The term "social liberalism" appeared not so long ago - in 1893 - and denoted a new installation of social policy - diverse, but unambiguous in essence, in which the social moment itself does not turn into an unchanged and firmly mounted system of means, as is the case with other programs . For example, socialism clearly chooses the means. And social liberalism feels much freer in this matter and is guided by a choice much more broadly, including using state interference in economic life.
Personal Freedom First
Social liberalism has no prejudice regarding the choice of means by which it sees the possibility of achieving benefits for each member of society, that is, state intervention, public and collective ownership, and everything that is available in other programs is quite acceptable. The worthy existence of each person is the main goal of worldview views and the support of public order.
Program socialism is much less free, the moment of freedom and self-determination itself is not an independent value for it. Social liberalism does not allow the individual to dissolve in collective coercion. Only individual freedom and its fundamental value share liberalism with socialism. The rest of the worldview supports are the same. Indeed, purely economic socialization can contribute both to the merger of these two programs, and to complete demarcation.
Classical liberalism is also loyal to the manifestations of capitalism, does not find any conflict between completely different values. For example, economic liberals consider the guarantee of freedom only property rights. However, such an approach deprives, for example, wage workers of any kind of freedom.
And this is not the only case when freedom and property conflict. Apparently, wage workers are free in something else, not in possession of capital. And each social group has its own freedom. Liberalism in relation to social issues for the subordination of rights, including ownership, which is considered not an independent value, but an instrument. The boundaries of property are constantly being reviewed; it is not the equivalent of freedom, but can provide it. Thus, capitalism is appropriate as a means of achievement, but as capitalist relations develop, freedom is often suffocated by them.
Philosophical Foundation
The attitude of liberalism to social issues depends on an assessment of overall well-being, on considerations regarding society, and not on individuals who control the government. This, it would seem, should protect the people from the severity of revolutions and from physical violence. Proponents and opponents of any changes should discuss every moment of the program comprehensively so as not to expose society to such serious dangers. However, the severe social inequality that existed in England in the 19th century when the ideas of social liberalism were outlined still exists in a no less rigid form.
The problems of stagnant poverty have not been resolved, since they are wholly and completely inherent in both bourgeois and capitalist society. Wealth and poverty are not signs of stupidity or high intelligence, vice or virtue, laziness or industriousness, it is always a matter of chance and certain starting opportunities that fall to a few.
The philosopher Mill gave many examples of diversity in the manifestation of property rights, which shows different times, different countries. He argues that it is not the objective laws of production that affect the distribution of wealth, but social laws and customs, although in Britain in his time this distribution was the same everywhere and inversely proportional to labor. Consequently, liberalism initially supplied the social sphere with varying degrees of freedom. But this is still a purely theoretical program.
The social base of liberalism
In the early thirties of the twentieth century in the United States, this program began to work as a technology. In 1932, the consequences of a deep economic crisis were still felt, which could not be prevented or defeated by the two ruling parties of the country. Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat who was able to abolish so many traditional postulates - political, social and economic - was elected. The Americans were able to compare the conservatism, socialism, liberalism and attitude to social issues of the representatives of these programs.
They endured conservatism on their own for centuries, socialism successfully built the USSR, and liberalism was new, but managed to provide support for a variety of organizations and, most importantly, the working class, through the Keynes program (economic regulation and social reforms). Ethnic and racial minorities, too, were not deprived of attention, the average welfare residents of cities and villages also supported liberalism and the social state that was promised. The coalition of social liberals held positions until the sixties, because their program was interesting because it combined collectivist and individualistic values.
As it was in Germany
The Germans conducted an electoral experience in practice. Where can I trace the ways of solving social issues: liberalism, conservatism, socialism - which program is more effective in dealing with this? After the Second World War, the sovereignty of Germany was limited, in fact it was the same occupation regime. However, the post-totalitarian model proposed by Ludwig Erhard, which was based on the teachings of Franz Oppenheimer, won: the program of conservatism with respect to social issues was much weaker.
Liberalism presented much broader possibilities for resolving post-war problems; moreover, it showed a realistic path, not a sentimental one. And this characteristic is the most important: we needed a technology that was practicable, and not an ordinary concept, a beautiful theory that was not built. The identity of each citizen was returned to the state and society in order to jointly overcome the circumstances that stand above the individual and do not take the individual personality into account at all, giving rise to powerlessness before the elements - both political and social.
How it should be in Russia
Much earlier than the onset of the totalitarian time, Anton Chekhov wrote about everyday life without special social disasters, but also without social prosperity: the rich, the poor, the strong and the weak are equally victims of relationships, because they submit to an unknown directing force. Thus, liberalism began solving social issues by debunking this universal state of subjectlessness. It cannot be said that even today this problem has been completely solved. Russian society has not yet acquired sufficient political subjectivity, although liberalism has been offering these solutions to social problems for a very long time.
What is this way? Consider the most common model of building a social state: it is the responsibility of society as a whole for the fate of each of its members. How it's done? The main principle: the rich supports the poor, and the young cares about the old. And there is no worthier way to solve social issues. In this case, liberalism has brought its program closer to the dreams and aspirations of any society. The state should redistribute all tax deductions to the budget through special programs, through insurance funds, through the service system. It is on this that the social base of liberalism is based.
What is a social state
First of all, the social state must make the most active intervention in both economic and social relations, its policy extends as widely as possible to the sphere of science, and to the sphere of education, and to health care, and to culture - in a word, in all spheres characterized by the need for healthy and healthy society. The main parameters of the social state are as follows:
1. Insurance contributions and taxes that form the budget should be high, and the size of contributions from the budget to the social sphere should be high.
2. Social services and the system of their services should be accessible to any group of the population.
3. The legal system should be streamlined, with a clear separation of powers and the implementation of the functions of each of the branches of government, a regulatory legal framework should be created and worked out, state bodies should closely interact with each other, as well as with civil society, including all private initiatives.
Social state and individual freedom
Liberal ideas have always been opposed to the ideas of a welfare state, this took place along the entire path of development of society, and the types of state building were considered as antipodes: a liberal state differs from a social state in its essence. Moreover, liberalism is considered an alternative to the very concept of a social state. The main principle of liberalism is the idea that upholds individual freedom, while the social state provides social justice, weakens social inequality, provides every citizen with a source of livelihood, maintains peace and harmony in society, and creates a living environment favorable for humans.
The liberal state, according to the ideas of liberalism, is socially limited, since it only finances through the budget benefits (the very sources of subsistence) for low-income people. Benefits are not provided to everyone, the rules are strict, and the benefit itself is very small, so able-bodied citizens should work. The states of the USA, Australia, Canada, and Great Britain are built on this principle (the last three - until recently).
Great confrontation
The social idea opposed the liberal at the same time in two most important areas - economic and political. And if totalitarian socialism forcibly equalized the civic opportunities of the population, often violating freedoms, then the liberals opposed any social and state restrictions — the market, forms of ownership, or the redistribution of benefits by the authorities. The most important contradiction of the social and liberal paradigms is the relationship between the state and the individual. Liberals see a person outside the state, and the state - opposing an individual person. Socialists, on the other hand, identify man and the state.
Philosopher Ivan Ilyin wrote that statehood is not an abstraction, it is not located above a citizen and not somewhere “outside of a person”, it’s all - the government and the bureaucracy, the tax department and the police with the army - it lives inside because people and there are parts of this system, its organs, its members, its cogs. The people who make up the state, build it or hesitate, improve or destroy it, with a variety of internal moods and external acts, free, private, proactive, spiritual, creative - all of them make up what is called the state.
What is liberalism and how does it work?
A doctrine that limits the power of society and the state over an individual. That is what the basic definition sounds like. The ideas of a liberal state are:
1. The right to private property, which does not depend on the state.
2. The state and the economy are separate areas.
3. The individual is more important than society, and society is more important than the state.
The state cannot have its own goals, it is like a watchman - it protects the property of the private trader, his freedom of the individual, does not interfere in social and economic relations, refraining from caring for the welfare of his own citizens. The emphasis is on individualism, on personality, on its activity, which will help to provide for itself subject to complete freedom. Citizens have political rights, but they do not have socio-economic rights, and the state is deprived of economic and social functions.
The United States, Canada and Australia, where this particular political model of statehood took shape, lived on the principle of individualism, where each citizen is the creator of his own destiny, and the role of the state is very small. All active weather is done by individual active entities with the help of various non-governmental organizations - associations and social insurance funds based on private savings and through private insurance of almost all citizens. The principle of retaliation in these cases also works. The liberal model of the state always assumes certain obligations to protect the needy and to support the minimum incomes of the poor.
How liberalism became social
Even the fact that the ideas of socialism and liberalism are constantly opposed, contributed to the fact that it was on their basis that various state forms were created, that is, it was impossible to do without interaction, and the prerequisites for a certain unity were gradually created, representing a certain continuum - social and liberal at the same time. Conservatism and socialism had approximately the same points of contact in relation to social issues. Liberalism put freedom at the forefront, and therefore a modern system of institutions providing civil rights was created, from which ideas of social rights and civil society itself arose. Democracy is a product of liberalism, and now it is a prerequisite for building a social state.
Even the fundamental principles - the accessibility of social support, the nature of the emergence of many functions of the state aimed at the social arrangement of society, and others - grow not only from the postulates of socialism, but also have liberal roots. Liberalism was not only a prerequisite for the birth of the idea of a social state, it worked throughout its formation as a source of development. The principle of separation of powers, an independent court, modern parliamentarism, and other mechanisms that characterize democracy also owe their existence to liberalism.
The development of social support and non-state insurance in its various forms is maximally stimulated; citizens are interested in finding ways and means to increase their own income. Positive results were seen by the whole world. Large business charitable programs in the USA alone are calculated on average at 2.4% of GDP annually, and in general, social spending grows much more in corporations, rather than in the state budget.
For example, in Sweden, the state model is built differently, it is opposite in social type and is based on the principles of protecting absolutely the entire population, and personal achievements are not taken into account. The role of the state is the main one: it is it that socializes incomes and, with the help of national redistribution mechanisms, provides its citizens in full with basic social benefits and services. Here you can personally witness the compromise of the social and liberal in the state.