Jump to content

Social liberalism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
better order
Line 84: Line 84:
*[[Norberto Bobbio]]<ref name="modern"/> (1909-2004)
*[[Norberto Bobbio]]<ref name="modern"/> (1909-2004)
*[[Miguel Reale]] (1910–2005)
*[[Miguel Reale]] (1910–2005)
*[[Pierre Elliot Trudeau]] (1918-2000)
*[[John Rawls]]<ref name="adams"/> (1921-2002)
*[[John Rawls]]<ref name="adams"/> (1921-2002)
*[[Karl-Hermann Flach]] (1929–1973)
*[[Karl-Hermann Flach]] (1929–1973)

Revision as of 18:23, 27 November 2006

Social liberalism (also new liberalism,[1] [2], radical liberalism[3] or sometimes modern liberalism[4]) is a development of liberalism stemming from the late 19th century. It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Unlike classical liberalism which embraces a strictly laissez-faire philosophy, social liberalism sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.

Social liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions. Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens. In the process, it accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic oligopolies, regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws, intending to secure economic opportunities for all. It also expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good.

Rejecting both the most extreme forms of capitalism and the revolutionary elements from the socialist school, social liberalism emphasizes what it calls "positive liberty", seeking to enhance the "positive freedoms" of the poor and disadvantaged in society by means of government regulation.

Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective. However, they are unique in comparison to other liberals in that they believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to their conception of liberty.[2] Social liberals are outspoken defenders of their idea of "human rights" and "civil liberties", and combine this with support for a mixed economy, with a state providing public services.

The birth of social liberalism

In Britain, in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, a group of thinkers known as the New Liberals made a case against laissez-faire classical liberalism and in favour of state intervention in social, economic and cultural life. The New Liberals, who included T.H.Green and L.T.Hobhouse, saw individual liberty as something to be achievable only under favourable social circumstances. The poverty, squalor and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible in their view for freedom and individuality to flourish, and the New Liberals believed that these conditions could only be ameliorated through collective action coordinated by a strong welfare-oriented interventionist state. (The Routledge encyclopaedia of philosophy, p.599)

Social liberalism versus social democracy

European Political Spectrum.

The basic ideological difference between social liberalism and social democracy lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual.

Social liberals value liberty, rights and freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible (subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the State does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, social liberals tend to trust that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.

Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism, and (especially in democratic socialist forms) typically favours a more community-based view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without transforming the nature of the State itself. Having rejected the revolutionary approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the democratic process instead, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong scepticism for capitalism, which needs to be regulated (or at least "managed") for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may, potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.

In practice, however, the differences between the two may be harder to perceive. This is especially the case nowadays as many social democratic parties have shifted towards the centre and adopted one version of Third Way politics or another.[5]

Social liberalism versus neoliberalism

Social liberalism (also known as New Liberalism) is very different from the ambiguous term neoliberalism, a name given to various proponents of the free markets and also to some conservative opponents of free markets, such as mercantilistic conservatives, in the late 20th century's global economy. Neoliberalism has been used to describe the liberal economic policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. As a body of thought, neoliberalism advocates positions contrary to many of those taken by social liberals, especially with regard to the former's commitments to free trade and dismantling of government "social" programs.

Social liberalism versus conservative liberalism

Both share the concern with the freedom of the individual, but while Social liberalism is appropriate for describing some liberal parties that are left-of-centre on economic issues and support a broad interpretation of democratic rights, Conservative liberalism (generally also referred as Classical liberalism), emphasises economic freedom and tends to be right of centre. For example, Liberal-conservative parties, such as the Dutch VVD and the Belgian liberal parties, adopt an economically conservative agenda, advocating a minimal role for the state in the economy.[3] Some authors like Merquior also claim that conservative liberalism is based four negative values (that is, values founded on a negative conception of liberty - "where there is no law there is no transgression"): moral pluralism, progress, individualism, and accountable government, while social liberalism focuses both on the illegitimacy of a tyrannical government that uses prerogative power and on the social conditions that make such tyrannical government possible.[6]

Classical liberals such as Nozick and others reject social liberalism as a false liberalism. For these authors government has no duty to intervene in society to aid the disadvantaged as this means taking wealth from others (as taxes). They also consider that interfering in the market is destroying freedom and doing this to make people free is self-contradictory.[7]

Social liberal parties

Some parties which are arguably social liberal may include:

Social liberal thinkers

Some notable social liberal thinkers are:

Views of Social Liberals today

In general, contemporary Social Liberals support:

References

  1. ^ Not to be confused with neoliberalism, a very different concept which has a similar name[1] .
  2. ^ a b Check Shaver, Sheila (July 1997). "Liberalism, Gender and Social Policy" (PDF). EconPapers.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i Check Marks, Gary and Wilson, Carole (July 2000). "The Past in the Present: A Cleavage Theory of Party Response to European Integration" (PDF). British Journal of Political Science. 30: 433–459.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b c d e f Check Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 155587939X.
  5. ^ See, for example, "The overlap between social democracy and social liberalism".[2]
  6. ^ Check Merquior, J.G. (1991). Liberalism Old and New. Boston: Twayne Publishers.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i Check Adams, Ian (2001). Political Ideology Today (Politics Today). Manchester: Manchester University Press. 0719060206.
  8. ^ a b c d e Check J. Kirchner, Emil (1988). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Avon: Cambridge University Press. 0-521-32394-0.
  9. ^ a b c d Liberalism in Modern Times: Essays in Honour of Jose G. Merquior. Budapest: Central European University Press. 1996. 185866053X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_liberalism&oldid=90477307"