The main difference between right and left liberalism concerns private property and business, which must serve all its clients, regardless of their religious beliefs. The liberal left would like to see even businesses run by religious people not refusing service to homosexuals. Right-wing liberals believe that this choice should be made by the owners of companies themselves, and the state should not influence their decision in any way. When it comes to America, liberals on the right also tend to respect the Constitution more than those on the left. This includes the constitutionally enshrined right to freely bear arms.
Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and branch that advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to the economic side of the movement, it developed in the early 19th century, drawing on ideas from the previous century, as a response to urbanization and the industrial revolution in Europe and the United States. Notable figures whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus, and David Ricardo. It was based on classical economic ideas set forth by Adam Smith and a belief in natural law, utilitarianism and progress. The term "classical liberalism" was applied retrospectively to distinguish the early 19th century movement from the new social liberalism. Extreme nationalism is, as a rule, not characteristic of right-wing liberalism. Let's take a closer look at the policies of right-wing supporters.
Beliefs of classical (right) liberals
The core beliefs of classical liberals included new ideas that moved away from the older conservative idea of society as a family and from the more recent sociological concept of society as a complex set of social networks. Classical liberals believe that people are "selfish, calculating, essentially inert and atomistic" and that society is nothing more than the sum of its individual members.
Hobbes' influence
Classical liberals agreed that government was created by individuals to protect themselves from each other and that the purpose of government should be to minimize the conflicts between people that inevitably arise in the state of nature. These beliefs were complemented by the view that workers could best be motivated by financial incentives. This led to the Poor Law Amendments being passed in 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance based on the idea that markets were the mechanism that most effectively led to wealth. By adopting Thomas Robert Malthus' theory of populations, they saw that poor urban conditions were inevitable. They believed that population growth would outpace food production, and considered this quite acceptable, since famine would help limit population growth. They opposed any redistribution of income or wealth.
Smith's influence
Based on the ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it was in the common interest that all people could secure their own economic interests. They criticized the idea of a welfare state as an ineffective intervention in the free market. Despite Smith's strong recognition of the importance and value of labor and workers, they selectively criticized group labor freedoms exercised at the expense of individual rights while accepting corporate rights, which led to inequality in bargaining.
People's rights
Classical liberals argued that people should be free to get jobs from the highest paying employers, while the profit motive ensures that the products people want are produced at the prices they will pay. In a free market, both labor and capitalists will gain the greatest possible benefit if production is organized efficiently to meet consumer demand.
They argued that rights are negative and demanded that others (and governments) refrain from interfering with the free market, opposing social liberals who argue that people have positive rights such as the right to vote, the right to education, for medical care and a living wage. To guarantee them to society requires taxation above a minimum level.
Liberalism without democracy
The core beliefs of classical liberals do not necessarily include democracy or majority government, since there is nothing in the pure idea of majority rule that guarantees that the majority will always respect property rights or uphold the rule of law. For example, he argued for a constitutional republic with protection of individual freedom and against pure democracy, reasoning that in a pure democracy “the general passion or interest will in almost every case be felt by the majority... and there is nothing to restrain the impulse to sacrifice the weaker.” side."
In the late 19th century, classical liberalism evolved into neoclassical liberalism, which argued that government should be as small as possible to ensure maximum individual freedom. In its extreme form, neoclassical liberalism advocated social Darwinism. Right-wing libertarianism is a modern form of neoclassical liberalism.
Conservative liberalism
Conservative liberalism is an option that combines politics with a conservative bias. This is a more positive and less radical version of the classical movement. Conservative liberal parties tend to combine free market policies with more traditional positions on social and ethical issues. Neoconservatism has also been identified as an ideological cousin or twin to conservative liberalism.
In the European context, conservative liberalism should not be confused with liberal conservatism, which is a variant of the latter combining conservative views with liberal policies regarding economics, social and ethical issues.
The roots of the movement discussed in this section can be found at the beginning of history. Before the two world wars, the political class in most European countries was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy. An event such as the First World War, which ended in 1918, led to the emergence of a less radical version of the ideology. Conservative liberal parties tended to develop in those European countries where there was no strong secular conservative party and where the separation of church and state was less problematic. In those countries where parties shared the ideas of Christian democracy, this branch of liberalism developed very successfully.
Neoconservatives
In the United States, neoconservatives can be classified as conservative liberals. According to Peter Lawler: “In America today, responsible liberals, usually called neoconservatives, see liberalism as dependent on patriotic and religious people. They praise not only individualistic human tendencies. One of their slogans is “conservative sociology with liberal politics.” Neoconservatives recognize that the politics of free and rational people depends on a pre-political social world that is far from free and rational."
National liberalism
The goal of which was the pursuit of individual and economic freedom, as well as national sovereignty, relates primarily to the ideology and movements of the 19th century, but national liberal parties still exist today. Extreme nationalism, right-wing liberalism, social democracy - all of this is equally a product of the 19th century.
Józef Antall, a historian and Christian democrat who was Hungary's first post-communist prime minister, called national liberalism "an integral part of the emergence of the nation-state" in 19th-century Europe. At that time, there were constitutional democratic parties of the liberal right throughout Europe.
According to Oscar Muley, from the point of view of both ideologies and political party traditions, it can be argued that in the countries of Central Europe, a special type of liberalism characteristic of this region developed successfully in the nineteenth century. The word "nationalism" was perceived as a partial synonym for the word "liberalism". Also, according to Muley, in South-Eastern Europe "national liberals" played prominent, if not key, roles in politics, but with rather different, region-specific characteristics that largely distinguished them from their Central European ideological counterparts. Nowadays, national liberal parties exist throughout Eastern Europe. Right-wing liberalism is the parties "Petro Poroshenko Bloc" and "Popular Front" in Ukraine, various "Popular Fronts" in the Baltics, the former party of Saakashvili in Georgia.
Lind himself defines "national liberalism" as combining "moderate social conservatism with moderate economic liberalism."
Gordon Smith, a leading scholar of comparative European politics, understands the ideology as a political concept that fell out of favor when the success of nationalist movements in creating nation-states no longer required clarification of whether freedom, a party, or a politician had a “national” connotation.
Individualism and collectivism
Liberal leaders also tend to favor individualism rather than collectivism. Right-wing liberals recognize that people are different, and therefore their ability to make money is different. Their concept of equality of opportunity, as applied to economics, does not preclude an individual from pursuing his or her business interests in a free market. Individualism, capitalism, globalization - right-wing liberalism in the modern world can often be described by these three principles. Left-liberals, on the other hand, believe in class struggle and the redistribution of wealth, but also advocate globalization.
Right and left liberalism: attitude towards “labor discrimination”
The liberal left argues that there is a gender pay gap, with women earning less than men on average. They believe this should be eliminated by rewarding women more for the same work.
Right-wing liberals respond that this does not seem liberal to them. Payment is made in proportion to your performance. If there are any differences in pay, it may be because there are differences in performance.
This is the main and most comprehensive example of how right-wing liberalism differs from left-wing liberalism.
Most modern right-wing parties and movements, in addition to a natural hostility towards communists, are also united by an acute rejection of the world political mainstream. The world political mainstream usually means the so-called. “left liberalism” (or “libertarian left”) is a monstrous fusion of neoliberalism and social democracy, which has long outgrown all conceivable boundaries of political ideology.
It has become a new religion, philosophy and ideological basis for the next “bright future” - a “brave new world”, in which all the significant achievements of our civilization will be destroyed, for each of the 99,999 genders (pre-fictional and artificially constructed) their own warm place will be prepared in a rainbow-brown anthill, and there will be no wet spot left from religions and “secular morality”.
Any thoughtful reader will think that I am exaggerating, and he will be partially right, since American neoliberalism and European social democracy, which have become the basis of the world political mainstream, for all their similarities have many differences. And yet, we can highlight the main ideological postulates raised by their common brainchild (left liberalism) to the rank of self-evident axioms:
“Social justice”?
1. State regulation in the economy, dictated by concern for “ social justice “. “Social justice” is meant as something cosmopolitan and messianic, as a duty to care for everyone, regardless of their citizenship, nationality, personal qualities or even loyalty to the state in which the ward lives. The most capable members of society (white heterosexual men, representatives of the national majority, innovators and entrepreneurs) suffer from such “justice” - the very people on whose hard work and initiative this very society rests, and by whose efforts it was once created. Thus, the state, from a viable structure designed to compete in the international arena and take care of the well-being of its citizens, turns into a collective Mother Teresa, a mutual aid club for anonymous drug addicts or an international sperm bank - in a word, into anything, so as not to fulfill its natural functions assigned to it people many centuries ago.
Humanism
2. Humanism, taken to the point of absurdity. Human life here ceases to be a rationally meaningful value proclaimed by the thinkers of the Enlightenment: it becomes something like untouchable idols among African and South American tribes. Hence the calls of the European left to ban the killing of terrorists by police, regardless of the fact that the killing of one terrorist will save the lives of dozens and hundreds of innocent people. Humanistic culture at this stage of its development (or, more accurately, degradation) completely loses its rational grain, moving into the category of the irrational, replacing conscience and traditional moral and ethical guidelines. It is no longer possible to kill even for self-defense. Why? “You can’t do that.” Burke's famous quote about the connivance of evil loses all meaning: good people now not only have the right to sit with their hands folded - they are OBLIGED to do so, because if they actively resist evil, someone may accidentally get hurt.
Denial of nations, borders and states
3. Denial of nations, borders and states.
Or rather, states, of course, remain, but exclusively in the form of a totally regulated “nursing home”, the sovereignty of which is completely subordinated to left-liberal international organizations playing the role of a self-appointed world government. This postulate corresponds to the ancient myth of the Tower of Babel, after the destruction of which the mythical “single humanity” split into many separate tribes. Among French Freemasonry (the same one that stood at the origins of the first Revolution in history), the idea of restoring the world before the Babylonian catastrophe was popular, and through the Jacobins this grandiose and large-scale plan migrated to the Marxists. Now left-liberal atheists dream of a new “united humanity,” whose thinking, to their indignant surprise, is largely generated by ancient myths and idealistic ideas of the ancients, another variation of the legend of the “Golden Age,” when “everything was good, people lived forever and there was no wars." We find similar ideas among the first utopians - Tomaso Campanella and Thomas More - which they gleaned from Christian heretics who dreamed, bypassing official church doctrine, of “building Paradise on earth” (sounds familiar, right?). That is, despite all the materialistic pathos of the progressive left-liberals, their thinking is deeply mythologized, and their ideology (like any ideology in general) bears a very significant religious imprint.Progressivism
4. Progressivism. What united leftists and liberals for a long time was that they were guided by the same historical concept, called “Whig history.” According to the “Whig history” (in honor of the nickname of English liberals), the historical process is a linear and uncontested movement towards greater rights and freedoms (up to infinity), a greater departure from monarchical, elitist and traditional forms of social organization. In other words, the world political agenda is moving to the left, and in this the supporters of this concept are right. Indeed, take a look at the history of the last two centuries: no matter what significant historical event we consider, representatives of the left forces, the forces of chaos and entropy, have always won, corrupting stable, centuries-old systems, gradually turning them into societies of “dictation of the majority” (or “dictatorship of the proletariat”, if you like). At first, everything was quite tolerable, if not good: yes, we got rid of old, time-tested management technologies and cultural guidelines, but the world followed the path of liberal industrial capitalism (or progressive socialism) and scientific and technological progress, and the level of well-being and freedom became the highest in human history. But instead of stopping there, the “forces of entropy” went further, bringing the world to the current state, when the very creators and supporters of the “Whig history” - these Pygmalions in white gloves - risk being trampled by their own creation. After all, socio-political progress with all its “charms” like human rights, equal opportunities, secular morality and humanism is exclusively our, Western, white role-playing game, and more pragmatic civilizations, borrowing our managerial and scientific and technical achievements, cannot play it they want, remaining in the positions of the old, traditional and, again, time-tested national egoism. Progressivism here played the role of a psychostimulant: having freed the enormous intellectual and power potential of Western man, previously limited by the theological dogmas of Christianity, over a couple of centuries it turned him into a decrepit and tired “global drug addict”, pathologically dependent on new “doses” of rights and freedoms. The “dose,” as we know, each time should be greater than the previous one, hence left liberalism with its eternal companions - third wave feminism, 9999 genders, pacifism, the general cult of weakness and helplessness. It will only get worse.
Scientism
5. Scientism. Since left liberalism is fundamentally and fanatically atheistic, it needs a certain ontological component designed to explain global world phenomena. Scientism became such a component, i.e. belief in the absolute lack of alternative and infallibility of scientific knowledge. Faith is the key word; you can’t do without it in this matter. Having taken the place of religion with its mystical picture of the world, atheistic scientism, with the easy encouragement of left-liberals, itself began to absorb mystical, irrational features. “Critical thinking” is now just a beautiful phrase thrown around by young, unintelligent atheists. But you need to believe in science! Even when she talks about global warming caused by man (which is, in principle, unscientific and unprovable) - that means you need to believe. Scientific consensus is no joke, especially when the authors of the consensus were not gray and faceless laboratory workers silently carrying out orders, but the Apostles of Science - various kinds of liberal publicists and officials from the UN. These smart and serious people became the link between our created, sinful and not entirely scientific world and the new Divinity, depicted as an atom with electrons. I propose not to mention what the adherents of this new religion propose to do with churches, because I risk falling into banality.
Why is left liberalism so bad? Yes, because he kills.
Kills nations and states, making them weak and conformist. It kills enterprising, active and business people, forcing them to reckon with the absurd ideology of “progressive” bureaucrats and international organizations. He kills life itself because he insists on its inherent meaninglessness. Wherever left-liberals, socialists, “greens” and communists came to power, there was a decline in culture and a weakening of all state, political and economic institutions. Left liberalism, which has absorbed the worst features of Marxism and liberalism, has become a real virus, ready to destroy post-Christian civilization in the name of protecting the “weak and oppressed” - the latter, as a rule, means murderers, savages and terrorists. It, like the spores of a poisonous fungus, reaches even those countries and states where liberal tendencies are weak. What is clear is that this disease affects only Western societies, including Russian and Ukrainian.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about the “ideological centers” of this scourge. At the international level, these are the Soros Foundation, the US Democratic Party, the European Union and the UN. On the local, post-Soviet side - publications like Meduza, scientific and pop publicists, creative intelligentsia and, paradoxically for many, the current Ukrainian authorities. And it is our generation and the generation of our children who will have to decide what to do with this political garbage - send it to the dustbin of history, or allow it to fulfill its historical mission of deconstructing our civilization.
Editor – Alik Danielyan
Right liberalism
Right liberalism- this is a subtype of liberalism, which in carrying out liberal reforms relies, first of all, on the powerful apparatus of the state, on its organs. Distinctive features are guarding and forward movement. Often representatives of right-wing liberals enter into coalitions with conservatives; right-wing liberalism gave birth to national liberalism.
: K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin, S. M. Solovyov (historian) N. Kh. Bunge, D. N. Shipov Representatives in the Russian Empire: Zhirinovsky V.V.
In Russia, right-wing liberals (LDPR) are opposed to left-wing liberals ("Right Cause").
Right-wing liberalism should not be confused with libertarianism.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what “Right liberalism” is in other dictionaries:
This term has other meanings, see Liberal Democratic Party. Liberal Democratic Party of Russia Leader: Vladimir Zhirinovsky Date of foundation: December 14, 199 ... Wikipedia
The request for "Shirak" is redirected here; see also other meanings. Jacques Chirac Jacques Chirac ... Wikipedia
Chirac, Jacques The request for "Chirak" is redirected here; see also other meanings. Jacques Chirac Jacques Chirac ... Wikipedia
The request for "Shirak" is redirected here. See also other meanings. Jacques Chirac Jacques Chirac ... Wikipedia
The request for "Shirak" is redirected here. See also other meanings. Jacques Chirac Jacques Chirac ... Wikipedia
They have always played and continue to play an important role in the life of the country. Since the mid-1970s, Greece has been characterized by a two-party system, when politics is dominated by two large parties that win parliamentary elections and form the government.... ... Wikipedia
As of September 23, 2012, 41 political parties were registered in Lithuania by the Ministry of Justice. To register a party, according to the legislation of the Republic of Lithuania, it is required to recruit at least one thousand founders who, having gathered... ... Wikipedia
In the United States, there is a two-party political system, in which the two main political parties have predominant importance in the political life of the country, and it is extremely difficult for other parties and independent candidates to win seats in Congress.... ... Wikipedia
- - born on May 26, 1799 in Moscow, on Nemetskaya Street in Skvortsov’s house; died January 29, 1837 in St. Petersburg. On his father’s side, Pushkin belonged to an old noble family, descended, according to genealogies, from a descendant “from ... ... Large biographical encyclopedia
| Socialism | |
| Ideas | |
| Egalitarianism | |
| Socialization | |
| Public property | |
| Planned Economy | |
| Mixed economy | |
| Influences | |
| Anarchism | |
| Democracy | |
| Labor movement | |
| Options | |
| Utopian | |
| Marxism | |
| Social anarchism | |
| Communism | |
| Democratic | |
| Libertarian | |
| Revolutionary | |
| Scientific | |
| Social democracy | |
| Syndicalism | |
| Populism | |
| Socialism of the 21st century | |
| Municipal | |
| State | |
| Agrarian | |
| Ecological | |
| Religious | |
| Reformism | |
| Socialist feminism | |
| Vedic | |
| Christian | |
| Islamic | |
| Buddhist | |
| African | |
| Arab | |
| Melanesian | |
Social liberalism (social liberalism)- a type of liberalism that advocates (unlike neoliberalism) government intervention in economic processes. On the political spectrum it is usually to the right of social democracy.
Ideology [ | ]
In contrast to classical liberalism, which viewed the market as a self-regulating category and had a negative attitude towards the possibility of regulating economic and social relations, social liberals believe that in order to put into practice the main principle of liberalism - ensuring the individual’s right to self-determination and self-realization - it is not always enough only his own efforts . Equalizing starting opportunities is impossible without the participation of the state, and it is the state that must ensure the redistribution of part of the social product in favor of socially weak members of society, providing them with support and thereby contributing to the harmonization of social relations and strengthening social and political stability. However, unlike the various varieties of socialist ideology, social liberals are committed to a (moderate) capitalist type of economy, or a socially oriented market economy.
According to social liberals, the state is obliged to intervene in economic processes in order to combat monopolism and maintain a competitive market environment. Society must have legal grounds, if income does not correspond to a person’s contribution to the common good, to withdraw part of this income through taxes and redistribute it to social needs. Improving the living conditions of the poorest sections of society will contribute to the growth of the domestic market and economic growth.
The application of these approaches, according to social liberals, should mitigate conflicts in society and gradually transform “capitalism of the era of free competition” into social capitalism, a society with a “social economy” based on private property and regulated market relations.
Story [ | ]
Social liberalism emerged in the late 19th century in many developed countries under the influence of utilitarianism. Some liberals adopted, in part or in whole, Marxism and the socialist theory of exploitation and came to the conclusion that the state should use its power to restore social justice. Thinkers such as John Dewey and Mortimer Adler explained that all individuals, as the foundation of society, must have access to basic needs such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful large-scale events beyond their control to realize their abilities. Such positive rights, which are granted by society, are qualitatively different from classical negative rights, the enforcement of which requires non-interference from others. Proponents of social liberalism argue that without a guarantee of positive rights, the fair implementation of negative rights is impossible, since in practice the low-income population sacrifices their rights for the sake of survival, and the courts are more often inclined in favor of the rich. Social liberalism supports the introduction of some restrictions on economic competition. He also expects the government to provide social protection to the population (through taxes) to create conditions for the development of all talented people, to prevent social unrest and simply for the "common good."
There is a fundamental contradiction between economic and social liberalism. Economic liberals believe that positive rights inevitably violate negative ones and are therefore unacceptable. They see the function of the state as limited mainly to issues of law, security and defense. From their point of view, these functions already require a strong centralized state power. On the contrary, social liberals believe that the main task of the state is social protection and ensuring social stability: providing food and housing to those in need, healthcare, school education, pensions, care for children, the disabled and the elderly, assistance to victims of natural disasters, protection of minorities, prevention crime, support for science and art. This approach makes it impossible to impose large-scale restrictions on the government. Despite the unity of the ultimate goal - personal freedom - economic and social liberalism radically diverge in the means to achieve it. Right-wing and conservative movements often tend to favor economic liberalism while opposing cultural liberalism. Leftist movements tend to emphasize cultural and social liberalism.
Some researchers point out that the opposition between “positive” and “negative” rights is in fact imaginary, since ensuring “negative” rights actually also requires public costs (for example, maintaining courts to protect property).
Economic liberalism versus social liberalism[ | ]
The Industrial Revolution significantly increased the wealth of developed countries, but aggravated social problems. Advances in medicine have led to an increase in the life expectancy of the population, resulting in a surplus of labor and falling wages. After workers in many countries received the right to vote in the 19th century, they began to use it to their advantage. The sharp increase in population literacy led to a surge in social activity. Social liberals demanded legislative measures against the exploitation of children, safe working conditions, and a minimum wage.
Classical liberals view such laws as an unfair tax on life, liberty, and property that inhibits economic development. They believe that society can solve social problems on its own, without government regulation. John Stuart Mill developed the ideas of this liberal ethics in his work “On Liberty” (g.). He adhered to utilitarianism, emphasizing a pragmatic approach, the practical pursuit of common good and improving quality of life. Although Mill remained within the framework of classical liberalism, individual rights receded into the background in his philosophy.
By the end of the 19th century, most liberals had come to the conclusion that freedom required the creation of conditions for the realization of one's abilities, including education and protection from excessive exploitation. These conclusions were outlined in Liberalism, in which he formulated the collective right to equality in transactions (“fair consent”) and recognized the validity of reasonable government intervention in the economy. In parallel, part of the classical liberals, in particular, Gustav de Molinari (People's Freedom Party, Cadets), whose program for 1913 looked like this: [ | ]
The phenomenon of liberalism occupies a special place in the spiritual and political life of society. Liberalism has a fairly long history of its existence, and its existence is not “passive”, but “active” in the form of powerful social movements, the activities of numerous parties, etc.
Liberalism has no equal in its breadth of distribution in the modern world: there is hardly an industrialized state today where one or another version of the liberal worldview is not represented, at least to some extent.
The word “liberalism” comes from the Latin liberalis – “free”, “relating to freedom”.
“The essence of liberalism,” says English political scientist D. Heather, “is freedom. And since freedom can be ensured only through the priority of man, the main thing for a liberal is not society or some part of it, but the individual and his will.” Indian political scientist Johari defines liberalism as “the voice for freedom,” as “the desire to realize the idea of freedom in public life and to follow the principles of freedom.”
However, the concept of freedom is very vague; in different historical periods, representatives of various ideological trends and social movements sometimes put opposite meanings into it. This is the main reason for the substantive ambiguity of the term “liberalism”.
In the modern world, liberalism exists as a historical and philosophical doctrine, as an ideology that substantiates the programmatic guidelines of certain social strata, and as an organized social political movement.
Origins and supports of liberal doctrine.
As a political term, the word "liberalism" first began to be used in England at the beginning of the 19th century. English Tories (supporters of strong royal power and Catholicism) began to call their political opponents “liberals” - the Whigs, who defended the interests of the so-called new people: merchants, moneylenders and industrialists.
“Under the guise of universal interests in liberalism, the interests of a very specific social group are hidden,” writes A. Vash. “Under the cover of reason and freedom as such, nationality and the specific freedoms of those who proclaim them and are interested in them flourish.”
Based on these views, a society was formed, which later received the name “Western civilization” and the “social group” that Vash writes about began to be called the “bourgeoisie”.
England is considered the birthplace of liberalism. Settlers from Central Europe went there in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was these people who carried out the so-called primitive accumulation of capital (robbing the peasantry and turning it into free labor) and laid the foundation for the development of the famous English industry - the first in the world based on wage labor.
The basis of the ideas of liberalism is Protestantism (that is, one of the forms of religion). It was there that all the thoughts that later formed the basis of the liberal worldview were born. We are talking primarily about the ideas of the head of the German Calvinists, the legal theorist Johannes Althusius, whose main work “Politics...” (1603) was one of the earliest expositions of the theory of “natural law” and “popular sovereignty”, justifying the right of the people to overthrow and even execute monarchs . The work of Althusius, entirely built on the principles of Calvinist ideology, essentially became the first theoretical justification for bourgeois revolutions and the republican system.
On the other hand, W. Sombart sought the main reason for the liberal worldview in the socio-psychological sphere. He considered such a factor to be the specific psychology of a migrant torn from his roots. “A foreigner,” Sombart wrote, “is not limited by any limits in the development of his entrepreneurial business! Everything must be created again, as if out of nothing. There is no connection with the place, in a foreign land, every place is equally indifferent... From all this a trait must necessarily follow that is inherent in all the activities of a foreigner... This is the determination to complete the development of economic and technical rationalism.
The basis of the liberal doctrine is the atheistic tradition coming from the European Renaissance, which rejected God and proclaimed man the “king of nature” and the “crown of creation.” But at the same time this place did not remain empty. God was replaced by the Law - elevated above everything, elevated to a cult and “deified.” As a result, the law is not able to rise to the ideal needs of man, to his ideal nature; it exists within the boundaries of the real state of society and is repelled from it.