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?

  1. The 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.
  2. 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 different 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.
  3. 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:

  • for a push economic development personal interest is required;
  • 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.

Liberalism is now criticized by many. It's fashionable. But not everyone knows what kind of animal this is. Therefore, sometimes such incidents arise that a person scolds liberalism and immediately defends its values, without even thinking about it.

So what is this liberalism that is mentioned so often?

Liberalism - lat. liberalis - free.

There are several directions of liberalism. Among them, political and economic liberalism received the greatest development.

At the heart of political liberalism is the idea that each person knows best what is best for him.

The basis of economic liberalism is the idea that the free market itself will balance supply and demand, the invisible hand will regulate everything itself, free competition will outcompete everything, the main thing is less government regulation, in other words, watch and not interfere.


To summarize, liberalism is the idea that everything should be self-regulating and self-adjusting. All people are adults, independent, and you shouldn’t interfere in the affairs of independent adults.

Thus, liberalism is the minimization of the role of the state in human life and society, as well as in the economy and in general in everything where rights and responsibilities can be transferred to some private structures.

In a liberal state, the media are independent, education is paid, medicine is paid, factories are private, roads are paid, infrastructure is built by those who need it, and the list goes on.

All by yourself. Everyone arranges their own life.

You need a road - build it and take money for travel. Have a baby - look for it kindergarten, then school, then pay for it, grow it, whatever you grow it will be like that. The role of the liberal state in education comes down to putting your child in prison for serious bodily harm, if any result as a result of the fact that you, while earning money for his education, treatment, housing, a car and smaller joys, paid insufficient attention to his own upbringing.

Harsh? Well, this is what it is, a life-size liberal state.

The army in a liberal state may be private, or may not exist at all, if the liberal state is part of some bloc like NATO and gives up land for foreign bases, after which it finds itself under external protection.

Traffic police and courts in a liberal state may be the responsibility of municipalities. Because locally we know better how to regulate traffic and who to judge for what.

Banks in a liberal state are private. Including central bank. Moreover, a liberal state may not have a central bank or its own currency at all if the state uses some supranational currency such as the euro.

I hope I have explained the basic principle.

I repeat - liberalism is based on the idea that everyone is the master of their own destiny.

A minimum of government regulation both in the economy and in life. This means that the state does not owe anything to anyone. Or almost nothing. A passport was issued - and he was free. Go for a walk! All roads are in front of you, just pay.

If in a liberal state a man decides to marry another man and they want to adopt a cactus, then that’s what they need. Let it go. Adults, they know better how to live better.

By ourselves, all by ourselves, every man for himself.

The liberal state in the extreme is a decorative formation, a kind of thin shell separating the citizens of one liberal state from another similar one, located over that hill. And no visas. But the money is still common throughout the mainland.

Do you like this model? But many people like it. Many people want to live like this.

And yet, many scold liberalism, meaning Nemtsov and Chubais by it, but do not even think about the fact that Russia, without any Nemtsov, is in fact developing precisely in the direction of liberalism, with broad steps and under the leadership of everyone’s favorite, let’s not name him out loud again.

By the way, Chubais did not disappear anywhere after Yeltsin left; he actively participated in the liberalization of our energy sector, which was successfully removed from state regulation in full accordance with the principles mentioned above. And energy is the basis for the production of all goods and services, including public utilities. So greetings from Chubais to the whole country. Yeltsin left, but Chubais remained. Voila!

And along with liberal energy, we have many more interesting things:

Education is paid.
Universities are actively switching to commercial work criteria.
Medicine is paid (not all of it yet, but the process is underway).
Toll roads are being built and parking fees are levied in cities.
Factories have been privatized.
Oil platforms and drilling rigs are built with money from private investors.
There is a plan for further privatization, but there is no plan for nationalization.
The housing and communal services sector has been privatized and tariff regulation has been abolished.
The army's logistics support has been transferred to private companies.
The Central Bank, by and large, does not answer to anyone.
Regulation of the ruble exchange rate has been cancelled.
And we joined the WTO. Hooray!

Like? Meanwhile, this list can go on and on.

All that Russia needs to increase its liberalism is same-sex marriage and the final abolition of the national currency (although the ruble is already in fact tied to the dollar and oil prices).

But I wanted to talk about one more manifestation of liberalism.

Foreign policy liberalism.

It would seem that what could be in foreign policy liberalism? She's external! Actually, it can.

Let me once again repeat the basic principles of liberalism - everyone knows how to live, everyone solves their own problems, the role of the state is minimal, state regulation should be reduced to the level of the plinth, and in some places even abolished.

Here is how this principle is expressed in foreign policy using the example of Ukraine:

Ukraine must solve its own problems. Ukraine is an independent state. Ukrainians chose European integration, it is their choice. Kyiv must solve the problem with its regions itself. We respect their choice. They organized the Maidan themselves, which means they themselves must deal with its consequences. If the Vice President of the United States takes the place of the President of Ukraine, that is their business.

They are themselves, they are adults, it is their choice, it is none of our business.

This is the principle of liberalism in full size.

A strong state does not give excessive independence to either its own society or its neighbors. It regulates relationships and actively intervenes in unfavorable processes.

A strong state needs qualified personnel, for this it makes education free and compulsory, develops science, makes doing science prestigious, produces scientific literature and further down the list. The liberal state says: “learn for yourself.”

A strong state does not allow enemy regimes to develop on its borders; in such cases it uses special services, creates economic and political obstacles for its opponents and finances its supporters. If an enemy regime comes to power in a neighboring state, then the strong state finds its supporters there, among its neighbors, and gives them weapons, trains them, supplies them with intelligence and sends military consultants - polite and not so polite. The liberal state says “this is their sovereign choice.”

A strong state is looking for opportunities to turn the situation around in its own interests and, as a rule, finds such an opportunity. The liberal state hopes that everything will regulate itself, through the invisible hand of the market and the invisible tentacles of freedom and democracy.

The thesis that we have no right to interfere in other people's affairs was invented by liberals who firmly believe that everyone knows best how to live, even if this knowledge leads to the Maidan, tires, terrorist attacks and drug trafficking.

The communists said - we don’t need to wait for mercy from nature (enemies, opponents, capitalists), they found comrades-in-arms in the enemy’s camp, threw Stirlitz there, supported the partisans and the underground and achieved results.

Russian emperors said that Russia has two allies - the army and the navy - and sent these allies to solve the problem where it arose near our borders, and sometimes even far beyond these borders.

Russian patriots of various views - monarchical, communist, Old Church Slavonic - took up arms and went to defend Donbass, because they saw that after the annexation of Crimea the Kremlin returned to its usual liberal position and began to wait for everything to regulate itself.

And liberals, as befits liberals, began to recite mantras about the invisible hand of the market, the invisible tentacles of freedom and democracy, about human rights and... about a cunning plan that no one saw (like the invisible hand of the market), but which must necessarily be and someday it will certainly work, the enemy will step on his own shoelaces, fall, die, float past us along the river and everything will be fine, and most importantly itself.

So: if you also think that Ukrainians should restore order themselves with the help of the “invisible hand of the market” or the “invisible tentacle of freedom and democracy” or everything should be corrected by the magic of a “cunning plan” - then you are the real one - I will not repeat this words once again.

If you think that the mess in Ukraine is a personal choice of Ukrainians and let them live the way they want - then please don’t complain if your neighbor turns out to be same-sex, adopts a cactus and rolls it in a stroller under your windows, parading in thongs and flashing her well-shaven bottom. He has exactly the same right to this as the Ukrainians have to their mess. And if your neighbor turns out to be a drug addict and you find a syringe or a bag of something similar to tea on your child - don’t complain, this is also their free choice - both your neighbor and your child. The principle does not give exactly the same choice as the choice of the Ukrainians, in which a true liberal is not allowed to interfere.

We must be consistent!

If we demand that people with a rainbow on the flag behave quietly and inconspicuously, without organizing parades in the central square, if we fight drug addiction and prohibit the spread of poison throughout the country, then we must demand the same from our neighbors, that is, from Ukraine .

And not only demand, but also stop actions that are harmful to our people and country.

Because verbal demands on fags, drug addicts and Banderaites act the same way as peas on a wall. A little less than nothing.

The state, if it is not yet completely liberal, must act.

And for the state to function, it must be headed by a sovereign.

Among monarchists, the sovereign was called emperor or king.
Among the communists, the sovereign was called the general secretary.
And only the liberals have the country headed by an “effective manager.”

A sovereign is one who not only speaks words, but also puts them into practice.

The sovereign is the one who not only talks about the largest divided people and the right to use all means to protect the Russian population, but gathers this people and applies the means in practice. And even better - he doesn’t reason in vain at all, but immediately acts - quickly, so as to give the enemy a surprise, seize the initiative, thereby gaining an advantage and reducing losses.

The sovereign is acting. Liberal - says.

Liberals should have everything themselves, and what is said does not have to coincide with what is done, because no one owes a liberal anything, especially the state. With liberals, no one is responsible for anything. Every man for himself. Only the invisible hand of the market is for everyone. And the same invisible tentacles of freedom and democracy. And human rights. And another cunning plan. Which no one has ever seen, but everyone is sure that he is invisibly present on the air and ensures the victory of someone over someone, it is not clear who.

Do you know why liberalism is so popular that it is even professed by some part of society, which is trying to convince itself of its own patriotism?

Because you can do nothing!

This is so great!

You sit, do nothing, consider yourself a patriot, and it will all happen by itself!

The power of a cunning plan is that you don't have to do anything. But at the same time you can feel and look like a patriot.

Defending the country by believing in a cunning plan is an excellent liberal method of ensuring state security.

As mentioned above, in an advanced liberal state the army may be private, or may be absent altogether.

What for? There is a cunning plan!

As invisible and as effective as the invisible hand of the market.

Probably, the implementation of this plan is now being carried out by one of the most effective managers of our country, who has been leading Russia to success since 1990, who has held high positions under all the presidents of our country, our dear and beloved Mr. Chubais.

In 2012, through the efforts of the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM), a survey was conducted in which Russians were asked to explain who a liberal is. More than half of the participants in this test (more precisely, 56%) found it difficult to disclose this term. It is unlikely that this situation has changed radically in a few years, and therefore let’s look at what principles liberalism professes and what this socio-political and philosophical movement actually consists of.

Who is a liberal?

In very general terms, we can say that a person who is an adherent of this movement welcomes and approves of the idea of ​​​​limited intervention government agencies c The basis of this system is based on a private enterprise economy, which, in turn, is organized on market principles.

Answering the question of who a liberal is, many experts argue that he is someone who considers political, personal and economic freedom to be the highest priority in the life of the state and society. For supporters of this ideology, the freedoms and rights of each person are a kind of legal basis on which, in their opinion, the economic and social order should be built. Now let's look at who a liberal democrat is. This is a person who, while defending freedom, is an opponent of authoritarianism. according to Western political scientists, this is an ideal that many developed countries strive for. However, this term can be discussed not only from a political point of view. In its original meaning, this word called all freethinkers and freethinkers. Sometimes these included those who in society were prone to excessive indulgence.

Modern liberals

As an independent worldview, the ideological movement in question arose at the end of the 17th century. The basis for its development was the works of such famous authors as J. Locke, A. Smith and J. Mill. At that time, it was believed that freedom of enterprise and non-interference of the state in private life would inevitably lead to prosperity and improved well-being of society. However, as it turned out later, the classical model of liberalism did not justify itself. Free competition, uncontrolled by the state, led to the emergence of monopolies that inflated prices. Interested lobby groups have emerged in politics. All this made legal equality impossible and significantly narrowed the opportunities for everyone who wanted to start a business. In the 80-90s. In the 19th century, the ideas of liberalism began to experience a serious crisis. As a result of long-term theoretical searches, at the beginning of the 20th century, a new concept was developed, called neoliberalism or social liberalism. Its supporters advocate protecting the individual from the negative consequences and abuses of the market system. In classical liberalism, the state was something of a “night watchman.” Modern liberals recognized that this was a mistake and included in their program ideas such as:

Russian liberals

In polytypic discussions of the modern Russian Federation, this trend causes a lot of controversy. For some, liberals are conformists playing along with the West, while for others they are a panacea that can save the country from the undivided power of the state. This discrepancy is to a large extent due to the fact that several varieties of this ideology are operating simultaneously on Russian territory. The most notable of them are liberal fundamentalism (represented by Alexey Venediktov, editor-in-chief of the Echo Moscow station), neoliberalism (represented by social liberalism (Yabloko party) and legal liberalism (Republican Party and PARNAS party).

Thinking out loud

First person

Short story liberalism. Subtleties of perception. Quite interesting and at the same time clear discussions about Who is Who? I recommend it to improve your educational level.

What is the difference between a liberal and a liberalist?

Andrey (). Co-written with A. Legeyda

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 popular 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 appeals 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. For example, 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 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 criticism of 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 in Lately most of all - 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 are encroached upon by neoliberals? 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.