Conservatism (from Latin conservate - preserve, protect) is one of the political and ideological currents of political thought, reflecting the commitment of its supporters to preserve the traditions and foundations of the state and society.
Conservatism is focused on preserving and maintaining historically established forms of state and public life, its value principles embodied in religion, family, property, etc.
Conservatism as a political and ideological phenomenon initially took shape in the West, or more precisely, in the Anglo-Saxon cultural and historical space.
Basic principles:
- society is a system of norms, customs, traditions, social institutions that must be preserved and developed;
- existing social institutions preferable to any new programs aimed at transforming them;
- distrust of social innovations and complete denial of any revolutionary changes;
- strengthening the universal moral order sanctioned and supported by religion;
- pessimism in assessing human nature, disbelief in the power of reason and the abilities of the individual.
Main political goals:
- protection of the traditional foundations of social life, the inviolability of established values;
- disdain for parliamentarism and elected institutions of government;
- a decisive rejection of state intervention in the economy, social sphere and private life;
- the idea of national greatness, support for a strong state, where power should belong to the aristocratic elite;
- the main right of an individual is the right to have property and freely dispose of it.
Researchers usually distinguish not stages of development (as in liberalism), but three varieties of conservative ideology
gies: traditionalism (conservatism at the level of mass feelings and sentiments), libertarianism (conservatism based on adherence to the ideas of unlimited freedom of the individual) and neoconservatism. This new conservatism is characterized by the fact that it adopted from liberalism “the idea of social development of human social and political activity, democratization of politics and social relations, largely moved away from elitist and aristocratic views on power, order and traditions, and became closer to modern social organizations.” .
The revival of the political weight of conservatism occurred in the 80-90s of the 20th century. It was then that such conservative figures as R. Reagan and D. Bush in the USA, M. Thatcher and D. Meijer in Great Britain, and G. Kohl in Germany came to senior government positions.
Conservatism is a national and, more broadly, civilizational phenomenon. The main system-forming principle of conservative ideology is the principle of reliance on tradition; Since each stable society (people, nation, civilization) has its own unique tradition, it should be argued that conservatism as an ideology exists only in a specific unique form based on its own tradition within a specific civilizational space.
Each distinct version of conservative ideology is defined by its own unique set of principles and values. The principles and values of conservative ideologies belonging to different national and civilizational communities may partially coincide or not coincide at all, but they should not be brought under a common denominator.
Conservatism is a necessary ideological and political framework that ensures the strength and stability of each independent cultural and historical community of a nation and civilization. This is the main instrumental function of conservatism. The problem of rationalizing one’s own Radiation, i.e. the formalization of conservative ideology is fundamentally connected with the problem of the viability of one’s own people and one’s own civilization.
Concerning modern Russia, then in the last decade interest in conservatism has intensified, since the 90s of the previous century passed in Russia under the banner of radical liberal reforms, which did not lead to an improvement in the lives of the majority of the Russian population. The civilizational breakdown of the 90s that occurred in Russia caused a sharp and powerful reaction in Russian society, which resulted in the formation of modern conservative ideology.
Russian conservative ideology took shape, as is known, back in the pre-Soviet period as an autochthonous ideology Russian civilization with its own unique, inimitable ideological appearance. The emergence of Russian conservative ideology as a rationalized form of its own tradition occurred in the first half of the 19th century; Historically, the first form of Russian conservative ideology was Slavophilism.
Russian conservatism of the pre-Soviet formation, which initially arose as an ideological and political reaction to Westernizing forms of modernization in Russia, in the process of its historical development developed into an established and mature ideological system that had its own terminology, its own categorical apparatus, its own autochthonous set of principles and values.
In the history of the development of Russian conservative ideology, two periods should be distinguished, which correspond to two fairly independent historical forms: the first is the conservative ideology of the pre-Soviet formation; the second is modern post-Soviet conservative ideology. These two forms of Russian conservative ideology have largely different ideological and political content, due to fundamentally different historical eras.
At the same time, the tradition of Russian conservative ideology is continuous. During the 70-year Soviet period, this continuity was significantly disrupted and distorted, but not broken or destroyed, some experts believe. The main principles and values of Russian conservatism, words
lived and established in the pre-Soviet period, they are also constant principles and values of modern Russian conservative ideology. This constancy is due to the continuity of the Russian historical process, taking place within the framework of a constant civilization, which is based on an uninterrupted autochthonous tradition.
The ideological origins of modern Russian conservative ideology originate in pre-October conservative ideology; pre-revolutionary Russian conservatism is the ideological and theoretical basis of modern Russian conservatism. There is a continuity of the main principles and values, the main ideological, political and ideological guidelines of Russian conservatism of the pre-Soviet formation with the guidelines of modern Russian conservative ideology.
Modern Russian conservatism originated primarily as cultural conservatism, and with the beginning of liberal reforms, political and economic conservatism was formed on its basis. In contrast to emigrant conservatism, which had exhausted itself by the 1980s, he had significant experience in participant observation of the complex and contradictory evolution of the USSR and Russia, and the ability to comprehend new trends maturing in the depths of Russian society.
After the collapse of the USSR, conservative ideas reflected the concerns of a certain part of citizens regarding the loss of the Soviet “old order”, their interest in stability and compliance with laws, and rejection of various forms of anarchy and extremism.
In the course of radical liberal socio-economic transformations in the 90s of the 20th century, their largely catastrophic consequences for ordinary Russians, conservative political ideology intensified.
Post-Soviet conservative political ideology is a complex, multi-component phenomenon and has a heterogeneous character. It represents an ideological family consisting of many directions. One of the main ideologists of Russian conservatism in the 90s was V. Ryzhkov, the leader of the NDR faction in the State Duma. Conceptually, the philosophy of modern Russian conservatism was formulated in his speech at a meeting of the NDR Program Commission (April 1999).
Russian conservatives base their ideology on three values: freedom, development and traditions. The values of Russian conservatives, as interpreted by V. Ryzhkov, looked like this: “Public: freedom of the press, speech, assembly, rallies, religion. Eternal... We place private property at the forefront of the entire economy, at the same time the state must collect taxes with an iron hand and fight the shadow economy. Of course, the state does not set prices and does not decide how and what to produce. Low taxes and favorable conditions for opening and running your own business. By “their own business”, conservatives mean not only entrepreneurship, but also the work of a doctor, teacher, journalist - any qualified and honest specialist. It is necessary to return high business ethics to society.”
As for tradition, as presented by Russian conservatives it is: “patriotism, state, religion, family, language, culture... And, of course, history.”
This view of conservative values was once again confirmed at the VI Congress of the NDR movement (April 1999), which approved a new program for the movement. At the “round table” (July 1999), it was noted, in particular, that “the iconic, rhetorical figures for conservatives are “stability” and “order”, which will help protect the “little man.” The ideologists of conservatism have always appealed to his needs, demands and concerns.
The values of the NDR, to which V. Ryzhkov included, in addition to those mentioned above, also “the values of a strong, uncorrupted state, a free liberal market economy and political freedoms within the framework of a normal civil society,” will attract, as NDR members hope, voters to this movement and will serve to pass them candidates to the State Duma.
These are the postulates of the new Russian conservatism as presented by the leaders of the NDR. Postulates that, according to the statement
V. Ryzhkov, are called upon to overcome the “fatal contradiction between democrats and communists for the 20th century.” Ryzhkov saw this overcoming as follows. Conservatives agree with Democrats “in recognizing the value of freedom as the greatest value of humanity.” However, conservatives “modernize this value, saying that freedom is not that liberal fetish, worshiping which you can be a destroyer of morality, you can deny everything: we do not accept such freedom... We are for freedom based on moral law. We by no means deny formal freedom, but we believe that formal freedom must stand on a very serious moral foundation.”
Conservatives have only one point of agreement with the communists - the state must be strong. The fatal contradiction between democrats and communists is removed not only by the two points stated above, but also through an understanding of tradition: conservatives do not tear “national history into pieces, like liberals, for whom it exists only until 1917, or communists, who begin reckoning with October revolution" Considering Russian history as a single, integral, with all its great achievements, great trials and mistakes, conservatives consider continuity to be one of its main principles.
The circle of Russian conservatives, of course, was not limited to V. Ryzhkov. Many other political and public figures considered themselves conservatives. One of them is the famous political scientist, president of the Politika Foundation, V. Nikonov and many others.
In post-Soviet Russia there were also conservative forces that called themselves, to one degree or another, the heirs of the conservatives of imperial Russia. These are: “Conservative Movement of Russia”, “Conservative Party of Russia”, “All-Russian Zemstvo Union “Zemstvo””, “Russian Zemstvo Movement” and some others. Their program goals included the restoration of the conservative principles of Russian life of the pre-October period, in particular, the monarchical system, the role of the legal
glorious church, etc. The idea of the ideology of modern Russian conservatism, which is professed by our young conservatives, is quite consistent with that defended by the “Conservative Movement” - an election bloc formed around the Conservative Party of Russia (CPR) led by L. Ubozhko. At the beginning of April 1999, about three dozen conservative parties and movements united around this party, declaring that they defend the following values: “person, family, health, education, science, culture, human rights, private property, all support for domestic producers , middle class, national cultural traditions, law and order."
Experts who analyze conservative values in Russia distinguish between national-patriotic conservatism, civilizational conservatism, social-patriotic conservatism, and nomenklatura conservatism.
In the conditions of the real political process of modern Russia, representatives of these political and ideological trends can and often do enter into ideological and political confrontation. At the same time, the boundaries between the various directions of modern Russian conservatism are very fluid; there is a wide borrowing of ideas and views by these directions from each other, and constant interaction of their ideological attitudes.
National patriotism became historically the first form of modern Russian conservative ideology; Its main ideologies were formed back in the Soviet period, in the 60s and 70s, in the environment of “right-wing dissidence.” The main unifying principle of the national-patriotic direction of modern Russian conservative ideology is Russian nationalism. As an organized political force - from the point of view of formal institutionalization, as well as political participation - the national-patriotic direction of modern Russian conservative ideology is poorly represented; National-patriotic political organizations are small in number and their real political weight is small. However, national-patriotic
ideology had "and is having a very strong influence on the formation of public opinion and political consciousness of modern Russia, largely due to the social and moral significance of the persons who represent this ideology: A.I. Solzhenitsyn, L.I. Borodin, V.G. Rasputin, I.R. Shafarevich et al.
Civilizational conservatism as a direction of modern Russian conservative political ideology fulfills the most ambitious, strategic ideological task: the main object of its protection is Russian (Eurasian) civilization as an integral social system, as a cultural and historical community. The level of theoretical reflection of civilizational conservatism is initially, fundamentally the highest - this is the macro level. This leads to its main instrumental functions: methodologically correct identification of one’s own civilization; determining the strategy, forms and methods of protecting civilization; identification of challenges and responses to them by one’s own civilization at the level of intercivilizational relations.
The social-patriotic direction of modern Russian conservatism is represented, according to some researchers, by the “ideology state patriotism"Communist Party Russian Federation(CPRF). The ideology of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is not, from the point of view of orthodox Marxism-Leninism, communist. An analysis of the ideology of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation allows us to draw, some analysts say, a very definite conclusion: this ideology is conservative.
The ideology of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a modernized synthesis of Slavophilism, populism and some elements of Marxism-Leninism. The priority object of protection for social patriotism is the principles, values and social institutions of Russian civilization that are of a communitarian nature.
The ideology of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation “masters,” first of all, precisely the “conciliar” segment in the system of ideas of Russian conservatism and, at the same time, organically includes other basic ideas of Russian conservative ideology.
The ideology of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a version of non-Marxist, national, supra-class, supra-class, multi-structure, “soil-based”, “conciliar” - conservative socialism.
The ideology of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a direct heir to the ideology of Soviet National Bolshevism and National Communism, but in a significantly updated, completely modernized version. Social patriotism is the most large-scale and significant political and ideological force in modern Russia.
Nomenklatura conservatism is a complex of ideological and political attitudes of a fairly large segment of the ruling elite of modern Russia. By the nature of its ideologies, nomenklatura conservatism is oriented towards liberal conservatism, but it is far from their real correspondence. The priority object of protection of this direction of Russian conservative ideology is social stability itself, the preservation of which, in terms of this political-ideological direction, is possible only if socio-economic reforms are carried out within the framework of one’s own civilizational identity, without revolutionary upheavals.
Social stability is considered by the ruling class as the main condition for maintaining its high social status. The nature of the nomenklatura as the ruling class of Russia is conservative in nature, due to the autochthonous social environment that generates power; in the event of a departure of the nomenklatura from the autochthonous cultural and civilizational identity, its evolution towards conservatism is inevitable; such evolution is objectively determined and irreducible.
The ideology of nomenklatura conservatism was formed largely by borrowing the ideas of the conservative opposition of post-Soviet Russia. Nomenklatura conservatism is a weak version of liberal conservatism, largely a mimicry of liberal conservatism. In the future, it is possible that nomenklatura conservatism will develop into liberal conservatism.
Conservative ideology, in the process of its formation and development, has already become one of the main, system-forming
essential elements in the political system of modern Russian society. The main function of the ideology of Russian conservatism is to ideologically ensure the spiritual, political and economic independence of Russia as a self-sufficient cultural and historical community. The political realities of the modern world order provide convincing grounds for asserting the preservation of a set of competing civilizations on the planet in the long-term historical perspective. In this regard, the implementation of conservative ideology in political doctrines, laws, propaganda systems, etc. is objectively inevitable.
Thanks to the large-scale influence of conservative ideology on the Russian political process during the 90s, there was a significant transformation of the ideology of the Russian ruling political elite, as well as the all-Russian political and ideological paradigm as a whole, from cosmopolitan-liberal to national-statist, conservative.
The social-patriotic direction of modern Russian conservatism had the strongest influence on the process of such transformation. The logic of the Russian political process inevitably leads in the end to the fact that conservative ideology begins to determine its character and content, due to its rootedness in its own civilizational space, the adequacy of its own civilization. Carrying out reforms aimed at building a democratic, socially oriented society in Russia is possible only by relying on one’s own tradition. Effective reforms in Russia can only be of a conservative nature.
Of course, we must admit that in just over a ten-year history of its existence, modern Russian conservative ideology has consolidated, acquired its own identity, its contours are clearly visible, its main directions have been determined, it has generally taken shape into a stable ideological system, Conservative ideology has turned into a large-scale, serious political force, exert-
which has a significant impact on the modern Russian political process.
However, its final “legitimation” and consolidation in the mass political consciousness as an objectively formed, significant and influential political force has not yet occurred. Conservative ideologemes are torn, scattered throughout the Russian political-ideological space, fragments and entire blocks of conservative ideology are used in current, opportunistic political interests by parties and movements, often pursuing goals directly opposed to conservative ideals.
Despite the conquest of a significant part of the Russian political space by conservative ideology, its real and very significant impact on the political process has not yet occurred.
CONSERVATISM (from Lat. conservo - oh, preserve) - in a broader sense - a designation of mental structure and life according to the zi-tion, ha-rak-ter-ny-mi especially-ben-but-sty-mi of which are the faithfulness of tradition - with -tsi-al-noy, moral-st-ven-noy, re-li-gi-oz-noy, associated with this dis-belief in any ra-di-cal but-in-the-introduction-de-ni-yam and preference for honey-flax, step-by-step-from-me-not-nium (“or-ga-ni-che evolution").
According to the op-re-de-le-niy of one of the most prominent ideo-logs of the British con-ser-va-tiz-ma M. Oak-shot, “to be con-ser- va-rum oz-na-cha-et pre-reading from-known - not-known-but-mu, is-py-tan-noe - not-from-ve-dan -but-mu, fact - for-a-middle-ke, essentially-possible-but-mu, og-ra-ni-chen-noe - infinite-no-mu, close - yes -le-co-mu, adequate-accurate - from-precisely, convenient - ideal-al-no-mu...” (Oakeshott M. Rationality in politics, and other essays. L., 1962. P. 169). In this sense, conservatism is not associated with any op-re-de-line theory, it exists mainly la-tent-but and semi- This or that ideological design is expected as a response to challenges addressed to a specific society and the under-digging layers of life.
In a more narrow sense, conservatism is one of the socio-political trends of the 19th-20th centuries, an ideology of something, one na-ko, with labor, under-yes-the-sys-te-ma-ti-za-tions in si-lu many-o-ra-zia of those religious, cultural-tour-but- historical, national traditions, which are usually referenced. In contrast to lib-ra-liz-ma and social-cial-liz-ma, conservatism, which does not have the ideal of a perfect social system, is op- re-de-la-et-xia S. Han-ting-to-nom as “in-sti-tu-tsio-nal-naya ideo-logia”, i.e. you step into for-personal social institutions when they find themselves under threat.
The emergence of conservatism as a political theory in late XVIII- the beginning of the 19th century in connection with the reaction to the events of the French revolution of the 18th century. He received his first-initial statement before everything else in the program “Raz-mysh-le-ni-yah about re- revolutions in France" (1790) by E. Burke, as well as in the co-chi-ne-ni-yahs of J. de Me-st-ra, L. Bonal-da , ran-nego F.R. de La-men-ne, S. Col-ridge, German publications and political thoughts of F. Gen-ts, A. Mul-le-ra and etc.
Ter-min downgraded the b-go-da-rya to the title from F.R. de Cha-tob-ria-nom in the years 1818-1820 of the magazine “Le Conser-va-teur”. What this early political conservatism had in common was a negative attitude towards attempts to re-create society. st-vo according to some “rational-no-mu” pro-ek-tu: with-ty-za-ni-yam pro-light-tel-skogo “av-to-nom” -no-go" ra-zu-ma with his ab-st-rakt-ny concepts of the idea-al-no-go social structure-st-va was pro-ti- in-post-tav-len av-to-ri-tet tra-di-tion - collective beliefs, morals and customs, in which ryh embodied a lot of experience given to the na-ro-da, presented in the same way is-to-ri-che-ski layer-living-shi-mi-xia in-sti-tu-tsiya-mi, like the Church and go-su-dar-st-vo (re-li-gia as “os-no-va gra-zh- dan-sko-go-society-st-va” from Bur-ka, union “tro-na and al-ta-rya” from J. de Me-st-ra, etc.).
Bur-kom's tradition as a pre-eminent connection not only with the past, but also with the future -ko-le-niya-mi. The trans-prices of trans-prices have their own origins -dent-moral order, established by God and pre-resurrecting human-ra-zu- me-nie. Evil from the beginning is not rooted in one or another public institution, as Zh.Zh. Russo, but in my very human pri-ro-de, which does not bear the stamp of the first sin. Re-vo-lutionary tre-bo-va-ni-yam ra-ven-st-va and li-beral-nym dock-three-us, is-ho-div-shim from so-ci-al-no -go ato-miz-ma, was pro-ti-vo-pos-tav-le-on the concept of the society-st-va as an ie-rar-hi-che-ski device-ro- en-no-go or-ga-no-thing-whole-go, in which there are different. in-di-vides and groups in si-lu tra-di-tions you-have different za-da-chi for the benefit of this one whole th. The theory of society has been revived as a rational fiction.
Conservatism in the Anglo-Saxon world was more li-be-ra-len than in the countries of continental Europe, where the central role in co-preservation of social stability from the state-su-dar-st-vu and the Church. E. Burke, defender of personal freedom and British par-la-men-ta-ris-ma, added important significance to the for-mi-ro -va-nii in-di-vi-da “ma-lym kla-nam” - se-mye, gil-di-yam, as-so-tsia-tsi-yam. K. Met-ter-nih, the most visible con-serv-va-tiv-nyy of the era-hi Res-tav-ra-tion, believed that it was not-possible transfer the principles of the British con-sti-tu-tion to the European con-ti-nent. Kle-ri-kal-no-mo-nar-hichesky ideas of French tra-di-tsio-na-listov and a number of German novel-man-ti-kovs in many op-re-de-li- or the ideology of the Holy Union. A number of philosophical and legal concepts, developed first in Germany, are associated with early conservatism: is-to-ri-cheskaya school of government (F.K. von Sa-vi-nyi), etc.
The first political party, which began to be called “con-serv-va-tiv-noy” since the 1830s, were British to-ri (see Kon-ser-va-tiv-naya party), the leader of which R. Pil saw for the party in the pro-ve-de-nii reforms while maintaining social order.
In the course of the 19th century, along with the fast-growing in-du-st-ria-li-for-qi-ey, ur-ba-ni-for-qi-ey, for-ver -she-ni-em for-mi-ro-va-niya of national states pro-is-ho-di-la step-by-step trans-form-ma-tion con-serv-va- tive ideology and po-li-ti-ki: con-ser-va-tiv-nye parties have you started to press in-te-re-sy not only vi-le-gi-ro-van-nyh so-words “old-ro-go in a row”, but also pro-mysh-len-ni-kov, ag-ra-ri-ev, urban petty and middle bourgeoisie. In France, along with the conservatism of the le-gi-ti-mi-sts from the “be-less-pa-la-you”, by the 1830s the for-mi-ru-et- Xia “li-beral con-serv-va-tism” (the term was introduced into circulation by F. Guizo), on which the ori-en-ti-ro-va-lis side-ron-ni-ki Louis Fi-lip-pa. In Germany, where conservatism was most closely associated with the idea of preserving “the old in a row,” sche-st-vo-val is also “re-form-ma-tor-sky kon-serv-va-tism” (Reformkonservatusmus) by K. vom Stein. In Great Britain, there are liberal political reforms that have prevailed in most of the countryside -niya from-bi-ra-tel-nye rights-va, pro-vo-di-lis ka-bi-not-ta-mi to-ri - Pi-lya and B. Dis-ra-eli. O. von Bismarck and Dis-ra-eli became the view-ney-shi-mi of the con-serv-va-tiv-ny-mi in the second half of the 19th century, the conservatism of this era Hey, it's time to wash away with the nation. By the beginning of the 20th century, extreme right-wing conservative parties (for example, “Ak-s-on franc-sez”, headed by -May Sh. Mor-ra-som).
The basic principles of Russian conservatism were formulated at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries by M.M. Shcher-ba-to-vym and N.M. Ka-ram-zi-nym and po-lu-chi-li further development in the “official-tsi-al-nation” theory (gr. S. S. Uva-rov, N.G. Ust-rya-lov, etc.), in the study of Slavic-fi-lov (A.S. Kho-mya-kov, Yu.F. Sa- ma-rin). From the point of view of Russian conservatories, the most powerful form of government is used to-rich-his-own-ra-zion of the Russian people and regarded them as the only source of reforms and guarantor in a row -ka in society.
Types of representations of conservatism in Russia - M.N. Kat-kov, N.Ya. Yes-no-lev-sky, K.N. Le-on-t-ev, K.P. Po-be-do-nos-tsev, L.A. Ti-ho-mi-rov and others. Kon-serv-va-tiv-ny-were the views of such Russian writers and poets as F.I. Tyutchev, N.V. Go-gol, A.A. Fet, N.M. Leskov, F.M. Dos-to-ev-sky.
In general, the con-serv-va-tive character had “counter-re-forms” in the 1880-1890s during the reign of Emperor Alek-san-dr. III. In the second half of the 19th century, the so-called liberal conservatism (B.N. Chi-cherin, P.B. Struve, etc.). At the beginning of the 20th century, the pro-is-ho-di-lo or-ga-ni-za-tsi-on organization of con-servative forces (“Russian Union” b-ra-nie", Union of Russian na-ro-da, etc.), nationalism has become one of the main principles in obos-no-va- Research Institute of Conservatism (M.O. Menshikov and others). After the February Revolution of 1917, the ideology of conservatism gained its influence in Russia. In emigration, conservatism was represented by the work of a number of Russian thoughts (I.A. Il-in, the concept of “spirit of but svo-bod-no-go kon-ser-va-tiz-ma” S.L. Frank and others).
After the First World War, the largest European monarchies disappeared, and along with them they almost went into pro- the past of conservatism, ori-en-ti-ro-vav-shiy to preserve the throne and al-ta-rya. In the conditions, when the threat appeared behind the layered political and economic insti-tu-tu-there (com-mu- nism, national-social-socialism), liberal-ism has acquired protective functions, and why is it Ral conservatism emerged as the ideology of the main right-wing parties. One-time-but-pro-is-ho-di-la ra-di-ka-li-za-tion of part of the con-serv-va-to-ditch, not re-re-new -some software programs of social media companies. This manifested itself with the greatest force in Weimar Germany, where the ideology of “conser-va-tiv-revolution” arose. vo-lu-tion.”
After the Second World War, the programs of the large right-wing parties in Western Europe co-operated with each other -be-ra-liz-ma and conservatism. In the 1970s, in the USA and Great Britain, non-window ser-va-tism emerged, which had a noticeable impact on according to the government of R. Rey-ga-na and M. Thatcher. In the po-le-mi-ke with the li-beral po-li-tic fi-lo-so-fi-ee, there is a noticeable trace of os-ta-vi-li-work in the wake of do-va-te-ley com-mu-ni-ta-riz-ma, from time to time they coincide with the so-called ideo-lo-gi-ey. so-ci-al-no-th conservatism (so-che-ta-nie of the principles of personal freedom and so-ci-al-noy from-vet-st-ven-no-sti ).
In Russia, the reaction to the radical reforms of the 1990s gave rise to various versions of conservatism, based on from the ideas of I.A. Il-i-na (A.I. Sol-zhe-ni-tsyn, etc.), and from the experience of the Soviet “re-al-no-go com-mu-niz-ma” "(A.A. Zinov-ev et al.).
Additional literature:
O'Sullivan N. Conservatism. L., 1976;
Kondylis P. Konservativismus. Geschicht-li-cher Gehalt und Untergang. Stuttg., 1986;
Ré-mound R. Les droites en France. P., 1988;
Gott-fried P. E. The conservative movement. 2nd ed. N.Y., 1993;
Man-heim K. Conservative thought // Man-heim K. Di-ag-noz of our time. M., 1994;
Schildt A. Konservatismus in Deutsch-land. Von den Anfängen im 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart. Münch., 1998;
Russian conservatism of the 19th century. M., 2000;
Gu-sev V. A. Russian con-serv-va-tism. Tver, 2001.
Ideology and politics of conservatism. Features of neoconservatism.
Conservatism– (from Latin preserve) – one of the most influential movements, characterized by the commitment of its supporters to the preservation of traditional values: order, stability (traditionalism). Society and the state are the result of the natural evolution of human society, and not an agreement between people like liberals. The development of progress is given from above, which means there is no need to interfere with the natural course of historical progress. Popular in the UK, Germany, Italy, USA (Republicans): M. Thatcher, G. Kohl, R. Reagan, G. Bush Sr.. They also distinguish between practice and theory.
Prerequisites for the emergence of conservatism: the successes of liberalism after bourgeois revolutions led to the emergence of the ideology of conservatism. Both liberalism and conservatism as views have existed as long as humans. Concept introduced Chateaubriand, then de Meester, Burke.
Characteristic features of conservatism as an ideology:
pessimism in the assessment of human nature (the idea of the imperfection of man and society, and, consequently, disbelief in the inevitability of progress). Conservatism is based on reason, not feelings;
the need to strengthen such traditional values as family and state;
proclamation of moral absolutism;
in the field of economics: the dominance of private property, free enterprise as a guarantor of personal freedom and social order, based on the principle of a strong economy - passive politics;
the state’s job is to let everyone earn money; income taxes do not exceed 33%;
the idea of social inequality in the social sphere is a negative attitude towards the idea of communists. They believe that social equality leads to moral degradation, eliminates incentives for effective work, which gives rise to parasitism;
defense of strong power, strong state, distrust of elected authorities, democracy, parliament;
against the active participation of the broad masses in politics, support democratic elections of elites;
The theory of elitism as a continuation of aristocracy originates from conservatives (aristocrats have control elements in their genes). Conservatism is the ideology of the upper strata;
commitment to local self-government – redistribution of power between central and local authorities;
nationalism - the idea of national greatness, superiority (search for examples of the glorious past).
American political scientists Bell, Gehlen, Benoit believed that conservatism should change towards populism.
economy: do not reject government intervention in the economy.
social politics: weak social policy, they provide an opportunity to earn money. Each person must choose for himself where to study and teach his children, where to get treatment (a free social clinic is not of very high quality, but is cheap, a private clinic is of high quality, but expensive). However, unlike conservatism, they allocate part of the funds to social programs (various benefits, funds for retraining)
equality of all before God and before the law
reject the welfare state
in the political sphere advocate a strong, powerful state, but are forced to reckon with elected authorities and parliament
Conservatives are “moving to the left” (becoming closer to the people).
Seminar 7.
Subject. Conservative ideology.
- 1. The emergence and essence of conservative ideology 1
- 2. Liberal-conservative statism 2
- 3. Republican statism 5
- 4. The concept of libertarianism 8
- 5. Neoconservative ideology. 9
1. The emergence and essence of conservative ideology
Historically, conservative ideology was formed at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. The term "conservatism" (from the Latin Conservo - I save) was first used by the French writer R. Chateaubriand, who in 1818 began publishing the magazine "Conservator". Conservative thought initially appealed to the “unshakable,” natural foundations of social life, and was based on a fundamental rejection of the idea of progress. This reflected the anti-revolutionary sentiments of elite social groups of feudal society, dissatisfied with the new order. But at the same time, conservatism was something more than a political program of certain social forces. He was an integral worldview system, a special type of thinking and perception of the surrounding world.
The fundamental principle of conservative ideology can be considered traditionalism - a specific side of social consciousness associated with the natural desire of a person to stabilize, preserve, and strengthen the existing social order as a familiar habitat. The values of traditionalism were the most important component of the ideological complex of pre-industrial social systems. But they manifested themselves rather as a certain state of mind, a style of behavior. Natural, “instinctive” traditionalism did not require additional argumentation or a system of evidence. The situation changed with the advent of liberalism - a worldview system based on the ideals of progress, the denial of the past in the name of the future. As an alternative, an equally holistic, rationally based ideological and political doctrine began to take shape, reflecting the principles of traditionalism.
The works of E. Burke, J. de Maistre, L. de Bonald, S. Coleridge and others laid the foundations of protective, or traditional conservatism. The leitmotif of this concept was a protest against unconditional progressivism, the cult of individualistic and egalitarian values, moral utilitarianism, and a materialistic, purely pragmatic orientation of politics. Conservatism rejected the very rationalistic “quantitative” form of thinking as the basis of human ideas about the world and society. Conservatism contrasted the mechanical perception of reality, the cult of logic and rationalism, and economic determinism with knowledge based on a holistic perception of life, the intuitive experience of man. Conservative ideology was based on a special kind of social pessimism - a refusal to see in the human mind a phenomenon capable of rationally understanding all aspects of social existence, cognizing the meaning of existence, consciously constructing and implementing a fundamentally new social mechanism.
According to conservatives, the development of society is a natural and spontaneous process. Social creativity does not consist in a radical disruption of the social order in the name of rationally chosen global goals, but in solving situational, current problems through trial and error, accumulating positive experience, and finding a balance between pragmatic policies and basic traditional values. Stability, balance, continuity are the main guidelines of social life, capable of overcoming the influence of innate human sinfulness and arrogance.
The key to the stable existence of society, according to conservatives, is the patriarchal state. Power itself is divine in origin. But the power of the monarch and the aristocracy is determined not only by sacred, sacred powers. At the head of the state is the elite, which bears, first of all, special responsibility for the fate of society. This is an aristocracy not only of blood, but, above all, of spirit. The guarantee of their power is not the political approval of the people, but exclusively personal qualities, “virtues”, loyalty to traditions, readiness to rely on the results of centuries-old natural selection of institutions and forms of economic, political, social organization of society. Democracy, from the point of view of conservatism, is simply organized violence of the majority over the minority. A democratically structured state does not unite, but divides and opposes people. It is the result of an artificial compromise between egoistic claims and is not based on the moral and political unity of society. The true state is organic in nature and form. It unites not only those living today, but also many generations of ancestors and descendants. This is an organism with its own destiny, not divided into individual destinies, a common interest that is not the sum of private interests.
2. Liberal-conservative statism
By the beginning of the twentieth century. the objective prerequisites for the existence of protective traditional conservatism were exhausted. With the deepening of modernization processes, the reduction of traditional social groups and the strengthening of the main classes of industrial society, conservative ideology was deprived of its former protective pathos. The conservative ideological tradition began to disintegrate into two movements, which were oriented towards completely different models of political behavior and were the results of a synthesis of certain aspects of traditional conservatism with liberal ideological doctrine. One of them was statist in nature, reproducing the conservative concept of the organic state. The second was based primarily on the ideas of naturalness and spontaneity of social development inherent in traditional conservatism.
The prerequisites for the formation of the statist ideology of liberal conservatism were formed on turn of XIX-XX centuries primarily in those European countries that were caught up in the processes of accelerated, “catch-up” modernization. In Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, large-scale reforms began in the socio-economic and political spheres, designed to respond to the “challenge of the West” and prevent the transformation of these countries into the periphery of the industrialized world. But direct perception of the experience of liberal reforms, orientation towards the principles of classical liberalism threatened the power of the ruling elite of these countries - the direct initiator of the ongoing reforms. The liberal project did not correspond to the peculiarities of the political culture of a given society or the specifics of mass consciousness. The resulting ideological niche was filled with liberal-conservative statism.
Liberal conservatism was a moderate reformist concept. He did not question the general expediency of modernization, but limited it with a number of reservations. From the point of view of liberal-conservative statism, reformism can only be pragmatic and limited in nature, while the priority of national, cultural, and religious values is indisputable. We can only talk about reforms designed to continue the historically chosen path of the nation. Thus, the ultimate goal of the reforms was considered to be the good of the state, and the specifics of the reforms being carried out depended, first of all, on the uniqueness of national statehood and the religious and confessional system of values.
Recognizing the importance of a fairly radical social reorganization, the liberal-conservative reform ideology did not contrast the past and the future. It was based on the idea of progressive development of a specific society, and not on universal categories of universal human progress. This allowed liberal conservatism to turn into a unique mobilizing concept, combining reformism with protective functions. The credo of this type of conservatism was accurately expressed by B. Chicherin: “Liberal measures and strong power.” Order comes before freedom. In contrast to liberalism, including social liberalism, for which the restriction of individual freedom is ultimately determined by the priority of the rights of other people and the responsibility of society to it, liberal conservatism was focused on the development of society itself as a single organism. This specificity of liberal conservatism predetermined its close proximity to nationalist ideology.
The idea of a nation was not part of the ideological arsenal of traditional conservatism. On the contrary, it was in demand, first of all, by liberal ideology in the era of the formation of bourgeois statehood. The appeal of conservatism to the national idea was provoked by the threat of destruction of the historically established social organism in the conditions of the beginning of accelerated modernization. Liberal-conservative ideology interpreted the nation as the main factor human history, the keeper of traditions and accumulated experience, a single organism that has common goals that prevail over the interests of the individual. National idea in the liberal-conservative interpretation, it became a powerful argument in support of the new political course. It allowed conservative reformers to move away from rigid statism, excessive exaggeration of the importance of “state interest,” and to largely overcome the spiritual polarization of society in the context of large-scale, forced reforms, accompanied by large social costs.
Intensified propaganda of the ideas of organic solidarity and national unity was supplemented in the ideological arsenal of liberal conservatism with a new elitist concept of state power. The rational "theory of elites" was intended to replace traditional sacred monarchism, based on the idea of the divine origin of monarchical power and the supreme sovereignty of God. It is symbolic that the founders of the “theory of elites” were precisely the representatives of Italian and German political science G. Mosca, V. Pareto, M. Weber, R. Michels. The leitmotif of the concept they developed was the idea of dividing any society into a controlled majority and a controlling minority (“political class” - Mosca), about the naturalness of political violence, legitimized by traditions, the charisma of those in power or a rational legal system.
From the point of view of liberal conservatism, even democracy is a system of elite power, but with a special mechanism for the formation of the elite and the exercise of its powers. The consistent implementation of the principle of democracy can only create the preconditions for the collapse of the state mechanism and for the triumph of the interests of the crowd. Democracy, understood as direct democracy, is an abstract idea incompatible with the true purpose of power. She carries the leitmotif political life from the search for effective mechanisms to ensure the real needs of the entire people to the improvement of the forms of expression of the will of the majority, who are not ready to take responsibility for their decisions. Thus, consistent democracy becomes the basis for political arbitrariness and illegitimate violence.
The statist liberal-conservative ideology turned out to be widely in demand in countries that made a forced industrial breakthrough at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Its revival in the same version is possible in similar historical conditions (for example, in Russia at the end of the 20th century). The effectiveness of this doctrine is due to the attempt to propose a synthesis of traditional, collectivist value orientations and new liberal goals of realpolitik, to develop a scenario for the natural integration of these countries into the course of world development, without questioning their national identity and significance. However, this duality also contained the vulnerability of liberal conservatism.
As the immediate tasks of accelerated modernization were solved, the demarcation of the liberal-conservative camp became more and more obvious. On the one hand, in the context of a growing negative socio-psychological background generated by the costs of forced reforms, the preconditions for the radicalization of conservative ideology and an even more decisive rejection of the liberal-democratic “Western” model were taking shape. This created prospects for the formation of completely special varieties of political ideology, which severed the slightest connection with the liberal social project, but no longer had the opportunity to return to the sanctification of the past. The solution was to search for a “third way” of development. The second version of the evolution of statist liberal-conservative ideology was associated, on the contrary, with an increasingly consistent perception of the liberal-democratic doctrine. True, the emphasis in this case was not on the “liberal component”, but on the democratic potential that modernization carried. Based on the experience of France, this version of ideology can be called republican.
3. Republican statism
France was not a country of accelerated modernization, but over the past three centuries it has consistently returned to a special model of political ideology, whose origins go back to the Enlightenment. French republicanism was based on the idea of the Nation-Republic, embodied in Rousseau's democratic concept. The Nation-Republic was presented as a special community with a territorial, state-legal, cultural community, " common will", a single sovereignty. Rousseau's ideas reflected the characteristics of French society, which was never able to completely transition to the path of modernization in the 18th-18th centuries, which retained the "outback", islands of patriarchy. The predominance of the traditional middle strata in the social structure became fertile ground for the introduction of democratic ideas into the national political culture, opposed in spirit to both rigid “Anglo-Saxon” liberalism and aristocratic elitism. The main stages in the development of this “republican genotype” subsequently became the social-statist ideas of Robespierre and his associates, the political philosophy of Bonapartism.
Particularly significant from the point of view of the genesis of a special republican tradition is the formation of the ideology of Bonapartism during the era of the First Empire. Its basis was the recognition of the liberal foundations of private life while rejecting the political sovereignty of the individual and the liberal model government structure. Napoleon Bonaparte believed that the predominance of individual and group interests to the detriment of national ones ultimately leads to oblivion of the interests of the individual himself and serves as the basis for the weakening of the state, which has a detrimental effect on the life of everyone. “When the activities of power structures continually show regrettable weaknesses and inconstancy,” he reasoned, “when power, yielding to pressure from one or the other of the parties opposing each other, making one-day decisions, acts without a planned plan, hesitates, it thereby demonstrating the extent of its insolvency. Society is overcome by the need for self-preservation, and it is looking for a person who could bring salvation.” Thus, Bonapartism was based on the recognition of the expediency of limiting political liberalism, including the activities of political parties representing “group” rather than public interest. An authoritarian dictatorship, acting in the name of the interests of the nation, was seen as the best guarantor of individual social rights and economic freedoms, civil peace. Napoleon himself preferred to talk not about dictatorship, but about a kind of heleocentric state systems: "The government is placed at the center of society like the sun - various public institutions must orbit around it, never moving away. It is therefore necessary for the government to ensure the interaction of all these institutions so that they contribute to the maintenance of general harmony."
The republican movement, which formed in France at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, was extremely close in its genotype to the Bonapartist tradition. But unlike Bonapartism, the republican movement was characterized by a rejection of political radicalism and authoritarianism, a focus on civil consolidation, reconciliation of all warring factions on the basis of compromises and consensus. And later, as the socio-economic development of French society unified, the republican movement moved significantly closer to the usual examples of liberal democratic ideology. A new rise of republican statism occurred in France after the Second World War, during the crisis of the constitutional regime of the Fourth Republic and the coming to power of new political forces under the leadership of General de Gaulle.
The Gaullists believed that France should abandon the unconditional predominance of the principles of parliamentary democracy. The multi-party system and parliamentarism led, in their opinion, to the corrosion of state power, and the very idea of giving authority authority and efficiency contradicts, in essence, the very nature of parties. De Gaulle argued that parties, regardless of political orientation, would like to see the state weak, that this is precisely what they instinctively led the state to in order to more easily and better control it and use it as a means to expand their influence. In contrast to the “regime of party domination,” de Gaulle proposed to revive genuine democracy based on the sovereignty of the people. Fundamental problems, such as the choice of the form of a constitutional structure, must be resolved by the direct expression of the people's will - in a referendum. De Gaulle saw the basis of new political institutions as a strong and almost autonomous government, independent of the will of the parliamentary assembly and parties. It is a strong state, according to de Gaulle, that can become a guarantor of ensuring national independence, strengthening national unity, and maintaining public order. But this task cannot be solved by dictatorship. The dictatorial regime is doomed to a constant race for success - as the rejection of violence and “longing for freedom” grows among citizens, the dictatorship at any cost must offer them new achievements and victories as compensation.
While advocating strengthening the state, the Gaullists did not consider it advisable to eliminate parliamentarism and multi-party democracy. In their opinion, the idea of a strong state is by no means opposed to the democratic principle. Democracy is a political regime that seeks to establish freedom and equality in human relations and is based on popular consent. Democracy presupposes the active participation of the people in the management of public affairs. The people act as the true sovereign, and any power must come from the people, i.e. be representative. But parliament, which only reflects the opposition of parties, cannot be the source of executive power. Without unity, cohesion, and internal discipline, governing a country can become powerless and unqualified. A key role in ensuring the unity of state power should therefore be played by the head of state, standing above and outside the parties, elected, like parliament, directly by the people.
4. The concept of libertatism
The second version of the liberal-conservative synthesis was presented in the twentieth century. ideology of libertarianism. This line had previously triumphed in countries where the foundations of industrial society were most firmly established, were of a natural nature and did not corrode mass psychology and political culture. Liberal ideology here has become the most important component of mass consciousness, the basis of political culture. But at the same time, liberalism itself began to acquire the features of a protective ideology. He found himself guarding the already established social order. And this contradicted the progressive pathos of liberalism. The prerequisites have emerged for a profound restructuring of the party and political spectrum. Progressive parties and socio-political movements gradually moved to the position of social liberalism, still advocating the progressive development of society. Conservative parties found themselves in the role of radical defenders of social order based on the principles of classical liberalism.
The updated conservative ideology not only defended the principles of classical liberalism, but also gave them an exaggerated character. A big role in this was played by the ideas of spontaneity and naturalness of social development, traditional for conservatism, a skeptical attitude towards rational projects for creating a society of general welfare and the very ability of the human mind to control the course of social development. The expediency of not only social revolutions, but also any targeted reforms that disrupt the “natural course” of social development was questioned. As a result, from the doctrine of classical liberalism, the ideas of absolute economic freedom, the struggle of spontaneous market forces, and state non-interference in the economy were most in demand. Radical ideas of social Darwinism also turned out to be in demand. As a result, a synthesis was carried out of the liberal concept of “laisser-faire” with the traditionalist ideals inherent in conservatism. The foundations of a new radical ideology were being formed - libertarianism, based on the conservation of classical liberal principles in the conditions of social development of the twentieth century.
Libertarianism arose in the era of the heyday of the social model of the “welfare state”, the consolidation of corresponding models of political ideology and social psychology. The new generation of liberals - neoliberals - turned out to be split into several movements, significantly different in the economic recipes they proposed, but united in following the basic ideals of social liberalism. Only libertarianism, which filled the functional niche of protective conservative ideology (the presence of which in a rapidly developing society is objectively predetermined), remained the only concept based on the ideals of absolute freedom and individualism.
It is characteristic that, as in neoliberal movements, it was professional economists who played the most important role in the development of libertarianism. The most notable in this regard are the works of economists of the neo-Austrian school, including its leaders F. von Hayek and L. von Mises. They considered any form of government intervention a violation of the natural economic mechanism and had a negative attitude towards the very attempt at macroeconomic modeling. In their view, market freedom, like political, legal, and spiritual freedom, cannot be “partially limited.” Economy " regulated company" - socialist or fascist, develops according to laws other than the economy of a free and democratic society. For the latter, the only form of organization can be “spontaneous order” (F. Hayek), that is, the spontaneous, natural organization of social forces. Economic, as well as social development cannot be the result of conscious and purposeful action in such a society. Such ideas constituted one of the most significant examples of libertarian philosophy and became a noticeable phenomenon in the development of post-war social thought. However, as a real political program they turned out to be inadequate to the era of the “welfare state.” The revival of libertarianism occurred already in the late 70s and early 80s. in the era of the "neoconservative revolution".
5. Neoconservative ideology.
The collapse of the social ideology of the “welfare state” during the period of structural economic crisis of the 70s and early 80s. caused a qualitative restructuring of the entire production mechanism of Western society, and also led to a rethinking of the most important ideological postulates of neoliberalism. Events of the crisis decade of the 70s. not only clearly proved a number of serious miscalculations of the Keynesian model of regulation, but also revealed alarming trends in the field of social psychology, the growth of sentiments of dependency, the loss of the former dynamics of social development, and the spiritual mobility of members of this society. As an alternative, a new ideological direction began to form - neoconservatism. Initially, neoconservative thinkers grouped around two magazines: Commentary and Public Interest. Among them were such prominent public figures and politicians as R. Solow, N. Glaser, D. Bell, I. Kristol, J. Wilson.
The symbol of the “new choice” of Western society was the neoconservative direction of economic science, which returned to the ideas of the liberal doctrine of market self-regulation of the economy. In spirit it turned out to be quite close to the views of representatives of the neo-Austrian school (F. Hayek, L. Mises). However, neoconservatism was distinguished by its emphasized pragmatism. The declarative rejection of any form of state intervention in the economy, characteristic of libertarian economic thought, was replaced by neoconservatives with a desire to develop specific recommendations for a comprehensive adjustment of state policy. The necessity of the very existence of state regulation, and in very strict and decisive forms, was not questioned. His goals and methods had to change. The conceptual basis of neoconservative economic theory became monetarism (M. Friedman, K. Brunner, A. Meltzer) and supply theory (A. Laffer, R. Regan, M. Feldstein).
The macroeconomic policy model proposed by the neoconservatives became widespread in the practice of government regulation in the late 70s and 80s. Its symbol was the radical transformations carried out in the USA by the Republican administration of President R. Reagan and in the UK by the conservative cabinet of M. Thatcher. It is noteworthy that in addition to “Reaganomics” and “Thatcherism”, the policies of West German Christian Democrats, Italian and Spanish socialists, and French neo-Gaullists had a neoconservative orientation - regardless of the nuances of the ideological orientation of these parties. The new macroeconomic system corresponded to the main direction of development of the leading Western countries in last decades XX century - mobilization of the creative potential of the market system, intensification of the reproduction process. This became the reason for the rapid transition of the economic recipes of the neoconservatives to the rank of ideological postulates. So, for example, purely economic category“strengthening the structural and motivational mechanism of the market” (i.e. strengthening incentives for accumulation, individual investment and entrepreneurial activity) immediately turned into the most important ideological principle, a kind of new edition"laisser-faire" ideas.
Thus, the neoconservative wave, generated by the search for a new economic strategy, became a complex social phenomenon that included the formation of a new political philosophy, the formation of a set of special social and spiritual values, and the development of behavioral stereotypes adequate to them. Its basis was the rejection of the philosophy of “distributive equality”, which the neoconservatives attributed to supporters of the “welfare state”. True, unlike libertarians, neoconservatives did not at all try to prove the incompatibility of the principle of social justice and individual freedom. In their opinion, the principle of social justice in itself is quite effective and important; only its egolitarian interpretation is destructive. It is important to ensure not equality of results of human activity, but equality of chances in the struggle for these results. Rejecting rugged individualism, they viewed the expansion of market opportunities precisely as a mechanism for resolving social problems.
Neoconservatives believed that the new rise of the market as a multifaceted model of social relations could not be considered outside the context of a broader problem - a return to "first principles", basic moral imperatives. Moreover, such “fundamentals” included both values that have become a symbol of the Western way of life (personal dynamism, entrepreneurship, responsibility for one’s own choice, civil liberties, independence of opinion, pluralism of public life), and those inherent in any strong social model, guaranteeing stable self-reproduction society (family values, religious faith, solidarity in defense of human dignity and life). It was precisely this synthesis that made it possible to talk not about a revival at the end of the twentieth century. liberal ideology, but about the formation on its basis of a new model of radical conservative doctrine.
The main peak of neoconservative reforms occurred in the first half of the 80s. Their results in the economic sphere turned out to be quite positive. However, the sharp turn in the economic strategy, the deep disruption of the existing social security system, and the transformation of the entire mechanism of state regulation turned out to be too painful. The policies of the neoconservatives caused especially great discontent among those segments of the population who were accustomed to a system of state social guarantees and a stable increase in living standards. The absolute importance of market factors in solving social problems clearly did not correspond to the realities of social development. In almost all leading Western countries in the late 80s - first half of the 90s. There was a radical change in the political elite. The coming to power of the democratic administration of B. Clinton in the USA, the socialist government of L. Jospin in France, the Labor cabinet of E. Blair in Great Britain, and the social democratic government of G. Schröder in Germany testified to the rejection of the conventional wisdom of the 1980s. thesis about neoconservatism as “the ideology of the third millennium.” The idea of continuity of “democratic economic concepts” and the desire for a synthesis of Keynesian and neoconservative social ideology became dominant. The search for their optimal combination remains the most important task at the beginning of the 3rd millennium.
Similar documents
The confrontation between the principles of liberal and conservative ideologies: the history of their development and the current state. Analysis of the ideology of liberalism. The essence of the ideology of conservatism. Features of socialist ideology, its main features and varieties.
abstract, added 05/04/2012
The emergence of the "third way" ideology. Corporatism as a special type of political philosophy. Main directions of corporate ideology. Social Christian doctrine. Populist ideology. Anarcho-syndicalism. Fascism. Communist ideology.
lecture, added 11/15/2008
Ideology in modern Russia: problems, prospects. Independent trends of liberal-democratic ideology. General characteristics of democracy. Current state communist movement. Trends in the development of ideological movements in the world.
abstract, added 01/16/2010
The origin, origins and history of the political teachings of the Ancient East, the deification of royal power in the "Laws of Manu", the theory of Taoism. Statism in political thought Ancient Greece and Rome. Features of the political ideology of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
test, added 12/23/2009
Political ideology: essence, structure, functions. Fundamental ideas and representatives of liberalism and neoliberalism. The concept and ideas of conservatism and neoconservatism. Socialism and its varieties in the modern world. Ideology of the Belarusian state.
presentation, added 04/15/2013
The essence of the concept of "political ideology". The main functions of political ideology. Formation of liberal theory. Liberalism as one of the leading ideologies in the world. Leading theorists of conservatism of the 18th-19th centuries. Signs of social democratic parties.
abstract, added 03/01/2010
Economic, religious, legal ideology. The main political ideologies of our time. Basic values of classical liberalism. History of the formation of neoconservatism. Values communist and social democratic ideology.
abstract, added 12/05/2012
Political and state ideology: commonalities and differences. The main elements of the state ideology of the Republic of Belarus. Forms of ideology (depending on the spheres and aspects of social life reflected in them). The mechanism for implementing state ideology.
test, added 09/23/2012
Approaches to defining political conservatism. Origins, essence and evolution of the ideology of conservatism, its character traits. Principles, attitudes and ideas of conservatism as a direction of social thought. Negative attitude of conservatives towards the revolution.
abstract, added 11/11/2015
The genesis of the concept of “ideology” in political thought. Ideology as a social phenomenon, its essence. Levels, structure and functions of ideology as a category of political science. Formation of core values and development priorities of the Republic of Belarus.
1. Ideology of conservatism: origins, essence, evolution
Conservatism is one of the directions of political ideology.
The term "conservatism" comes from the Latin word "conserve"- I save, I protect. It was first used by the French writer François René de Chateaubriand in the magazine Conservator, which he founded, in 1815. The magazine expressed the reaction of the French aristocracy to the French Revolution of 1789.
Founders of Conservatism E. Burke, Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald opposed ideas french revolution their views on society as an organic and holistic system. They believed that only a society based on a hierarchical structure is legitimate and natural. Society is a single organism, and individual parts of this society ensure its viability, just as individual organs of the human body ensure the vital activity of the entire organism. The bearers of the idea of conservatism are social groups interested in preserving traditional social order or restoring it.
Conservative ideology is an ideology of conservation. Conservatives believe that society cannot be experimented with. Revolutionary cataclysms are extremely harmful to society. The main thing in society, in their opinion, is traditions of continuity and protection moral values . Therefore, changes in society should be of a slow evolutionary nature. The goal of society itself is not to invent imaginary freedoms, which most often lead to anarchy, but to preserve existing freedoms based on tradition.
Conservatives act in two main directions:
1. support stability of the social structure in its unchanged form;
2. eliminate opposing forces and tendencies, and restore previous trends and political forces.
According to the founders, conservatism is a system of ideas that serves to preserve the existing order, whatever this order may be. Conservatism arises where and when social institutions face the threat of radical change. Therefore, every time conservatism acquires an ideological form that is opposite to the doctrine from which the threat of change comes. It does not have its own content. For a true conservative, what is important is not even the truth or fairness of his opinion, but the ability to protect this social system, ensure the retention of state power. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify general provisions characteristic of this ideological direction.
The main provisions of conservatism:
1. Moral absolutism. Recognition of the existence of unshakable moral ideals and values.
Man is an imperfect being, therefore, on the one hand, he needs the care of moral and religious guidelines. On the other hand, due to its imperfection, a radical reorganization of society by man is doomed to failure, since it violates the established order for centuries.
2. Traditionalism. Society must rely on the traditions and values of the past. Traditional principles are the basis of any healthy society.
3. Hierarchy of society. Each person occupies a strictly assigned place, which he deserves.
At first, conservatives expressed distrust of democracy. But they became supporters of elitist democracy, when the democratic mechanism makes it possible to form a professional political elite and promote worthy people to power. The participation of the masses in politics must be limited and controlled. Denying social equality, conservatives have a positive attitude towards the idea of equality of people before God. Equality exists in the area of morality and virtue.
4. The ideal of strong government. In the political sphere, conservatives advocate strong government power, which should guard private property, human rights and freedoms. Power must be limited by constitutional and moral standards.
5. Anti-progressivism. Skeptical attitude towards reforms and changes, rejection of revolutions.
6. Priority of local values. Conservatives give preference to the periphery, as the province preserves the traditions and values of the past.
There are three currents in modern conservatism:
Traditionalist– this movement of conservatism was historically the first. One of his most important concepts is the concept of “natural aristocracy,” which includes not only nobles, but also educated people and wealthy businessmen. Traditionalism in this current is opposed to reason, and becomes above it. Submission to tradition means acting in accordance with the natural course of things and age-old wisdom. In the traditional sense, reforms should not disrupt the natural course of things. There are two types of reforms:
a) aimed at restoring traditional norms and rights;
b) preventive, aimed at preventing revolutions.
The path to the health of society, in this current, is seen in strengthening the political role of religion, creating a strategic balance in political and spiritual life. The ideas of traditionalism include an organic concept of society, according to which society exists initially, like nature, and does not arise as a result of social evolution.
Liberalist- this is a current of conservatism, which, on the one hand, continues the desire for freedom that developed in past eras, and on the other hand, counteracts the spread of socialist ideas. The root of evil, in their opinion, is the violation of the natural principles of free enterprise and the free market, especially by the state. The main human right, in their opinion, is the right to individual security and the right to protect property. They reject equality of conditions as an encroachment on private property and proclaim equality of opportunity. Therefore, they advocate a minimal social policy of the state, allowing only to defuse dangerous social tensions, calling on the government to rely exclusively on the market in the implementation and implementation of its programs.
Liberals are confident that the basis of public freedom is private property, that respect and faith in the traditions of the people are an essential feature of state policy.
Neoconservative movement- this is a relatively new movement that casts doubt on whether the market and “scientific civilization” stabilize society due to the rationality of its mechanism, which has some kind of internal regulator. The crisis has undermined these illusions. In their opinion, the crisis of modern society is caused by the weakening of the moral foundations of humanity. Advocating for limiting government intervention in the market economy, they require the state to promote private initiative by providing tax incentives, stimulating private investment and market offerings. IN economic policy neoconservatives rely on personal initiative and interest. That is, the state must create conditions when a person can help himself (through savings, acquiring property, gaining financial independence and independence from state “social care”). In this case, the person himself or small communities solve their socio-economic problems.
Neoconservatives believe that free material goods should be provided only to those who cannot provide for themselves. Everyone else must pay for all the services they use. But to receive them in the form and quality that they desire, and that their financial situation allows them. This economic formula is called “social market economy.” Neoconservatives consider it the most successful, since it strengthens and expands the owner class.
Neoconservatives support freedom market relations in economics, but is categorically against transferring these principles to the political sphere. In their opinion, democracy should be elitist. Political activity is a profession available to everyone with the ability. Everyone can be interested in politics, since it concerns everyone, but only professionals should engage in it. They see the main content of the crisis in the uncontrollability of the state (coming from disobedient citizens corrupted by liberalism) and in the crisis of governance, which stems from the inaction of the authorities, since failure to make adequate decisions leads to the overgrowth social conflicts into political ones. In conditions where active and clear policies are required, neoconservatives propose elitist or limited democracy. Having absorbed the principle of individual freedom, they were able to link it with traditional values: religion, family, law and order, decentralization and self-government.
Conservatism and its practical implementation in the politics of different countries
Each country has its own national characteristics and traditions. Accordingly, in each country, conservatives defend their national characteristics and values inherent in a given state.
The ideology of conservatism penetrated into Russia in the 19th century. They denied the need for reforms on the European model, although they did not reject the value of the gradual Europeanization of society. Authoritarianism was considered the basis of state and social order (N.M. Karamzin). Subsequently, Russian conservatives questioned not only the value of reforms, but also denied the need for Europeanization of Russia in principle (M.N. Katkov, K.P. Pobedonostsev).
Russian conservatives proceed from the fact that the world cannot develop according to one model; the main task is the need to preserve peace. The spiritual foundations of Russian conservatives are based on Orthodoxy. They see Russia as the New Jerusalem, according to which Russia is God’s chosen power, chosen to bring the light of truth to the world. Russia also bears a special responsibility for the preservation of the Orthodox faith and God's covenants. Now the ideology of conservatism is being promoted by the United Russia party. Conservatism is the state policy of the Russian Federation, which Vladimir Putin does not deny.
British conservatism advocates the continuation of the monarchy, as well as other Old British traditions (for example, fox hunting, cage hunting, etc.). The special attitude towards the Church of England is emphasized by the saying: “The Conservative Party at prayer is the Church of England.” In the twentieth century, conservatives accepted industrialists into their ranks, which provided them with material prosperity.
In the United States, conservatives are divided into two large, and often warring, camps. Paleoconservatives are those who hate megacities and call for the simplicity of rural life, the so-called “single-story America” ideology. Neoconservatives – the positive role of the state, the export of democracy. Both are supporters of the Second Amendment about gun ownership. The former are without restrictions, the latter introduce certain restrictions.
In Latin America, the conservative elite ruled for quite a long time. The church was exempt from taxes, and clergy were protected from legal prosecution. In countries Latin America, where conservative parties were weakened, conservatives relied on military dictatorship as a form of government.
In Greece, conservatives tried to prevent Turkish expansion in Cyprus and establish a strong government in the country. They opposed the far-right regime.
Conservatism in Belarus
Speaking about the understanding and perception of conservatism in modern Belarus, we must first of all take into account the peculiarities of the historical development of our country. Here I see the problem that conservatism is based on the organic, continuous development of a particular society, which, as it were, is the basis for the formation of a conservative doctrine. In Belarus, development took place intermittently, first within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, then Tsarist Russia, and since 1917 - as an integral part of the USSR. Of course, this is also history, it is organic in its own way, but sometimes it seems to me that when talking about the historical roots of conservatism in Belarus, we tend to wishful thinking. A peculiarity of Belarus is the incompleteness of the process of formation of both the Belarusian nation and Belarusian statehood. In Belarus today there is large groups population who question the thesis of the existence of a special Belarusian nation and for whom statehood is not a significant value. This, in my opinion, explains the weakness of the conservative movement in Belarus. The Belarusian elite, called upon to verbally formalize certain ideological doctrines and political teachings, in most cases could only be considered Belarusian territorially. According to her national identity, she considered herself Polish, Russian, or, in Lately, to Soviet culture. Maybe that's why, when in the late 80s. Perestroika and democratization of public life began; the Social Democrats, liberals, and the Popular Front were the first to make themselves known. Among the many political groups and public organizations, no one declared themselves to be Belarusian conservatives.
Therefore, in Belarus, conservatism as an ideology did not have the conditions for development due to the lack of a social base, however, a certain proportion of conservative ideas is present in the ideology of the Belarusian state. Our own traditions, ideals, values, goals and attitudes constitute the backbone of our people. They are not invented, but suffered by our people.
Conclusion
Conservatism can be seen as the art of political compromise that promotes balance and moderation. It represents not only, or rather not so much the protection of certain groups of the population, but also a generally accepted set of values in society, a way of thinking and behavior of significant categories of people. He adapts modern forms rule to traditional social norms. Accelerating the processes of destruction of the old world for the sake of building a new one, as history shows, is a useless exercise and most often leads to tragic consequences. Therefore, conservative norms and values are supported not only by rich and prosperous representatives of the elite, but also by groups of the population from other strata whose interests it at first glance contradicts (peasants, artisans, etc.). Many people are afraid of changes that bring uncertainty, which is understandable from the perspective of historical experience. In addition, conservatism is in alliance with religious philosophy, which claims to be non-class. The world is dynamic and constantly changing. Conservatism cannot reject all changes without exception, but to carry out these changes smoothly without shocks and revolutions, without damaging the basic moral and religious foundations of society, or at least to minimize losses from changes as much as possible, is the main task of conservatism.
