Liberalism: from antiquity to modern neoliberal ideology

22
Liberalism: from antiquity to modern neoliberal ideology

As you know, the word “liberalism” comes from the Latin liber, meaning “free”. As predecessors, liberals of the past referred to philosophers and political figures of antiquity, in particular to the ancient Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, who wrote in his writings about a state with laws equal for all its citizens, and about a autocracy that prioritizes the freedom of its subjects. However, freedom and democracy in ancient times were understood completely differently than in the 18th and 19th centuries. Thus, in ancient times it was believed that free people would create their own state, and classical liberalism presupposes the freedom of man from the state and society.

Classical liberalism developed in the 17th - 18th centuries in the most economically developed countries at that time: Holland, England and France. The ideologists of the “theory of freedom” were educated, and most importantly, well-to-do people, who believed that free people follow exclusively their own benefit, while the royal power and the church only restrain them in this desire. Moreover, according to their concept, human freedom should include two components: absolute inviolability of private property and freedom of conscience.



Perhaps the greatest contribution to the development of the ideology of liberalism was made by the Scottish economist Adam Smith, who formulated the basic concepts of political economy: working capital, rent and profit, wages and income. Smith outlined the main task of an entrepreneur, which, according to his theory, should be the accumulation of capital and its investment in order to make a profit. Smith argued that the basis of wealth is the division of labor, specialization and the desire to earn income. According to Smith's theory, it is extremely harmful to limit the right of an entrepreneur to dispose of property; it is impossible to regulate the cost of raw materials or products, wages or the length of the working day. Smith called the market the only and ideal regulator of the economy. He considered the selfishness of individual people to be the source of universal wealth and prosperity. Smith introduced two basic concepts of liberalism: Homo Economicus (Economic Man) and the Invisible Hand of the Market.

In the 18th century, Smith's teachings seemed extremely innovative and even revolutionary. In the 19th century, it was considered a classic concept according to which the state should not interfere in the economy at all. The beneficial role of free competition was considered obvious until the twentieth century. The ideas of the classics of political economy, Karl Marx and David Ricardo, were drawn from the ideas of Adam Smith. The modern ideology of neoliberalism is largely built on Smith's ideas.

The ideology of liberalism underwent significant changes after the Great Depression that gripped the United States at the beginning of the last century. The concept of an “open society” emerged, welcoming economic freedom, competition, pluralism of opinions and multiculturalism.

Neoliberalism, combined with globalism, which involves bringing the political systems of all states under a common denominator, in contrast to the basic concepts of classical liberalism, which deny the need to wage any wars and interventions, presupposes the need to wage wars to “protect liberal values” and “liberate people groaning under the yoke dictatorship."

Classical liberalism defended the interests of 10-20% of the population of the most developed countries of the world, while modern liberalism fights with states and peoples in the interests of a negligible percentage of the world's population. At the same time, absolutely any state can be blamed to one degree or another for suppressing personal freedom, violating democracy and subordinating the interests of the individual to public interests.



The protection of human rights and freedoms turns into a political slogan suitable for fighting any undesirable state: Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan or Uruguay. The more the line between good and evil, reason and madness is blurred in this defense, the greater sins one can accuse the opponent of, in order to then subjugate him through wars and coups and make him part of the global system of international capital.

22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    8 August 2024 14: 58
    - And then free people and free horses will roam the earth...
    - Why people? Let there be only horses.
  2. +1
    8 August 2024 15: 04
    Classical liberalism developed in the 17th - 18th centuries in the most economically developed countries at that time: Holland, England and France. The ideologists of the “theory of freedom” were educated, and most importantly, well-off people who believed that free people follow exclusively their own benefit, while the royal power and the church only restrain them in this endeavor. At the same time, according to their concept, human freedom must include two components: absolute inviolability of private property and freedom of conscience.

    This is the root of all humanity's problems. Only “freedom of conscience,” in their opinion, actually looks like “freedom without conscience.”

    And from the liberals there also came an offshoot of libertarians, something like the Argentine President Millay.
    1. +1
      13 August 2024 14: 12
      Small correction: "freedom FROM conscience"
      1. +1
        13 August 2024 14: 58
        Probably both options characterize them perfectly.
        1. +1
          13 August 2024 16: 31
          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
  3. +2
    8 August 2024 15: 07
    This is what is written in Wikipedia, which is rejected by the majority of our “patriots”: "In legal terms, the principles of liberalism are the supremacy of law over the will of rulers and the equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of their wealth and social status"So - no freedom from the state! Someone must protect the inviolability of property.

    It is clear, there can be no liberalism in Russia. laughing
    Actually, it cannot exist in the modern world, because the rights of the small owner have never been trampled upon as much as in our time under capitalism.
    1. +2
      8 August 2024 15: 40
      Quote: ivan2022
      This is what is written in Wikipedia, rejected by the majority of our “patriots”

      You are right and wrong at the same time. Liberalism is unique in that there are infinitely many of it (different directions) and they are not at all reducible to a single denominator, since different trends often give directly opposite theses and interpretations. I liked the definition of liberalism as a huge dump of a variety of slogans for every taste and color, from which everyone chooses those that suit him best and proudly calls himself a liberal...
    2. +1
      9 August 2024 15: 33
      “Right is the will of the ruling class, elevated to law and forced into execution by state mechanisms,” - V.I. Lenin.
      In other words, these rulers themselves write laws that are beneficial to themselves, which are binding on everyone. And so it is everywhere, including in Russia.
  4. +3
    8 August 2024 15: 20
    In Russian, the word “liberalism” sounds like a curse word. Or something worse wink
    1. +2
      8 August 2024 15: 38
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      In Russian the word "liberalism" sounds like a curse

      And this word is liberal... belay
    2. +3
      8 August 2024 16: 42
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      In Russian, the word “liberalism” sounds like a curse word. Or something worse wink


      The Russian language is great and powerful. The words “liberal”, “democrat”, “fascist”, “communist” and their crude analogues are equally abusive in it. In fact, the entire political spectrum is covered in negativity. The parliament itself has a rather contemptuous name among the people.

      The words “elite” (towards the authorities) and “cattle” (towards the common people) are also used in a derogatory sense.

      Civil servants, officials - the word is not only abusive, but also contemptuous. No one doubts that this is a synonym for the word “thieves”.

      The degree of mutual disrespect is so strong that I wonder why we still live in the same country and tolerate each other - it’s very uncomfortable to live when everything around is so bad, and you’re the only one white and fluffy.
    3. 0
      8 August 2024 21: 45
      In Russian, not only the word “liberalism” sounds like a curse. But, for example, even a word like “respected” absolutely does not mean that you are respected.

      In the old Soviet military oath there were the words: ".... if I break this oath, may I be subjected to... universal hatred and contempt of the working people..."

      The oath was successfully betrayed. And it came true!! Not only hatred, but also war.
      1. 0
        13 August 2024 14: 18
        I will act as “the devil’s advocate”: before the words you cited there was also “I am always ready, on the orders of the Soviet Government, to come out in defense of my Motherland.” And the Soviet Government stirred up the counter-revolution, so there was NO order sad
  5. +1
    8 August 2024 15: 27
    Liberalism is when all proclaimed concepts and principles concern only one’s own. In ancient Greece and Rome, liberalism did not imply barbarians and non-Romans. In the Middle Ages, liberalism did not spread to non-European peoples of the world. Liberalism for everyone never existed, does not exist and cannot exist. Liberalism is an ideology for the elite, who chose themselves as such, and therefore must be destroyed as the misanthropic ideology of an aggressive minority.
  6. +1
    8 August 2024 15: 29
    Liberalism: from antiquity to modern neoliberal ideology

    Not quite the correct view of liberalism.
    1. Liberalism is an idea that is promoted through a certain ideology.
    2. A. Smith's theory is not an idea, but a science - economics, which determines wealth and methods of creating wealth. It was in this vein that A. Smith considered his theory. Like Pushkin
    He was a deep economy
    That is, he knew how to judge,
    As the state grows rich,
    And what lives, and why
    He does not need gold,
    When a simple product has.
    K. Marx, analyzing T. A. Smith, proved that the surplus product, on the basis of which wealth is created, is part of the labor appropriated by the owner. And this is the difference between A. Smith and K. Marx.
    That. neither A. Smith, nor K. Marx, nor other economists were the founders of liberalism. Then the question is: where did the idea of ​​liberalism come from?
    The idea of ​​liberalism arose, was born from the philosophical works of I. Kant, from his theory of transcendental thinking, which, as he believed, was completely free from any limitation.
    Further development of the idea of ​​freedom of thought, defined in the philosophy of Kant, led to the identification of the concept of personal freedom and, as a consequence, the freedom of the individual in society - the theory of liberalism. The extreme form of this freedom at the turn of the twentieth century. became the theory of anarchism. The latest epidemic of tattoos in Russia is just one of the forms of manifestation of liberalism that came from the West: my body, I do what I want with it.
    Subsequently, the theory of liberalism was transformed into the theory of imposing liberalism, which is now observed in the politics of the Anglo-Saxons.
    In economics, liberalism has transformed into an extreme form of denial of state intervention in economic processes and freedom of market action, especially in those markets on which the economy of the Anglo-Saxons and their satellites depends.
  7. 0
    8 August 2024 15: 33
    Classical liberalism defended the interests of 10-20% of the population of the most developed countries of the world, while modern liberalism fights with states and peoples in the interests of a negligible percentage of the world's population.

    If you look at Master of Laws and Professor of Philosophy Felix Sard Y Salvany, 1899 edition, liberalism initially advocated the abolition of the influence of the church. Giving privileges to man and the state, but as can be seen, having destroyed the church in Europe, liberalism took up the state and man. How this will end is unknown, but liberals are “changing their shoes” as they go.
    1. 0
      9 August 2024 06: 00
      This ended sometime back in the 20th century, first with the destruction of the Russian Empire and the emergence of communism, and then National Socialism in Germany.
      Now there are no ideologies at all, neither liberalism, nor communism, nor Nazism in their pure form. All this, if any, is with the prefix - Post.
      The chubby ones, for example, just took it and cosplayed Hitler's empire in its most perverted and wretched version.
  8. -1
    9 August 2024 17: 14
    Among the favorites of barbarian peoples were racism, social Darwinism, eugenics, Nazism, genetics... today liberalism is superficial greed, justified by biased demagoguery, within the framework of which we see this whole bazaar about values ​​and rights...
    that is, the equivalent of the concept of “liberalism” is the concept of “superficiality” - leading to the degradation of society.
  9. -1
    10 August 2024 17: 37
    According to Smith's theory, it is extremely harmful to limit the right of an entrepreneur to dispose of property, it is impossible to regulate the cost of raw materials or products, wages or working hours.
    But wages can be limited...
  10. 0
    5 September 2024 14: 01
    Classical liberalism defended the interests of 10-20% of the population of the most developed countries of the world, while modern liberalism fights with states and peoples in the interests of a negligible percentage of the world's population.


    What's the difference? Same eggs from a different angle. Exploitation of humanity in the interests of the "platinum million".
  11. 0
    5 September 2024 14: 02
    Quote: Fitter65
    But wages can be limited...


    Ideally, just don't pay. Capitalism started with slavery... but slavery exists in our time, they just don't advertise it.
  12. 0
    5 September 2024 14: 04
    Quote: 27091965i
    Giving privileges to the individual and the state, but as one can see, having destroyed the church in Europe, liberalism took on the state and the individual.


    "- And I know this man!" laughing
    Liberalism itself has become something like a religion.