Who are liberals? How do liberals differ from conservatives? Who are liberals, conservatives, socialists? Who is a liberal in politics?

home / Divorce

Recently, one of my good friends and colleagues, a sensible person, shared such an interesting dialogue. He asked one interlocutor who was extremely aggressive towards liberals: “Can you answer clearly - who is a liberal?” He mumbled something in response and squeezed out: “A liberal is... a liberal.” Let’s try to figure out what the difference is so that we don’t give such stupid answers in the future.

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

TO THE HISTORY OF THE QUESTION

Historically, three stages in the formation of the ideology of liberalism can be distinguished.

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

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

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

Finally, third stage in the history of the “liberal idea” - neoliberalism (from approximately the 70s of the twentieth century to the present). This is the ideology of transnational corporations that oppose the regulation of their activities by the national state (not only socialist or people's democratic, but also national capitalist). At first glance, they are “anti-state”, which reminds them not even of former liberals, but rather of anarchists. But, taking a closer look, it is not difficult to see that neoliberals are not at all against the punitive and repressive functions of the bourgeois state in relation to the people (which was precisely what caused the greatest protest from anarchists and was often condemned even by former liberals). Neoliberals stand for curtailing the economic and especially social functions of the state, reserving punitive ones. How else can a clearly anti-people, anti-social and anti-national program be imposed on the majority of society?

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

WHO IS A LIBERAL?

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

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

Such an ideology has an important consequence - everything that is outside the boundaries of private property, and especially that can violate it, is perceived as hostile. For example, the Argentine liberal president Bartolome Miter, sending punitive forces against the rebellious Indians and semi-proletarian gauchos, called for “not to spare their blood” and “to make of them fertilizer for the fields.” The people of neighboring Paraguay - the then “rogue country” with a state capitalist regime - Miter and his allies exterminated 80 percent. Is this really so different from Hitler’s “Plan Ost” or from what the NATO interventionists are doing with Iraq, Libya, Syria ?

WHO IS A LIBERAST?

And here we come to who the “liberal” is. Liberalism is the most aggressive, chauvinist form of defending and broadcasting liberalism (in our days - neoliberalism). I would say a fascist form of neoliberalism.

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

There are, of course, liberals and “softer” ones. They focus on criticizing all kinds of repressions (in our case, from Lenin’s to Putin’s), bureaucratic arbitrariness, militarism, clericalism (interference of the church in secular affairs), and, most recently, corruption. They also criticize the anti-social measures of the authorities, sometimes even scolding “their” ultra-liberals for such attempts. With all this they can, as events in a number of countries show, attract part of the working people to their side. Nobody is delighted with repression, bureaucracy, corruption, etc. But for some reason, the people’s support of even such “honest” liberals very soon makes these people not better, but worse.

RHETORIC OF LIBERALS AS A SCREEN

And no wonder. After all, all those manifestations of bureaucracy, militarism, corruption and other evils against which they are trying to rouse the people did not fall from the sky. Can “the state in the proper sense” (F. Engels), while remaining alienated from society, be completely different? Can the people, while they are unable to free themselves from class exploitation, seriously control state power “from below”? And, finally, does this mean that such a “bad” state still does not perform socially necessary functions - first of all, socio-economic ones, which are vitally necessary for the working people and which neoliberals are encroaching on? Thinking wisely, one cannot help but answer all these questions in the negative.

What follows from this? That there is no need to fight arbitrariness, corruption, etc.? It is necessary, of course. But in a smart way, to the best of one’s real ability, soberly realizing that under capitalism all these evils can only be reduced a little, but cannot be eliminated without a revolutionary transition to a qualitatively new society. And even then this matter is long and difficult. And whoever promises to “beat seven in one fell swoop” is simply a demagogue. If he combines this with the exaltation of private property, which is characteristic of even the best of liberals, in modern conditions he will only clear the way for the fascist “liberals.” Whether he wants it or not.

AND FINALLY:

One can also come across such an interpretation of liberalism as if it is an ideology that considers the individual and a specific person as its priority. But this is already distorting and confusing concepts, because in reality such an ideology turns out to be humanism, which has nothing in common with liberalism.

But that's another conversation.

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 confused by this question. 56% could not give a comprehensive answer. The survey was conducted in 2012; most likely, today the situation is unlikely to have changed for the better. Therefore, now in this article we will briefly consider the concept of liberalism and all its main aspects for the education of the Russian audience.

In contact with

About the concept

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

political movement or ideology that unites fans of democracy and parliamentarism;
a worldview that is characteristic of industrialists who defend their rights of a political nature, as well as entrepreneurial freedom;
a theory incorporating philosophical and political ideas that appeared in Western Europe in the 18th century;
the first meaning of the concept was freethinking;
tolerance and tolerance of unacceptable behavior.

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

Freedom or restriction

The liberal movement includes such key concepts as public good, individual freedom and equality of people within the framework of policy and . What liberal values does this ideology promote?

Common good. If the state protects the rights and freedom of the individual, and also protects the people from various threats and monitors compliance with the 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 absolutely not the case. We differ from each other in various aspects: intelligence, social status, physical characteristics, nationality, and so on. But liberals mean equality of 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 status or other factors . The principle is that if you put in the 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 offenses), property is considered as a personal right to own something, and the right to happiness is that same freedom of choice.

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

Principles of liberal ideology:

there is nothing more valuable than human life;
all people in this world are equal;
everyone has their inalienable rights;
the individual and his needs are more valuable than society as a whole;
the state arises by common consent;
people form laws and state values independently;
the state is responsible to the individual, and the individual, in turn, is responsible to the state;
power must be divided, the principle of organizing life in the state on the basis of the constitution;
only in fair elections can a 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 are similar to the utopia that humanity so passionately strives for, but cannot achieve.

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

Founders of the ideology

What is liberalism? At that time, each thinker understood it in his own way. This ideology absorbed completely different ideas and opinions of 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 English scientists J. Locke and T. Hobbes (18th century) can be considered, along with the French writer of the Enlightenment era Charles Montesquieu, who was the first to think and express his opinion about human freedom in all spheres of his activity.

Locke gave birth to legal liberalism and stated that only in a society in which all citizens are free can there be stability.

The original theory of liberalism

The followers of classical liberalism gave greater preference and paid more attention to the “individual freedom” of man. The concept of this concept is expressed in the fact that the individual should not submit to either society or social orders. Independence and equality- these are the main stages on 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 go against established dogmas.

As the founders of the liberal movement believed, the government should guarantee equality between all its citizens, but people had to take care of their financial situation and status on their 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 security and order protection. That is, the liberals tried to influence the reduction of all its functions to a minimum. The existence of society and power could only be subject to their general subordination to laws within the state.

The fact that classical liberalism would still exist became clear when a terrible economic crisis arose in the United States in 1929. Its consequences were tens of thousands of bankrupt banks, the death of many people from hunger and other horrors of the economic decline of the state.

Economic liberalism

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

self-interest is needed to spur economic development;
government regulation and the existence of monopolies harm the economy;
economic growth must be promoted quietly. That is, the government should not interfere in the process of the emergence of new institutions. Businesses and suppliers operating in the interests of profit and within the market system are quietly guided by the "invisible hand." All this is the key to competently meeting the needs of society.

Neoliberalism

This direction was formed in the 19th century and implies a new trend in, which consists of complete non-interference by 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 government should promote self-regulation of the economy in the market, and the process of financial redistribution should primarily take into account the low-income segments of the population.

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

All political concepts and philosophical movements have their own characteristics, and neoliberalism is 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 ensured;
protection of principles and justice. All citizens must be involved in political processes to maintain the necessary democratic “weather”;
government should maintain existence various economic programs, associated with financial support for social groups with low incomes.

Briefly about liberalism

Why is the concept of liberalism distorted in Russia?

Conclusion

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

We are accustomed to thinking that the demand for freedom is the prerogative of liberals. However, no one advocates free markets more than modern conservatives. And no one is as actively demanding government intervention in the economy and support for socially vulnerable sections of the population as modern liberals. How did it happen that conservatives now stand for freedom, and liberals, who have the floorlibertas - freedom - is contained in the name, it seems like it’s not really for it?

Classical liberalism

The answer to this question is quite simple: liberalism as a political ideology, which is based on ideas such as freedom of speech and assembly, equality of all citizens before the law, the rule of law, social contract, human rights, inviolability of private property, etc. At the end of the twentieth century, he won victory almost all over the world. Largely due to its own focus on pluralism of opinions, it has never been a single, monolithic movement. Different movements within liberalism understand its basic concepts differently.

The key figures for the formation of this ideology are two British theorists of the 18th century: John Locke and Adam Smith. No work on the history of liberalism can do without these names. It was Locke who came up with the idea of separation of powers, and he was one of the key theorists of the social contract theory, which underlies democracy. Smith is considered the first apologist of the free market and the author of the much-loved theory of the “invisible hand of the market.”

However, they cannot be confidently classified as any branch of liberalism other than classical liberalism itself. Smith, on whom free market apologists and proponents of the “invisible hand” theory rely, understood perfectly well that economic inequality leads to political inequality. This he found unfair. In his famous Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Smith writes:

Where there is great property, there is great inequality. For every rich man there are at least five hundred poor, and the wealth of the few presupposes the poverty of the many. Therefore, the emergence of valuable and large property necessarily requires the establishment of a civil government. Where there is no property, or where at least property does not exceed the value of two or three days' labor, there the existence of government is not necessary...

Rich people in particular are inevitably interested in maintaining that order of things, which alone can secure for them the possession of their advantages. Less wealthy people unite with the rich to protect their property, with the condition that the rich will unite with them to protect their property also... Civil government, since it is created for the purpose of protecting property, in fact becomes a means of protecting the rich from the poor, protecting those who has property, from those who are deprived of it.

By the way, John Locke’s passage about the fact that money given under threat of death is not given voluntarily is constantly used by opponents of high taxes and government intervention in the economy to defend their position. Although Locke was also not a supporter of the minimal state or the “nightwatchman state”, which only protects the property of citizens. He was only an opponent of arbitrary government intervention in people's affairs against their will. As a supporter of the social contract theory, he, in principle, could not be unequivocally against state intervention in the economy. Because if citizens give the state this right through democratic voting, then it turns out that the state carries out the will of the citizens themselves. In this way they indirectly manage their property.

Social and economic liberalism

The works of Smith and Locke, like any work that lays the foundation for a particular theory, presented ideas that often contradicted each other. Therefore, it is not surprising that people with diametrically opposed views began to rely on them. After all, even Karl Marx's economic theory proceeds almost entirely from the premises laid down by Adam Smith.

It is no coincidence that already in the 19th century liberalism was divided into social and economic. At the heart of this division is the opposition between positive and negative freedom, freedom for something and freedom from something.

Economic liberals fear that to ensure positive freedom and rights, the state will inevitably have to become too powerful and threaten negative freedom. Therefore, they support the so-called laissez faire policy, according to which economic government intervention should be kept to a minimum.

Social liberals, on the contrary, believe that the enjoyment of negative freedom is impossible without the possession of positive rights. They draw attention to the fact that low-income people are often forced to sacrifice their rights and agree to any working conditions offered to them, because otherwise they will not survive. In addition, those with great wealth are able to more easily avoid responsibility for their actions because they have money for better lawyers, and they enjoy the right to life to a greater extent because they can afford better doctors. Not to mention the fact that they are capable of bribing members of governments and parliaments to make decisions in their interests. Social liberals also note that the difference between them and economic liberals is only in the degree to which they are willing to allow state intervention in public life, because institutions that provide negative rights also carry out this intervention.

Modern liberalism

The further development of liberalism occurred mainly within this division and centered around state intervention in the economy. And the difference between liberals began to depend entirely on how the concept of liberalism is interpreted in the first place: as a political or as an economic theory.

Thus, neoliberalism, which became widespread at the end of the twentieth century as a reaction to the collapse of socialist regimes, is based on the understanding of liberalism as an economic theory. In this sense, he extends the understanding of individuals as independent economic agents organizing their own lives, like an enterprise, to all other spheres of life, including politics. The basis of this interpretation is precisely the same protection of private property from encroachment by society and the state, which Smith talks about in the above fragment. And modern conservatives tend to adhere to this interpretation, since it allows them to maintain the status quo and impede social reforms.

Modern political liberalism, on the contrary, continues the tradition of interpreting liberalism as a theory that requires that all citizens can equally enjoy political freedom, which is impossible without state regulation of the economy. In this understanding, the state must protect citizens from the excessive political and economic power of other citizens, just as it protects them from physical power and physical interference.

In this regard, for more than a century and a half, conservatives have constantly drifted in their ideological preferences towards anarcho-capitalism with its minimal state, while liberals, on the contrary, have always moved towards socialism with its equal distribution of resources between citizens through means of social support.

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.

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

From the history

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

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

Liberal views

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

Compare with conservatives

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

Shades of liberalism

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

Let us specify the differences between liberals and other ideologies

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

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

Why and when to study differences in ideologies

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

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

Liberals of Russia

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

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

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

A liberal is one who looks to the West

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

Economic field of activity

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

Why people in Russia “don’t like” liberals

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

conclusions

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

About the concept

Freedom or restriction

The original theory of liberalism

Economic liberalism

Neoliberalism

Conclusion

Classical liberalism

Social and economic liberalism

Modern liberalism

From the history

Liberal views

Compare with conservatives

Shades of liberalism

Let us specify the differences between liberals and other ideologies

Why and when to study differences in ideologies

Liberals of Russia

A liberal is one who looks to the West

Economic field of activity

Why people in Russia “don’t like” liberals

conclusions

From the history

Liberal views

Compare with conservatives

Shades of liberalism

Let us specify the differences between liberals and other ideologies

Why and when to study differences in ideologies

Liberals of Russia

A liberal is one who looks to the West

Economic field of activity

Why people in Russia “don’t like” liberals

conclusions

Editor's Choice