liberal International, created in 1947.
In Belarus, liberal ideas have been known since the time of the statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where the ideas of a rule-of-law state were laid, albeit in favor of one estate - the gentry. V Russian Empire in the role of great liberal reformers were Alexander II, P. Stolypin. Representatives of Russian liberalism include M. M. Speransky, also "Westernizers" - P. V. Annenkov, V. P. Botkin, T. N. Granovsky, K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin and others. Liberal ideas were the basis of the activities of some of the populists. V late XIX- early XX centuries. they permeated the work of a number of prominent Russian sociologists and jurists, such as S.A. Muromtsev, N.M. Korkunov, M.M.Kovalevsky, P.I. Novgorodtsev, B.A.Kistyakovsky, L.I. Petrazhitsky, and others. However, with the greatest response in the mass consciousness, the ideas of liberalism began to develop in Russia and Belarus only at the end of the 20th century.
Liberal values or Russia?
Most of our fellow citizens have long come to the difficult conclusion: such a stable balance of political forces has developed in the Russian Federation that elections have not become a means of uniting society around some kind of program. These elections to the State Duma, as well as the forthcoming presidential elections, do not seem to change our state of stagnant crisis in any way. With the current political regime this crisis is becoming downright hopeless. In such a stalemate, in addition to elections, a public dialogue and a search for a compromise are required, but the authorities categorically refuse to enter into dialogue.
Cheerful reports on GDP growth, budget revenues and some kind of "rating" of confidence in the authorities, small increases in salaries to one or another group of public sector employees cannot hide the government's confusion. These successes are just small fluctuations against the backdrop of heavy, like gait Stone guest, processes of degradation of the main life support systems of the country: quality work force, production base, scientific potential, army.
In this situation, the regime cannot gain prestige and is forced to maneuver between social forces, since it has nothing to unite society for the necessary efforts. Does the current regime ensure the preservation of the people and the country? People, even inexperienced ones, have big doubts about this. And if we summarize the data, we can see that within the framework of the current course, the preservation of the people and the country is not guaranteed.
We are witnessing an extinction of the population unprecedented in history in terms of its intensity and duration. Since it affected the Russians to the greatest extent, and this is a nation-forming nation, the country's unity was under threat simply for demographic reasons. But they are complemented by a sharp stratification of the population of the regions in terms of income, level and even type of life; decay unified system education and a single cultural core; the dismemberment of large technical systems (transport, energy) that held Russia together.
We remember the irrefutable fact: on the same land, with the same people, we were quite recently a powerful power, where the main sources of mass suffering - hunger and unemployment, cultural degradation and criminal violence - were eliminated. Our way of life, according to the main indicators, corresponded to the level of the most developed countries or exceeded it. So our current state not caused by any compelling reasons. It is the result of a series of wrong choices and decisions on major issues.
Over the past fifteen years, during which the ruling elite has been breaking and "reforming" the country, its ideologues have taken people away from main idea that we, as a country, stand at a crossroads, that the fate of the people is being decided for many generations to come. Meanwhile, it is precisely in connection with this fact that the current hidden confrontation of political forces in Russia arose, that conflict of ideals and interests that does not find explicit expression in public dialogue, but fetters us hand and foot. What is this choice and the conflict associated with it?
During the Yeltsin era, there was uncertainty about the intentions of the authorities. It was obvious that part of the CPSU nomenklatura decided to overthrow the Soviet system and take possession of the national wealth accumulated by the 1980s. After 1993, no one took the promises of democracy and freedom seriously, and the meaning of these words is too vague to see any choice behind them. From the speeches and gestures of Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin, it was impossible to imagine the image of the future life order that they dream of creating in Russia. They were a typical product of the nomenclature - no ideals, no projects.
With the arrival of V.V. Putin, this uncertainty began to dissipate. He spoke about his choice, about his ideals. The main thing in his statements is that he is committed to liberal values. It is clear that we are not talking about purely personal preferences such as a hobby. Personal hobbies - judo, skiing, songs by Bulat Okudzhava are all very nice. Stalin smoked a pipe and loved Khvanchkara wine, and Gorbachev was crazy about Khat pizza. For God's sake, strongest of the world they can afford small joys, they will not affect the fate of the people. But when the president declares that he is committed to the values of a different civilization, and precisely to those values with which the culture of his country has been in conflict for four centuries, this clarifies a lot. Imagine that the President of Iran would suddenly declare that he is committed to the values of Judaism ...
Before expanding on the meaning of this statement V.V. Putin, I will say right away that continuous studies of the views of the population of the Russian Federation by domestic and foreign sociologists have shown that there has been no turn to liberal values in our mass consciousness. Even the “new Russians”, who by their very name want to inform that they are already different, that they have shaken off the dust of old Russian values and have become “like in the West”, in the eyes of Western liberals look like savages who have just gotten rich (in some dubious way).
The hopes that Gorbachev's "brigade" pinned on the turn towards liberal values were the result of the ignorance of his consultants from the department of scientific communism. Values, that is, ideas about good and evil and how a person should live, are included in the "cultural core" of society and determine the type of civilization. They are extremely stable, and there has never been a case in history that the authorities succeeded in by political means to force the people to change their main traditional values to others.
It must be said that only the colonial authorities of the West set themselves such a task in history in their program of westernizing other peoples. This program failed, although it destroyed a number of weak cultures. At the same time, the peoples who had lost their cultures did not turn, for example, into the Anglo-Saxons, only swarthy or slanting. They simply faded away, disappeared from the face of the earth, like the Indians in the United States or the aborigines of Australia. A strong cultures even having adopted a lot from the West, they retained their foundations and values - the Indians remained Indians, the Chinese - the Chinese, the Arabs - the Arabs.
In the West, liberal values emerged during the catastrophic religious revolution called the Reformation. The scale of this catastrophe is evident from the fact that Germany lost 2/3 of its population during its course. Socio-philosophical doctrine based on liberal values, setting out the principles of "correct" social order and received the name liberalism, in the most complete form developed in England, and in the very pure form embodied in the United States, where the influence of tradition was less. There, liberal values could be asserted on a clean site, cleared of the local population.
Russia from the time of Ivan the Terrible (when the Reformation flared up in the West) to the present day has not been a liberal state. Russia is a multinational civilization, the core of which is the Russian people with very clear and highly developed ideas about the world and man, about good and evil. The Russian educated stratum had an idea of Western views and, one might say, was in continuous discussion with liberalism. In the 19th century, we had an influential stream of "Westernizers", but they did not pretend that the Russians would change their main values to liberal ones. They only tried to bring Russia as a civilization closer to the West in order to adopt its achievements.
Since 1905, the only liberal party in Russia was the Constitutional Democrats (Cadets). Their utopian plans envisaged the establishment in Russia of a bourgeois-liberal state of the Western type. With the help of Western instructors, they revived political Freemasonry in Russia and became the main organizers of the overthrow of the monarchy in February 1917. But practically all estates of Russia, with the exception of a part of the bourgeoisie, rejected their project. The mirror of the Russian revolution was Leo Tolstoy, the spokesman for the peasant worldview, not the Cadets. Liberal statehood in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century turned out to be stillborn, and the Provisional Government was replaced by Soviet power, which retained the important principle of conciliarity: "All power to the Soviets!" An important liberal value - the separation of powers - did not take root. She is still not visible.
Thus, this is the main reason for the split and crisis in Russia: the ruling stratum is trying to rebuild the entire existence of Russia in accordance with liberal values, but the overwhelming majority of the population does not accept these values and continues to follow their values, which have developed over many centuries.
An attempt to remake Russia according to the Anglo-Saxon model is so ridiculous and utopian that many do not believe in its sincerity and think that this is just a disguise to create general chaos in order to catch all the fish in muddy water... But for our fate, in principle, it does not matter whether the foundations of Russia are being broken under the banner of liberalism sincerely or for the sake of theft. The main thing is that there is no chance of successfully completing this "reform". There has never been a case in the history of a successful reform that contradicts the main values of the people and changes the very core of its culture. There was no such case, and now there will not be.
Our reformers justify their adherence to the values of a different culture and civilization by the fact that liberalism is supposedly the highest achievement of the entire world culture, that it is based on universal human values and meets the “natural” needs of man. And Russia, they say, has deviated from the main road of civilization, and now it has to pay for its mistake and make up for lost time through painful reforms.
Liberalism does not carry any common human "natural" values and cannot offer any universal model of life arrangement for all mankind. Liberalism is a very specific, unique culture that has developed in the Anglo-Saxon part of the West. Moreover, even in this part, residents of different countries are not at all committed to any "values of liberalism", they just love their specific countries, their culture and their ancestors. The British do not love England for liberal values. The French and Germans, who also call their countries liberal (this is profitable today), dislike England, the birthplace of liberalism.
We will not touch upon another important side of the matter here either: in the West itself, liberal values (first of all, individualism) suffered a crushing defeat, giving rise, in a fit of despair, to neoliberalism - a dull fundamentalist trend that destroys liberal society itself. Let us assume, although this is an absurd assumption, that V.V. Putin respects not real contemporary values neoliberalism, represented by Reagan and Thatcher, and the "gray tradition" of liberalism, by philosophers such as Adam Smith, Hobbes and Locke.
You can respect the British, their culture, their liberal philosophers, etc. I, say, respect them, but the very idea of becoming an adherent of their values seems to me wild and ridiculous. Values are the most secret, even sacred part national culture... It is foolish to argue about whether our Russian values are better or worse than the liberal ones. They are ours. They are wonderful for us, as beautiful for a person is his beloved and loving mother.
It happens that misfortune befalls a country - a person comes to the supreme power, who turns out to be alien to the values of its culture. His soul does not lie, she has no love for paternal coffins, she is drawn to other values, for example, liberal ones. There is such misfortune in the family - the son suffers from the fact that he was born to his father and mother, and not to rich neighbors. But almost never such dreams and commitments are spoken out loud. This is not accepted. But times change, and we hear this from the president. Probably, the liberal gorillas, who for a while imagined themselves to be the world's gendarmes, squeezed our president into a corner. Only that there was little hope left to justify his revelation.
What is liberalism? Each person will answer this question differently. Even dictionaries give different definitions of this concept. This article explains what liberalism is, in simple words.
Definitions
There are several of the most precise definitions the concept of "liberalism".
1. Ideology, political trend. It unites admirers of parliamentarism, democratic rights and free enterprise.
2. Theory, system of political and philosophical ideas... It was formed among Western European thinkers in the 18th-19th centuries.
3. The worldview typical of ideologues from among the industrial bourgeoisie who defended free enterprise and their political rights.
4. In the primary sense - freethinking.
5. Excessive tolerance, condescension, conciliatory attitude towards bad deeds.
Speaking about what liberalism is, in simple words, it should be noted that this is a political and ideological trend, whose representatives deny revolutionary methods of struggle in achieving certain rights and benefits, advocate free enterprise, the implementation of democratic principles.
Basic principles of liberalism
The ideology of liberalism from other theories of political and philosophical thought differs in special principles. They were formulated by scientists back in the 18th-19th centuries, and representatives of this trend are striving to implement them ever since.
1. Human life is an absolute value.
2. All people are equal.
3. The will of the individual does not depend on external factors.
4. The needs of one person are more important than the collective. The category "personality" is primary, "society" is secondary.
5. Every person has natural, inalienable rights.
6. The state should emerge on the basis of a general consensus.
7. Man himself creates laws and values.
8. The citizen and the state are responsible to each other.
9. Separation of powers. The dominance of the principles of constitutionalism.
10. The government must be elected through fair and democratic elections.
11. Tolerance and humanism.
Ideologues of Classical Liberalism
Each ideologist of this trend understood what liberalism was in his own way. This theory is represented by many concepts and opinions, which can sometimes contradict each other. The origins of classical liberalism can be seen in the works of C. Montesquieu, A. Smith, J. Locke, J. Mill, T. Hobbes. It was they who laid the foundations for the new trend. The basic principles of liberalism were developed back in the Enlightenment in France by Charles Montesquieu. He spoke for the first time about the need for separation of powers and recognition of individual freedom in all spheres of life.
Adam Smith substantiated what economic liberalism is, and also identified its main principles and characteristics. J. Locke is the founder of the theory of the rule of law. In addition, he is one of the most prominent ideologues of liberalism. J. Locke argued that stability in a society can exist only if it consists of free people.
Features of liberalism in the classical sense
The ideologists of classical liberalism focused on the concept of "individual freedom". Unlike absolutist ideas, their concepts denied the complete subordination of the individual to society and social orders. The ideology of liberalism defended the independence and equality of all people. Freedom was perceived as the absence of any restrictions or prohibitions on implementation deliberate actions personality within the framework of generally accepted rules and laws. The state, according to the fathers of classical liberalism, is obliged to ensure the equality of all citizens. However, a person should independently worry about his financial situation.
Liberalism proclaimed the need to limit the scope of the state. Its functions should be reduced to a minimum and consist in maintaining order and ensuring security. Power and society can only exist if they obey the laws.
Models of classical liberalism
J. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau, J.St. Mill, T. Payne. They defended the ideas of individualism and human freedom. In order to understand what liberalism is in the classical sense, one should consider its interpretations.
- Continental European model. Representatives of this concept (F. Guizot, B. Constant, J.-J. Rousseau, B. Spinoza) defended the ideas of constructivism, rationalism in interaction with nationalism, gave greater importance freedom within society than for individuals.
- Anglo-Saxon model. Representatives of this concept (J. Locke, A. Smith, D. Hume) put forward the ideas of the rule of law, unrestricted trade, were convinced that freedom is more important for an individual than for society as a whole.
- North American model. Representatives of this concept (J. Adams, T. Jefferson) developed the ideas of inalienable human rights.
Economic liberalism
This trend of liberalism was based on the idea that economic laws act in the same way as natural ones. Government interference in this area was considered unacceptable.
A. Smith is considered the father of the concept of economic liberalism. His teaching was based on the following ideas.
1. The best incentive economic development- personal interest.
2. Government measures of regulation and monopoly, which have been practiced within the framework of mercantilism, are harmful.
3. The development of the economy is directed " invisible hand". The necessary institutions must arise in a natural order without government intervention. Firms and resource suppliers that are interested in increasing their own wealth and operate within a competitive market system are allegedly directed by an "invisible hand", which contributes to the satisfaction of social needs.
The rise of neoliberalism
Considering what liberalism is, the definition must be given to two concepts - classic and modern (new).
By the beginning of the XX century. in this direction of political and economic thought, crisis phenomena begin to manifest themselves. In many western European states ah, there are workers' strikes, industrial society is entering a period of conflicts. In such conditions, the classical theory of liberalism ceases to coincide with reality. New ideas and principles are being formed. The central problem of modern liberalism is becoming the question social guarantees the rights and freedoms of the individual. This was largely due to the popularity of Marxism. In addition, the need for social measures was considered in the works of I. Kant, J. St. Mill, G. Spencer.
Principles of modern (new) liberalism
The new liberalism is characterized by an orientation towards rationalism and purposeful reforms with the aim of improving the existing state and political systems. A special place is occupied by the problem of comparing freedom, justice and equality. There is the concept of "elite". She is formed from the most worthy members of the group. It is believed that society can achieve triumph only thanks to the elite and dies with it.
The economic principles of liberalism are defined by the concepts of "free market" and "minimal state". The problem of freedom takes on an intellectual coloring and is transferred to the field of morality and culture.
Features of neoliberalism
How social philosophy and a political concept, modern liberalism has its own characteristics.
1. State intervention in the economy is necessary. The government must protect free competition and the market from the possibility of monopoly emergence.
2. Support for the principles of democracy, justice. The broad masses must actively participate in the political process.
3. The state is obliged to develop and implement programs aimed at supporting low-income groups of the population.
Differences between classical and modern liberalism
Idea, principle | Classical liberalism | Neoliberalism |
Freedom is ... | Liberation from restrictions | Self-development opportunity |
Natural human rights | Equality of all people, the impossibility of depriving a person of his natural rights | Highlighting economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights individual |
Elevation privacy and opposing it to the state, power should be limited | It is necessary to carry out reforms that will improve the relationship between the citizen and the government |
|
State interference in the social sphere | Limited | Useful and necessary |
The history of the development of Russian liberalism
In Russia already in the XVI century. an understanding of what liberalism is is emerging. Several stages can be distinguished in the history of its development.
1. Government liberalism. Arose in the highest circles of Russian society. The period of government liberalism coincides with the reign of Catherine II and Alexander I. In fact, its existence and development embraces the era of enlightened absolutism.
2. Post-reform (conservative) liberalism. Outstanding representatives this era were P. Struve, K. Kavelin, B. Chicherin and others. At the same time, zemstvo liberalism was being formed in Russia.
3. New (social) liberalism. Representatives of this trend (N. Kareev, S. Gessen, M. Kovalevsky, S. Muromtsev, P. Milyukov) defended the idea of creating decent living conditions for every person. At this stage, the preconditions for the formation of the Cadet Party were formed.
These liberal trends differed not only among themselves, but also had many differences with Western European concepts.
Government liberalism
Earlier we examined what liberalism is (definition by history and political science, signs, features). However, authentic directions of this trend have formed in Russia. A prime example is government liberalism. It reached its peak during the reign of Alexander I. At this time, liberal ideas spread among the nobility. The reign of the new emperor began with a series of progressive transformations. It was allowed to freely cross the border, import foreign books, etc. On the initiative of Alexander I, an unspoken committee was created, which was engaged in the development of projects for new reforms. It included those close to the emperor. The plans of the leaders of the Secret Committee were to reform state system, the creation of a constitution and even the abolition of serfdom. However, under the influence of reactionary forces, Alexander I decided only on partial transformations.
The emergence of conservative liberalism in Russia
Conservative liberalism was widespread in England and France. In Russia, this direction has taken special features... Conservative liberalism has its origins in the assassination of Alexander II. The reforms that the emperor developed were only partially implemented, and the country was still in need of transformation. The emergence of a new trend is due to the fact that in the highest circles of Russian society they began to understand what liberalism and conservatism are, and tried to avoid their extremes.
Ideologues of Conservative Liberalism
In order to understand what post-reform liberalism is in Russia, it is necessary to consider the concepts of its ideologists.
K. Kavelin is the founder of the conceptual approach to this direction of political thought. His student, B. Chicherin, developed the foundations of the theory of conservative liberalism. He defined this direction as "positive", the purpose of which is to implement the reforms necessary for society. At the same time, all segments of the population must defend not only their own ideas, but also take into account the interests of others. According to B. Chicherin, society can be strong and stable only if it relies on power. In this case, a person must be free, since he is the beginning and source of all social relations.
P. Struve was involved in the development of the philosophical, cultural and methodological foundations of this direction. He believed that only a rational combination of conservatism and liberalism could save Russia in the post-reform period.
Features of post-reform liberalism
1. Recognition of the need for government regulation. At the same time, the directions of its activities should be clearly identified.
2. The state is recognized as the guarantor of the stability of relations between various groups within the country.
3. Realization that in the period of increasing failures of reformers, it becomes possible for authoritarian leaders to come to power.
4. Transformations in the economy can only be gradual. The ideologues of post-reform liberalism argued that it was necessary to monitor the reaction of society to each reform and carry them out with caution.
5. Selective attitude towards Western society. It is necessary to use and accept only what meets the needs of the state.
The ideologists of this direction of political thought sought to translate their ideas through an appeal to the mass values that were formed in the process historical development society. This is precisely the purpose and distinctive feature conservative liberalism.
Zemsky liberalism
Speaking of post-reform Russia, one cannot fail to mention what Zemstvo liberalism is. This trend emerges in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. At this time, modernization was taking place in Russia, which led to an increase in the number of intelligentsia, in whose circles an opposition movement was formed. A secret circle "Beseda" was created in Moscow. It was his work that laid the foundation for the formation of the ideas of the liberal opposition. Members of this circle were zemstvo leaders F. Golovin, D. Shipov, D. Shakhovsky. The mouthpiece of the liberal opposition was the Osvobozhdeniye magazine, which was published abroad. On its pages, it was said about the need to overthrow the autocratic power. In addition, the liberal opposition advocated the empowerment of zemstvos and their active participation in government.
New liberalism in Russia
The liberal trend in the political thought of Russia acquires new features by the beginning of the 20th century. The direction is being formed in an atmosphere of sharp criticism of the concept " constitutional state". That is why liberals set themselves the task of substantiating the progressive role of government institutions in the life of society.
It is important to note that in the XX century. Russia is entering a period of social crisis. The new liberals saw the cause of it as an everyday economic disorder and a spiritual and moral catastrophe. They believed that a person should have not only the means of subsistence, but also leisure, which he will use for his improvement.
Radical liberalism
Speaking about what liberalism is, it should be noted the existence of its radical direction. In Russia, it took shape at the beginning of the 20th century. The main goal of this movement was the overthrow of the autocracy. A striking example of the activities of radical liberals was the Constitutional Democratic Party (Cadets). Considering this direction, its principles should be highlighted.
1. Downplaying the role of the state. Hopes are pinned on spontaneous processes.
2. Achievement of the set goals in various ways. The possibility of using coercive methods is not denied.
3. In the field of economics, only fast and deep macro reforms are possible. that cover as many aspects as possible.
4. One of the main values of radical liberalism is the combination of the experience of world culture and developed European states with the problems of Russia.
Contemporary Russian liberalism
What is modern liberalism in Russia? This issue is still controversial. Researchers put forward different versions about the origin of this trend, about its principles and features in Russia.
Scientists identify some of the features of modern liberalism in Russia. Let's consider them in more detail.
1. Discussions about the political structure often go beyond the bounds of liberalism.
2. Justification of the need for the existence of a market economy.
3. Promotion and protection of private property rights.
4. The emergence of the question of "Russian identity".
5. In the field of religion, most liberals advocate a tolerant attitude towards other confessions.
conclusions
Today, there are many currents in the liberal direction of political thought. Each of them has developed its own principles and special features. V recent times in the world community there are debates about what innate liberalism is, whether it exists at all. It should be noted that even the French enlighteners argued that freedom is a right, but the understanding of its necessity is not available to everyone.
In general, we can say that liberal ideas and transformations are an integral part of modern life.
Kara-Murza S.G. Liberal values or Russia? ( October 2003)
Most of our fellow citizens have long come to a difficult conclusion: in the Russian Federation there is such stable balance of political forces that elections have not become a means of uniting society around some kind of program. These elections to the State Duma, as well as the forthcoming presidential elections, do not seem to change our state of stagnant crisis in any way. Under the current political regime, this crisis is becoming downright hopeless. In such a stalemate, in addition to elections, a public dialogue and a search for a compromise are required, but the authorities categorically refuse to enter into dialogue.
Cheerful reports on GDP growth, budget revenues and some kind of "rating" of confidence in the authorities, small increases in salaries to one or another group of public sector employees cannot hide the government's confusion. These successes are just small fluctuations against the background of heavy, like the tread of the Stone Guest, processes of degradation of the main life support systems of the country: quality of labor force, production base, scientific potential, army.
In this situation, the regime cannot gain prestige and is forced to maneuver between social forces, since it has nothing to unite society for the necessary efforts. Does the current regime ensure the preservation of the people and the country? People, even inexperienced ones, have big doubts about this. And if we summarize the data, we can see that within the framework of the current course, the preservation of the people and the country is not guaranteed.
We observe unprecedented in history in terms of its intensity and duration of the extinction of the population... Since it affected the Russians to the greatest extent, and this is a nation-forming nation, the country's unity was under threat simply for demographic reasons. But they are complemented by a sharp stratification of the population of the regions in terms of income, level and even type of life; the collapse of a single education system and a single cultural nucleus; the dismemberment of large technical systems (transport, energy) that held Russia together.
We remember the irrefutable fact: on the same land, with the same people, we were quite recently a powerful power, where the main sources of mass suffering - hunger and unemployment, cultural degradation and criminal violence - were eliminated. Our way of life, according to the main indicators, corresponded to the level of the most developed countries or exceeded it. This means that our current state is not caused by some compelling reasons. It is the result of a series of wrong choices and decisions on major issues.
Over the past fifteen years, during which the ruling elite has been breaking and "reforming" the country, its ideologues have taken people away from the main idea that we, as a country, stand at a crossroads, that the fate of the people is being decided for many generations to come. Meanwhile, it was in connection with this fact that the current latent confrontation of political forces in Russia arose, that conflict of ideals and interests, which does not find clear expression in public dialogue, but fetters us hand and foot. What is this choice and the conflict associated with it?
During the Yeltsin era, there was uncertainty about the intentions of the authorities. It was obvious that part of the CPSU nomenklatura decided to overthrow the Soviet system that weighed down on it and take possession of the national wealth accumulated by the 1980s. After 1993, no one took the promises of democracy and freedom seriously, and the meaning of these words is too vague to see any choice behind them. From the speeches and gestures of Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin, it was impossible to imagine the image of the future life order that they dream of creating in Russia. They were a typical product of the nomenclature - no ideals, no projects.
With the arrival of V.V. Putin, this uncertainty began to dissipate. He spoke about his choice, about his ideals. The main thing in his statements is that he is committed to liberal values. It is clear that we are not talking about purely personal preferences such as a hobby.... Personal hobbies - judo, alpine skiing, songs by Bulat Okudzhava - all this is very nice. Stalin smoked a pipe and loved Khvanchkara wine, and Gorbachev was crazy about Khat pizza. For God's sake, the mighty of this world can afford small joys, they will not affect the fate of the people. But when the president declares that he is committed to the values of a different civilization, and precisely to those values with which the culture of his country has been in conflict for four centuries, this clarifies a lot. Imagine if the President of Iran would suddenly declare that he is committed to the values of Judaism…
Before expanding on the meaning of this statement V.V. Putin, I will say right away that continuous studies of the views of the population of the Russian Federation by domestic and foreign sociologists have shown that there was no turn to liberal values in our mass consciousness... Even the “new Russians”, who by their very name want to inform that they are already different, that they have shaken off the dust of old Russian values and have become “like in the West”, in the eyes of Western liberals look like savages who have just gotten rich (in some dubious way).
The hopes that Gorbachev's "brigade" pinned on a turn towards liberal values were a consequence of the ignorance of his consultants from the department of scientific communism. Values, that is, ideas about good and evil and how a person should live, are included in the "cultural core" of society and determine the type of civilization. They are extremely stable, and there has never been a case in history that the authorities have succeeded by political means to force the people to change their main traditional values to others.
It must be said that only the colonial authorities of the West set themselves such a task in history in their program of westernizing other peoples. This program failed, although it destroyed a number of weak cultures. At the same time, the peoples who had lost their cultures did not turn, for example, into the Anglo-Saxons, only swarthy or slanting. They simply faded away, disappeared from the face of the earth, like the Indians in the United States or the aborigines of Australia. And strong cultures, even having adopted a lot from the West, retained their foundations and values - the Indians remained Hindus, the Chinese - the Chinese, the Arabs - the Arabs.
In the West, liberal values emerged during the catastrophic religious revolution called the Reformation. The scale of this catastrophe is evident from the fact that Germany lost 2/3 of its population during its course. A socio-philosophical doctrine based on liberal values, setting out the principles of a "correct" social system and called liberalism, developed in its most complete form in England, and in its purest form was embodied in the United States, where the influence of traditions was less. There, liberal values could be asserted on a clean site, cleared of the local population.
Russia from the time of Ivan the Terrible (when the Reformation flared up in the West) to the present day has not been a liberal state. Russia is a multinational civilization, the core of which is the Russian people with very clear and highly developed ideas about the world and man, about good and evil. The Russian educated stratum had an idea of Western views and, one might say, was in continuous discussion with liberalism. In the 19th century, we had an influential stream of "Westernizers", but they did not pretend that the Russians would change their main values to liberal ones. They only tried to bring Russia as a civilization closer to the West in order to adopt its achievements.
Since 1905, the only liberal party in Russia was the Constitutional Democrats (Cadets). Their utopian plans envisaged the establishment in Russia of a bourgeois-liberal state of the Western type. With the help of Western instructors, they revived political Freemasonry in Russia and became the main organizers of the overthrow of the monarchy in February 1917. But practically all estates of Russia, with the exception of a part of the bourgeoisie, rejected their project. The mirror of the Russian revolution was Leo Tolstoy, the spokesman for the peasant worldview, not the Cadets. Liberal statehood in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century turned out to be stillborn, and the Provisional Government was replaced by Soviet power, which retained the important principle of conciliarity: "All power to the Soviets!" An important liberal value - the separation of powers - did not take root. She is still not visible.
Thus, here is the main reason for the split and crisis in Russia: the ruling stratum is trying to rebuild the entire existence of Russia in accordance with liberal values, but the overwhelming majority of the population does not accept these values and continues to follow their values, which have developed over many centuries.
An attempt to remake Russia according to the Anglo-Saxon model so ridiculous and utopian that many do not believe in its sincerity and think that this is just a disguise to create general chaos in order to catch all the fish in troubled waters... But for our fate, in principle, it does not matter whether the foundations of Russia are being broken under the banner of liberalism sincerely or for the sake of theft. The main thing is that there is no chance of successfully completing this "reform". There has never been a case in the history of a successful reform that contradicts the main values of the people and changes the very core of its culture. There was no such case, and now there will not be.
Our reformers justify their adherence to the values of a different culture and civilization by the fact that liberalism is supposedly the highest achievement of the entire world culture, that it is based on universal human values and meets the "natural" needs of man. And Russia, they say, has deviated from the main road of civilization, and now it has to pay for its mistake and make up for lost time through painful reforms.
Liberalism does not carry any common human "natural" values and cannot offer any universal model of life arrangement for all mankind... Liberalism is a very specific, unique culture that has developed in the Anglo-Saxon part of the West. Moreover, even in this part, residents of different countries are not at all committed to any "values of liberalism", they just love their specific countries, their culture and their ancestors. The British do not love England for liberal values. The French and Germans, who also call their countries liberal (this is profitable today), dislike England, the birthplace of liberalism.
We will not touch upon another important side of the matter here either: in the West itself liberal values (first of all, individualism) suffered a crushing defeat, giving rise, in a fit of despair, neoliberalism - a dull fundamentalist trend that destroys liberal society itself... Let us assume, although this is an absurd assumption, that V.V. Putin respects not the real modern values of neoliberalism, as presented by Reagan and Thatcher, but the "gray tradition" of liberalism - philosophers like Adam Smith, Hobbes and Locke.
You can respect the British, their culture, their liberal philosophers, etc. I, say, respect them, but the very idea of becoming an adherent of their values seems to me wild and ridiculous. Values are the most secret, even sacred part of the national culture. It is foolish to argue about whether our Russian values are better or worse than the liberal ones. They are ours... They are wonderful for us, as beautiful for a person is his beloved and loving mother.
It happens that misfortune befalls a country - a person comes to the supreme power, who turns out to be alien to the values of its culture. His soul does not lie, she has no love for paternal coffins, she is drawn to other values, for example, liberal ones. There is such misfortune in the family - the son suffers from the fact that he was born to his father and mother, and not to rich neighbors. But almost never such dreams and commitments are spoken out loud. This is not accepted. But times change, and we hear this from the president. Probably, the liberal gorillas, who for a while imagined themselves to be the world's gendarmes, squeezed our president into a corner. Only that there was little hope left to justify his revelation.
ID: 2017-01-27-A-11951
Original article (free structure)
Yurkova I.V.
Summary
Keywords
Liberalism values youth state freedom
Article
The values of liberalism and the attitude of modern youth towards them
Yurkova I.
FGBOU VO Saratov State Medical University named after IN AND. Razumovsky
Department of Philosophy, Humanities and Psychology
Scientific adviser - Associate Professor A.A. Zhivaikina
Liberalism is an ideological and political trend, which is based on the principle of gradual transformation of society, aimed at realizing individual values and individual freedom. For the era of liberal civilization, it is necessary that the standard of freedom, independence, dignity should be worthy of reverence, be more and more deeply assimilated and supported by theory, various industries knowledge, appeared in the life of every person and the whole society as higher values... Among the constituent concepts of liberalism, one can single out: individualism and universalism, market economy, freedom within the framework of the law, as well as reason and progress.
V modern world liberalism is one of the fundamental and leading worldviews in the world. His values, such as personal freedom, self-esteem, freedom of speech, privacy, equality, universal human rights, private property, restrictions on state power, supreme power of the people, the self-determination of the nation, an enlightened and reasonable state policy have become widespread.
The main aspect of liberal theory is the question of the relationship between the individual and the state. For the proponents of liberalism, the concept of personal freedom and restriction state power have next decision: the state has no right to interfere with entrepreneurial activity and, moreover, in the personal life of a person. Power is perceived by the liberals as a proper evil that should be limited. The only reason for state intervention may be to protect the property and freedom of some from encroachment by others. The main function of the state is to protect against injustice and violence in all spheres of human life, but going beyond these limits, it loses its meaning. Among the supporters of liberalism, there is an ambivalent opinion about the implementation of the principle of the rule of law. On the one hand, for its implementation, the state must have sufficient power, on the other hand, ensuring the rule of law must be carried out by public and private organizations.
Opponents of liberalism argue that only state supervision of income distribution can ensure justice and general material well-being. In their opinion, the main flaw of liberalism is the uneven distribution of benefits. Power in a liberal society, as opponents believe, is in the hands of a small group of people who control financial flows. At the same time, the desire to be equal before the law and to have equal opportunities in conditions of inequality of the economy is nothing more than a fantasy. In response to this position, F. Hayek stated that strict government regulation requires restrictions on the amount of wages, in the choice of profession and place of residence, and ultimately leads to the destruction of personal freedom and totalitarianism.
An integral part and, at the same time, the value of liberalism is broad freedom of the individual in all spheres. public life... Already J. Locke put forward the idea that free individuals can become the basis of a stable society. He put forward two fundamental principles: economic freedom, which implies the right to own and use property, and intellectual freedom, which includes freedom of conscience. In the theory of liberalism, the right and responsibility for all decisions and actions belongs to the individual. Individuals, on the basis of their natural right, can dispose of themselves, their property and abilities, no one has the right to impose well-being on a person, each person chooses for himself whether to be happy or not, he has the right to seek his own happiness, while he should not create obstacles to achieving such same freedom to another.
A. Smith developed the theory that moral life and economic activity is possible without directives from the state, which are the strongest of those nations in which citizens are free to show their own initiative. In his study "Investigation of the nature and causes of the wealth of peoples" he argued that under the right conditions, the free market is capable of natural self-regulation and could achieve greater productivity than a market with many prohibitions and restrictions. The role of the state, in his opinion, is to prevent fraud and illegal use of force. Liberalism regards tolerance and pluralism as the most important foundations of socio-political interaction in society.
Liberalism was born in Russia much later than in Europe. This happened in the 1830s-1840s along with the formation of the university education system. The peculiarity of the Russian liberals was that they were supporters of a strong state power. For example, the most famous liberals of the 19th century in Russia - B.N. Chicherin and K.D. Kavelin - were staunch supporters of the preservation of autocracy.
In the context of considering this topic, sociological research attitudes towards the values of liberalism among modern youth. The survey was attended by students of the Saratov State medical university them. IN AND. Razumovsky at the age of 18. Students were asked to answer next questions: 1. Is your freedom important to you? 2. How is your freedom manifested? 3. What role do you assign to the state? 4. Do you think that the state can interfere with a person's private life? If so, in which case. 5. What, in your opinion, can tough government regulation lead to? The data obtained are shown in the following table.
|
Is your freedom important to you? |
"Yes" - 48 people "No" - 2 people |
|
How is your freedom manifested? |
"Freedom of choice (all kinds of activities, religion, education, etc.)" - 45 people "Freedom of speech, opinion" - 50 people "Freedom of opinion" - 5 people "Freedom from complete interference of the state in human life" - 1 person |
|
What role do you assign to the state? |
“I didn’t think about the role of the state” - 30 people "Leading role in ensuring the well-being of citizens" - 1 person "The state regulates all areas human life"- 2 people "Provides security and protection of rights" -15 people. |
|
Do you think that the state can interfere with a person's private life? If so, in which case. |
"The state has no right to interfere in private life" - 25 people "The state can only interfere when a person's freedom goes beyond the law" - 3 people "The state can intervene in the event of a threat to human life" - 20 people Refrained from answering - 2 people |
|
What, in your opinion, can tough government regulation lead to? |
"Indignation, discontent, protests, riot, etc." - 25 people "Change of state power" - 7 people "Internal conflicts and, as a consequence, the vulnerability of the country, a threat to the security of the state" - 1 person "The strengthening of the personality and the lack of freedom of its interests, depersonalization" - 2 people “Infringement of human rights” - 10 people Refrained from answering - 5 people |
Based on the survey results, it can be argued that most the students surveyed should be classified as supporters of liberalism. Young people today value their freedom, which is manifested in freedom of choice, freedom of speech and thought. The image of the state in the mass consciousness of young people is expressed in the activities of state and civil institutions designed to create favorable conditions for the realization of the life aspirations of citizens, including young people. State intervention is permissible when a person's life is threatened. It can be assumed that the relatively low interest of young people in the role of the state is due to the fact that the spectrum vital interests, especially adolescents and adolescents, is limited by the problem of entering adult life, and social experience is so far limited to interpersonal and intrafamily communications. But as social ties increase (university, army, work, etc.), vital interests are redistributed towards participation in public and political life.
We can say that liberalism is the idea of a powerful purposeful development country as a result of the free choice of its people. Liberal ideas can only be realized with a strong state capable of protecting freedom from external and internal threats.
Literature
1. Alekseev S.S. Fundamental liberal values: modernity and law // Izvestiya Uralskogo state university... - 1999. - No. 12. - S. 30-45.
2. Vaschenko I.S., Rykalina E. B., Fakhrudinova E.R. Individualism in modern society/ Topical issues in scientific work and educational activities: collection of scientific papers based on the materials of the International scientific and practical conference: in 13 parts. - Tambov, 2013 .-- S. 29-32.
3. Zhivaykina A.A. K. D. Kavelin: the experience of the philosophical analysis of culture // Izvestia of the Saratov University. New series. Series: Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. - 2009. - T. 9. - No. 4. - S. 8-12.
4. Zhivaikina A.A. The system of philosophical views of K.D. Kavelina / dissertation abstract for competition academic degree candidate philosophical sciences/ Saratov State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky. Saratov, 2010.
5. Katrunov V.A., Zasypkina E.V., Kuznetsova M.N., Pavlova L.A. Personality in the political life of modern Russian society // Dylnovskie readings "Russian identity: state and prospects": Materials of the scientific-practical conference. - Saratov, 2015 .-- S. 291-296.
6. Kremplevskaya S.P., Zhivaykina A.A. The fate of a person and his freedom. the problem of personality self-determination // Bulletin of medical Internet conferences. - 2014. - T. 4. - No. 5. - P. 801.
7. Makarova M.V., Ermolaeva E.V. Economic growth in Russia: problems and prospects // Bulletin of medical Internet conferences. - 2015. - T. 5. - No. 12. - S. 1502.
8. Nazarova Yu.V. Philosophy of Political Tolerance in Liberalism // Scientific Bulletin of Belgorod State University. Series: Philosophy. Sociology. Right. - 2013. - No. 9. - S. 312-320.
9. Soloviev K. Features of liberalism in Russia / Electronic resource: https://postnauka.ru/video/26242
10. Philosophy: encyclopedic Dictionary... Edited by A.A. Ivina. - M .: Gardariki, 2004.
11. Kharitonova M.A., Kalinina K.Yu., Ermolaeva E.V. Problems of the formation of the middle class in Russia // Bulletin of medical Internet conferences. - 2015. - T. 5. - No. 12. - P. 1488.
Your rating: No
