What Is Liberalism?
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism.
Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets. Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and governments must not violate these rights. While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.
Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe and South America, whereas it was well-established alongside republicanism in the United States. In Victorian Britain, it was used to critique the political establishment, appealing to science and reason on behalf of the people. During 19th and early 20th century, liberalism in the Ottoman Empire and Middle East influenced periods of reform such as the Tanzimat and Al-Nahda as well as the rise of secularism, constitutionalism and nationalism. These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam, which continues to this day, leading to Islamic revivalism. Before 1920, the main ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism then faced major ideological challenges from new opponents: fascism and communism. However, during the 20th century liberal ideas also spread even further—especially in Western Europe—as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars.
In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism (often called simply “liberalism” in the United States) became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state. Today, liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world. However, liberalism still has challenges to overcome in Africa and Asia. The fundamental elements of contemporary society have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism popularised economic individualism while expanding constitutional government and parliamentary authority. Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association; an independent judiciary and public trial by jury; and the abolition of aristocratic privileges. Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights. Liberals have advocated gender and racial equality in their drive to promote civil rights and a global civil rights movement in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards both goals. Continental European liberalism is divided between moderates and progressives, with the moderates tending to elitism and the progressives supporting the universalisation of fundamental institutions, such as universal suffrage, universal education and the expansion of property rights. Over time, the moderates displaced the progressives as the main guardians of continental European liberalism.
Etymology and definition
Words such as liberal, liberty, libertarian and libertine all trace their history to the Latin liber, which means “free”. One of the first recorded instances of the word liberal occurs in 1375, when it was used to describe the liberal arts in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man. The word’s early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations. Liberal could refer to “free in bestowing” as early as 1387, “made without stint” in 1433, “freely permitted” in 1530 and “free from restraint”—often as a pejorative remark—in the 16th and the 17th centuries. In 16th century England, liberal could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone’s generosity or indiscretion. In Much Ado About Nothing, William Shakespeare wrote of “a liberal villaine” who “hath […] confest his vile encounters”. With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as “free from narrow prejudice” in 1781 and “free from bigotry” in 1823. In 1815, the first use of the word “liberalism” appeared in English. In Spain, the liberales, the first group to use the liberal label in a political context, fought for decades for the implementation of the 1812 Constitution. From 1820 to 1823 during the Trienio Liberal, King Ferdinand VII was compelled by the liberales to swear to uphold the Constitution. By the middle of the 19th century, liberal was used as a politicised term for parties and movements worldwide.
Over time, the meaning of the word liberalism began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: “In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies”. Consequently, in the United States the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought and are key components of American conservatism.
Unlike Europe and Latin America, the word liberalism in North America almost exclusively refers to social liberalism. The dominant Canadian party is the Liberal Party and the United States’ Democratic Party is usually considered liberal.
Liberalism—both as a political current and an intellectual tradition—is mostly a modern phenomenon that started in the 17th century, although some liberal philosophical ideas had precursors in classical antiquity and in Imperial China. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius praised, “the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed”. Scholars have also recognised a number of principles familiar to contemporary liberals in the works of several Sophists and in the Funeral Oration by Pericles. Liberal philosophy symbolises an extensive intellectual tradition that has examined and popularised some of the most important and controversial principles of the modern world. Its immense scholarly and academic output has been characterised as containing “richness and diversity”, but that diversity often has meant that liberalism comes in different formulations and presents a challenge to anyone looking for a clear definition.
Though all liberal doctrines possess a common heritage, scholars frequently assume that those doctrines contain “separate and often contradictory streams of thought”. The objectives of liberal theorists and philosophers have differed across various times, cultures and continents. The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous adjectives that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the very term “liberalism”, including classical, egalitarian, economic, social, welfare state, ethical, humanist, deontological, perfectionist, democratic and institutional, to name a few. Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions. At its very root, liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society.
Political philosopher John Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought as being individualist, egalitarian, meliorist and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism, the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals, the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalises local cultural differences. The meliorist element has been the subject of much controversy, defended by thinkers such as Immanuel Kant who believed in human progress while suffering criticism by thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who instead believed that human attempts to improve themselves through social cooperation would fail. Describing the liberal temperament, Gray claimed that it “has been inspired by scepticism and by a fideistic certainty of divine revelation […] it has exalted the power of reason even as, in other contexts, it has sought to humble reason’s claims”.
The liberal philosophical tradition has searched for validation and justification through several intellectual projects. The moral and political suppositions of liberalism have been based on traditions such as natural rights and utilitarian theory, although sometimes liberals even requested support from scientific and religious circles. Through all these strands and traditions, scholars have identified the following major common facets of liberal thought: believing in equality and individual liberty, supporting private property and individual rights, supporting the idea of limited constitutional government, and recognising the importance of related values such as pluralism, toleration, autonomy, bodily integrity and consent.
Classical and modern
See also: John Locke
Enlightenment philosophers are given credit for shaping liberal ideas. These ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinct ideology by the English philosopher John Locke, generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism. Thomas Hobbes attempted to determine the purpose and the justification of governing authority in a post-civil war England. Employing the idea of a state of nature—a hypothetical war-like scenario prior to the state—he constructed the idea of a social contract that individuals enter into to guarantee their security and in so doing form the State, concluding that only an absolute sovereign would be fully able to sustain such a peace. Hobbes had developed the concept of the social contract, according to which individuals in the anarchic and brutal state of nature came together and voluntarily ceded some of their individual rights to an established state authority, which would create laws to regulate social interactions. Whereas Hobbes advocated a strong monarchical authority (the Leviathan), Locke developed the then radical notion that government acquires consent from the governed which has to be constantly present for the government to remain legitimate. While adopting Hobbes’s idea of a state of nature and social contract, Locke nevertheless argued that when the monarch becomes a tyrant, it constituted a violation of the social contract, which bestows life, liberty and property as a natural right. He concluded that the people have a right to overthrow a tyrant. By placing life, liberty and property as the supreme value of law and authority, Locke formulated the basis of liberalism based on social contract theory. To these early enlightenment thinkers, securing the most essential amenities of life—liberty and private property among them—required the formation of a “sovereign” authority with universal jurisdiction.
His influential Two Treatises (1690), the foundational text of liberal ideology, outlined his major ideas. Once humans moved out of their natural state and formed societies, Locke argued as follows: “Thus that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world”. The stringent insistence that lawful government did not have a supernatural basis was a sharp break with the dominant theories of governance which advocated the divine right of kings and echoed the earlier thought of Aristotle. One political scientist described this new thinking as follows: “In the liberal understanding, there are no citizens within the regime who can claim to rule by natural or supernatural right, without the consent of the governed”.
Locke had other intellectual opponents besides Hobbes. In the First Treatise, Locke aimed his guns first and foremost at one of the doyens of 17th century English conservative philosophy: Robert Filmer. Filmer’s Patriarcha (1680) argued for the divine right of kings by appealing to biblical teaching, claiming that the authority granted to Adam by God gave successors of Adam in the male line of descent a right of dominion over all other humans and creatures in the world. However, Locke disagreed so thoroughly and obsessively with Filmer that the First Treatise is almost a sentence-by-sentence refutation of Patriarcha. Reinforcing his respect for consensus, Locke argued that “conjugal society is made up by a voluntary compact between men and women”. Locke maintained that the grant of dominion in Genesis was not to men over women, as Filmer believed, but to humans over animals. Locke was certainly no feminist by modern standards, but the first major liberal thinker in history accomplished an equally major task on the road to making the world more pluralistic: the integration of women into social theory.
Locke was also influenced by the liberal ideas of Presbyterian politician and poet John Milton, who was a staunch advocate of freedom in all its forms. Milton argued for disestablishment as the only effective way of achieving broad toleration. Rather than force a man’s conscience, government should recognise the persuasive force of the gospel. As assistant to Oliver Cromwell, Milton also took part in drafting a constitution of the independents (Agreement of the People; 1647) that strongly stressed the equality of all humans as a consequence of democratic tendencies. In his Areopagitica, Milton provided one of the first arguments for the importance of freedom of speech—”the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties”. His central argument was that the individual is capable of using reason to distinguish right from wrong. To be able to exercise this right, everyone must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in “a free and open encounter” and this will allow the good arguments to prevail.
In a natural state of affairs, liberals argued, humans were driven by the instincts of survival and self-preservation and the only way to escape from such a dangerous existence was to form a common and supreme power capable of arbitrating between competing human desires. This power could be formed in the framework of a civil society that allows individuals to make a voluntary social contract with the sovereign authority, transferring their natural rights to that authority in return for the protection of life, liberty and property. These early liberals often disagreed about the most appropriate form of government, but they all shared the belief that liberty was natural and that its restriction needed strong justification. Liberals generally believed in limited government, although several liberal philosophers decried government outright, with Thomas Paine writing “government even in its best state is a necessary evil”.
As part of the project to limit the powers of government, various liberal theorists such as James Madison and Montesquieu conceived the notion of separation of powers, a system designed to equally distribute governmental authority among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Governments had to realise, liberals maintained, that poor and improper governance gave the people authority to overthrow the ruling order through any and all possible means, even through outright violence and revolution, if needed. Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, have continued to support limited constitutional government while also advocating for state services and provisions to ensure equal rights. Modern liberals claim that formal or official guarantees of individual rights are irrelevant when individuals lack the material means to benefit from those rights and call for a greater role for government in the administration of economic affairs. Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state. As heirs of the Enlightenment, liberals believed that any given social and political order emanated from human interactions, not from divine will. Many liberals were openly hostile to religious belief itself, but most concentrated their opposition to the union of religious and political authority, arguing that faith could prosper on its own, without official sponsorship or administration by the state.
Beyond identifying a clear role for government in modern society, liberals also have obsessed over the meaning and nature of the most important principle in liberal philosophy, namely liberty. From the 17th century until the 19th century, liberals (from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill) conceptualised liberty as the absence of interference from government and from other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their own unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others. Mill’s On Liberty (1859), one of the classic texts in liberal philosophy, proclaimed, “the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way”. Support for laissez-faire capitalism is often associated with this principle, with Friedrich Hayek arguing in The Road to Serfdom (1944) that reliance on free markets would preclude totalitarian control by the state.
Beginning in the late 19th century, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known as positive liberty to distinguish it from the prior negative version and it was first developed by British philosopher Thomas Hill Green. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by self-interest, emphasising instead the complex circumstances that are involved in the evolution of our moral character. In a very profound step for the future of modern liberalism, he also tasked society and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity and the development of moral character, will and reason and the state to create the conditions that allow for the above, giving the opportunity for genuine choice. Foreshadowing the new liberty as the freedom to act rather than to avoid suffering from the acts of others, Green wrote the following:
If it were ever reasonable to wish that the usage of words had been other than it has been […] one might be inclined to wish that the term ‘freedom’ had been confined to the […] power to do what one wills.
Rather than previous liberal conceptions viewing society as populated by selfish individuals, Green viewed society as an organic whole in which all individuals have a duty to promote the common good. His ideas spread rapidly and were developed by other thinkers such as Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and John A. Hobson. In a few years, this New Liberalism had become the essential social and political programme of the Liberal Party in Britain and it would encircle much of the world in the 20th century. In addition to examining negative and positive liberty, liberals have tried to understand the proper relationship between liberty and democracy. As they struggled to expand suffrage rights, liberals increasingly understood that people left out of the democratic decision-making process were liable to the “tyranny of the majority”, a concept explained in Mill’s On Liberty and in Democracy in America (1835) by Alexis de Tocqueville. As a response, liberals began demanding proper safeguards to thwart majorities in their attempts at suppressing the rights of minorities.
Besides liberty, liberals have developed several other principles important to the construction of their philosophical structure, such as equality, pluralism and toleration. Highlighting the confusion over the first principle, Voltaire commented that “equality is at once the most natural and at times the most chimeral of things”. All forms of liberalism assume in some basic sense that individuals are equal. In maintaining that people are naturally equal, liberals assume that they all possess the same right to liberty. In other words, no one is inherently entitled to enjoy the benefits of liberal society more than anyone else and all people are equal subjects before the law. Beyond this basic conception, liberal theorists diverge on their understanding of equality. American philosopher John Rawls emphasised the need to ensure not only equality under the law, but also the equal distribution of material resources that individuals required to develop their aspirations in life. Libertarian thinker Robert Nozick disagreed with Rawls, championing the former version of Lockean equality instead.
To contribute to the development of liberty, liberals also have promoted concepts like pluralism and toleration. By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterise a stable social order. Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek conformity and homogeneity in the way that people think. In fact, their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that harmonises and minimises conflicting views, but still allows those views to exist and flourish. For liberal philosophy, pluralism leads easily to toleration. Since individuals will hold diverging viewpoints, liberals argue, they ought to uphold and respect the right of one another to disagree. From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected to religious toleration, with Baruch Spinoza condemning “the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars”. Toleration also played a central role in the ideas of Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both thinkers believed that society will contain different conceptions of a good ethical life and that people should be allowed to make their own choices without interference from the state or other individuals.
Liberal economic theory
Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of economics at least until the publication of John Stuart Mill’s Principles in 1848. Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and the distribution of wealth and the policies the state should follow in order to maximise wealth.
Smith wrote that as long as supply, demand, prices and competition were left free of government regulation, the pursuit of material self-interest, rather than altruism, would maximise the wealth of a society through profit-driven production of goods and services. An “invisible hand” directed individuals and firms to work toward the nation’s good as an unintended consequence of efforts to maximise their own gain. This provided a moral justification for the accumulation of wealth, which had previously been viewed by some as sinful.
Smith assumed that workers could be paid as low as was necessary for their survival, which was later transformed by David Ricardo and Thomas Robert Malthus into the “iron law of wages”. His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and international trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialisation in production. He also opposed restrictive trade preferences, state grants of monopolies and employers’ organisations and trade unions. Government should be limited to defence, public works and the administration of justice, financed by taxes based on income. Smith was one of the progenitors of the idea, which was long central to classical liberalism and has resurfaced in the globalisation literature of the later 20th and early 21st centuries, that free trade promotes peace. Smith’s economics was carried into practice in the 19th century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of the Poor Relief Act that had restricted the mobility of labour in 1834 and the end of the rule of the East India Company over India in 1858.
In addition to Smith’s legacy, Say’s law, Malthus theories of population and Ricardo’s iron law of wages became central doctrines of classical economics. Jean Baptiste Say challenged Smith’s labour theory of value, believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasised the critical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However, neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, becoming a major influence on classical liberalism. Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production because population grew geometrically while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were in fact responsible for their own problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.
Several liberals, including Adam Smith and Richard Cobden, argued that the free exchange of goods between nations would lead to world peace. Smith argued that as societies progressed the spoils of war would rise, but the costs of war would rise further, making war difficult and costly for industrialised nations. Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the welfare of the state and benefited a small but concentrated elite minority, summing up British imperialism, which he believed was the result of the economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace must also advocate free markets.
Utilitarianism provided the political justification for the implementation of economic liberalism by British governments, which was to dominate economic policy from the 1830s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform and John Stuart Mill’s later writings on the subject foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a justification for laissez-faire. The central concept of utilitarianism, which was developed by Jeremy Bentham, was that public policy should seek to provide “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher. His philosophy proved to be extremely influential on government policy and led to increased Benthamite attempts at government social control, including Robert Peel’s Metropolitan Police, prison reforms, the workhouses and asylums for the mentally ill.
During the Great Depression, the definitive liberal response to it was given by the English economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946). Keynes had been “brought up” as a classical liberal, but especially after World War I became increasingly a welfare or social liberal. A prolific writer, among many other works, he had begun a theoretical work examining the relationship between unemployment, money and prices back in the 1920s. Keynes was deeply critical of the British government’s austerity measures during the Great Depression. He believed that budget deficits were a good thing, a product of recessions. He wrote: “For Government borrowing of one kind or another is nature’s remedy, so to speak, for preventing business losses from being, in so severe a slump as the present one, so great as to bring production altogether to a standstill”. At the height of the Great Depression in 1933, Keynes published The Means to Prosperity, which contained specific policy recommendations for tackling unemployment in a global recession, chiefly counter cyclical public spending. The Means to Prosperity contains one of the first mentions of the multiplier effect.
Keynes’s magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, was published in 1936 and served as a theoretical justification for the interventionist policies Keynes favoured for tackling a recession. The General Theory challenged the earlier neo-classical economic paradigm, which had held that provided it was unfettered by government interference, the market would naturally establish full employment equilibrium. Classical economists had believed in Say’s law, which simply put states that “supply creates its own demand” and that in a free market workers would always be willing to lower their wages to a level where employers could profitably offer them jobs. An innovation from Keynes was the concept of price stickiness, i.e. the recognition that in reality workers often refuse to lower their wage demands even in cases where a classical economist might argue it is rational for them to do so. Due in part to price stickiness, it was established that the interaction of “aggregate demand” and “aggregate supply” may lead to stable unemployment equilibria and in those cases it is the state and not the market that economies must depend on for their salvation. The book advocated activist economic policy by government to stimulate demand in times of high unemployment, for example by spending on public works. In 1928, he wrote: “Let us be up and doing, using our idle resources to increase our wealth. […] With men and plants unemployed, it is ridiculous to say that we cannot afford these new developments. It is precisely with these plants and these men that we shall afford them”. Where the market failed to properly allocate resources, the government was required to stimulate the economy until private funds could start flowing again—a “prime the pump” kind of strategy designed to boost industrial production.
Liberal feminist theory
Liberal feminism, the dominant tradition in feminist history, is an individualistic form of feminist theory which focuses on women’s ability to maintain their equality through their own actions and choices. Liberal feminists hope to eradicate all barriers to gender equality, claiming that the continued existence of such barriers eviscerates the individual rights and freedoms ostensibly guaranteed by a liberal social order. They argue that society holds the false belief that women are by nature less intellectually and physically capable than men; thus it tends to discriminate against women in the academy, the forum and the marketplace. Liberal feminists believe that “female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints that blocks women’s entrance to and success in the so-called public world”. They strive for sexual equality via political and legal reform.
British philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) is widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism, with A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) expanding the boundaries of liberalism to include women in the political structure of liberal society. In her writings such as A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft commented on society’s view of the woman and encouraged women to use their voices in making decisions separate from decisions previously made for them. Wollstonecraft “denied that women are, by nature, more pleasure seeking and pleasure giving than men. She reasoned that if they were confined to the same cages that trap women, men would develop the same flawed characters. What Wollstonecraft most wanted for women was personhood”.
John Stuart Mill was also an early proponent of feminism. In his article The Subjection of Women (1861, published 1869), Mill attempted to prove that the legal subjugation of women is wrong and that it should give way to perfect equality. He believed that both sexes should have equal rights under the law and that “until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely”. Mill frequently spoke of this imbalance and wondered if women were able to feel the same “genuine unselfishness” that men did in providing for their families. This unselfishness Mill advocated is the one “that motivates people to take into account the good of society as well as the good of the individual person or small family unit”. Similar to Mary Wollstonecraft, Mill compared sexual inequality to slavery, arguing that their husbands are often just as abusive as masters and that a human being controls nearly every aspect of life for another human being. In his book The Subjection of Women, Mill argues that three major parts of women’s lives are hindering them: society and gender construction, education and marriage.
Equity feminism is a form of liberal feminism discussed since the 1980s, specifically a kind of classically liberal or libertarian feminism. Steven Pinker, an evolutionary psychologist, defines equity feminism as “a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology”. Barry Kuhle asserts that equity feminism is compatible with evolutionary psychology in contrast to gender feminism.
Jean Charles Léonard Simonde de Sismondi’s Nouveaux principes d’économie politique, ou de la richesse dans ses rapports avec la population (1819) represents the first comprehensive liberal critique of early capitalism and laissez-faire economics, and his writings, which were studied by John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx among many others, had a profound influence on both liberal and socialist responses to the failures and contradictions of industrial society. By the end of the 19th century, the principles of classical liberalism were being increasingly challenged by downturns in economic growth, a growing perception of the evils of poverty, unemployment and relative deprivation present within modern industrial cities as well as the agitation of organised labour. The ideal of the self-made individual, who through hard work and talent could make his or her place in the world, seemed increasingly implausible. A major political reaction against the changes introduced by industrialisation and laissez-faire capitalism came from conservatives concerned about social balance, although socialism later became a more important force for change and reform. Some Victorian writers, including Charles Dickens, Thomas Carlyle and Matthew Arnold, became early influential critics of social injustice.
New liberals began to adapt the old language of liberalism to confront these difficult circumstances, which they believed could only be resolved through a broader and more interventionist conception of the state. An equal right to liberty could not be established merely by ensuring that individuals did not physically interfere with each other, or merely by having laws that were impartially formulated and applied. More positive and proactive measures were required to ensure that every individual would have an equal opportunity of success.
His definition of liberty, influenced by Joseph Priestley and Josiah Warren, was that the individual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others. However, although Mill’s initial economic philosophy supported free markets and argued that progressive taxation penalised those who worked harder, he later altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defence of a socialist outlook and defending some socialist causes, including the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favour of a co-operative wage system.
Another early liberal convert to greater government intervention was Thomas Hill Green. Seeing the effects of alcohol, he believed that the state should foster and protect the social, political and economic environments in which individuals will have the best chance of acting according to their consciences. The state should intervene only where there is a clear, proven and strong tendency of a liberty to enslave the individual. Green regarded the national state as legitimate only to the extent that it upholds a system of rights and obligations that is most likely to foster individual self-realisation.
The New Liberalism or social liberalism movement emerged about 1900 in Britain. The New Liberals, which included intellectuals like L. T. Hobhouse and John A. Hobson, saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favorable social and economic circumstances. In their view, the poverty, squalor and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish. New Liberals believed that these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong, welfare-oriented and interventionist state. It supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods.
Principles that can be described as liberal socialist have been based upon or developed by the following philosophers: John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe. Other important liberal socialist figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and R. H. Tawney. Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies. A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian “legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow”. This pact would recognize self-ownership and the non-aggression principle (NAP), although methods of enforcement vary.
Criticism and support
Liberalism has drawn both criticism and support in its history from various ideological groups. Less friendly to the goals of liberalism has been conservatism. Edmund Burke, considered by some to be the first major proponent of modern conservative thought, offered a blistering critique of the French Revolution by assailing the liberal pretensions to the power of rationality and to the natural equality of all humans.
Some confusion remains about the relationship between social liberalism and socialism, despite the fact that many variants of socialism distinguish themselves markedly from liberalism by opposing capitalism, hierarchy and private property. Socialism formed as a group of related yet divergent ideologies in the 19th century such as Christian socialism, communism (with the writings of Karl Marx) and social anarchism (with the writings of Mikhail Bakunin), the latter two influenced by the Paris Commune. These ideologies—as with liberalism and conservatism—fractured into several major and minor movements in the following decades. Marx rejected the foundational aspects of liberal theory, hoping to destroy both the state and the liberal distinction between society and the individual while fusing the two into a collective whole designed to overthrow the developing capitalist order of the 19th century. Today, socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on all continents leading national governments in many countries.
Vladimir Lenin stated that—in contrast with Marxism—liberal science defends wage slavery. However, some proponents of liberalism like George Henry Evans, Silvio Gesell and Thomas Paine were critics of wage slavery. One of the most outspoken critics of liberalism was the Roman Catholic Church, which resulted in lengthy power struggles between national governments and the Church. In the same vein, conservatives have also attacked what they perceive to be the reckless liberal pursuit of progress and material gains, arguing that such preoccupations undermine traditional social values rooted in community and continuity. However, a few variations of conservatism, like liberal conservatism, expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including “small government and thriving capitalism”.
Social democracy, an ideology advocating progressive modification of capitalism, emerged in the 20th century and was influenced by socialism. Broadly defined as a project that aims to correct through government reformism what it regards as the intrinsic defects of capitalism by reducing inequalities, social democracy was also not against the state. Several commentators have noted strong similarities between social liberalism and social democracy, with one political scientist even calling American liberalism “bootleg social democracy” due to the absence of a significant social democratic tradition in the United States that liberals have tried to rectify. Another movement associated with modern democracy, Christian democracy, hopes to spread Catholic social ideas and has gained a large following in some European nations. The early roots of Christian democracy developed as a reaction against the industrialisation and urbanisation associated with laissez-faire liberalism in the 19th century. Despite these complex relationships, some scholars have argued that liberalism actually “rejects ideological thinking” altogether, largely because such thinking could lead to unrealistic expectations for human society.
Fascists accuse liberalism of materialism and a lack of spiritual values. In particular, fascism opposes liberalism for its materialism, rationalism, individualism and utilitarianism. Fascists believe that the liberal emphasis on individual freedom produces national divisiveness, but many fascists agree with liberals in their support of private property rights and a market economy.
Scholars have praised the influence of liberal internationalism, claiming that the rise of globalisation “constitutes a triumph of the liberal vision that first appeared in the eighteenth century” while also writing that liberalism is “the only comprehensive and hopeful vision of world affairs”.
According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, as reported in the Financial Times, “liberalism has become obsolete”. He claims that the vast majority of people in the world oppose multiculturalism, immigration, and rights for people who are LBGT.
- “liberalism In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice.” Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Third edition 2009, ISBN978-0-19-920516-5.
- “political rationalism, hostility to autocracy, cultural distaste for conservatism and for tradition in general, tolerance, and […] individualism”. John Dunn. Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future (1993). Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-43755-4.
- “With a nod to Robert Trivers‘ definition of altruistic behaviour” (Trivers 1971, p. 35), Satoshi Kanazawa defines liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) as “the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others” (Kanazawa 2010, p. 38).
- “The Liberal Agenda for the 21st Century”. Archived from the original on 7 February 2011. Retrieved 20 March 2015.
- Nader Hashemi (2009). Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy: Toward a Democratic Theory for Muslim Societies. Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-971751-4.
Liberal democracy requires a form of secularism to sustain itself
- Kathleen G. Donohue (19 December 2003). Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Idea of the Consumer (New Studies in American Intellectual and Cultural History). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN978-0-8018-7426-0. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
Three of them – freedom from fear, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion – have long been fundamental to liberalism.
- “The Economist, Volume 341, Issues 7995–7997”. The Economist. 1996. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
For all three share a belief in the liberal society as defined above: a society that provides constitutional government (rule by law, not by men) and freedom of religion, thought, expression and economic interaction; a society in which […]
- Sehldon S. Wolin (2004). Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-11977-9. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
The most frequently cited rights included freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, property, and procedural rights
- Edwin Brown Firmage; Bernard G. Weiss; John Woodland Welch (1990). Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives. Eisenbrauns. ISBN978-0-931464-39-3. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
There is no need to expound the foundations and principles of modern liberalism, which emphasises the values of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion
- Lalor, John Joseph (1883). Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States. Nabu Press. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
- Adams, Sean; Morioka, Noreen; Stone, Terry Lee (2006). Color Design Workbook: A Real World Guide to Using Color in Graphic Design. Gloucester, Mass.: Rockport Publishers. p. 86. ISBN159253192X. OCLC60393965.
- Kumar, Rohit Vishal; Joshi, Radhika (October–December 2006). “Colour, Colour Everywhere: In Marketing Too”. SCMS Journal of Indian Management. 3 (4): 40–46. ISSN0973-3167.
- Cassel-Picot, Muriel “The Liberal Democrats and the Green Cause: From Yellow to Green” in Leydier, Gilles and Martin, Alexia (2013) Environmental Issues in Political Discourse in Britain and Ireland. Cambridge Scolars Publishing. p.105. ISBN9781443852838
- Gould, p. 3.
- “All mankind […] being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions”, John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
- Kirchner, p. 3.
- Steven Pincus (2009). 1688: The First Modern Revolution. Yale University Press. ISBN978-0-300-15605-8. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
- Milan Zafirovski (2007). Liberal Modernity and Its Adversaries: Freedom, Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism in the 21st Century. Brill. p. 237. ISBN978-9004160521.
- Eddy, Matthew Daniel (2017). “The Politics of Cognition: Liberalism and the Evolutionary Origins of Victorian Education”. British Journal for the History of Science. 50 (4): 677–699. doi:10.1017/S0007087417000863. PMID29019300.
- Conway, Martin (2014). “The Limits of an Anti-liberal Europe”. In Gosewinkel, Dieter (ed.). Anti-liberal Europe: A Neglected Story of Europeanization. Berghahn Books. p. 184. ISBN9781782384267.
- “Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans” by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.(1956) from: The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962). “Liberalism in the U.S. usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any other country, save possibly Britain.”
- Worell, p. 470.
- Gross, p. 5.
- Kirchner, pp. 2–3.
- Colton and Palmer, p. 479.
- Emil J. Kirchner, Liberal Parties in Western Europe, “Liberal parties were among the first political parties to form, and their long-serving and influential records, as participants in parliaments and governments, raise important questions […]”, Cambridge University Press, 1988, ISBN978-0-521-32394-9.
- “Liberalism”, Encyclopædia Britannica.
- Rothbard, The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism.
- Puddington, p. 142. “After a dozen years of centre-left Liberal Party rule, the Conservative Party emerged from the 2006 parliamentary elections with a plurality and established a fragile minority government.”
- Grigsby, pp. 106–07. [Talking about the Democratic Party] “Its liberalism is for the most part the later version of liberalism – modern liberalism.”
- Arnold, p. 3. “Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States.”
- Bevir, Mark (2010). Encyclopedia of Political Theory: A–E, Volume 1. SAGE Publications. p. 164. ISBN978-1412958653. Retrieved 19 May 2017.
- Fung, Edmund S. K. (2010). The Intellectual Foundations of Chinese Modernity: Cultural and Political Thought in the Republican Era. Cambridge University Press. p. 130. ISBN978-1139488235. Retrieved 16 May 2017.
- Antoninus, p. 3.
- Young 2002, pp. 25–26.
- Young 2002, p. 24.
- Young 2002, p. 25.
- Gray, p. xii.
- Wolfe, pp. 33–36.
- Young 2002, p. 45.
- Delaney, p. 18.
- Godwin et al., p. 12.
- Copleston, pp. 39–41.
- Young 2002, pp. 30–31
- Locke, p. 170.
- Forster, p. 219.
- Zvesper, p. 93.
- Copleston, p. 33.
- Kerber, p. 189.
- Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 29 (“It took John Locke to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the realm of religion.”)
- Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 29
- McGrath, Alister. 1998. Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 214–15.
- Bornkamm, Heinrich (1962), “Toleranz. In der Geschichte des Christentums”, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (in German), 3. Auflage, Band VI, col. 942
- Hunter, William Bridges. A Milton Encyclopedia, Volume 8 (East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1980). pp. 71, 72. ISBN0-8387-1841-8.
- Wertenbruch, W (1960), “Menschenrechte”, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (in German), Tübingen, DE, 3. Auflage, Band IV, col. 869
- Young 2002, p. 30.
- Young 2002, p. 31.
- Young 2002, p. 32.
- Young 2002, pp. 32–33.
- Gould, p. 4.
- Young 2002, p. 33.
- Wolfe, p. 74.
- Vincent, pp. 29–30
- Adams, pp. 54–55.
- Wempe, p. 123.
- Adams, p. 55.
- Adams, p. 58.
- Young 2002, p. 36.
- Wolfe, p. 63.
- Young 2002, p. 39.
- Young 2002, pp. 39–40.
- Young 2002, p. 40.
- Young 2002, pp. 42–43.
- Young 2002, p. 43.
- Young 2002, p. 44.
- Mills, pp. 63, 68
- Mills, p. 64
- The Wealth of Nations, Strahan and Cadell, 1778
- Mills, p. 65
- Mills, p. 66
- Mills, p. 67
- Mills, p. 68
- See, e.g., Donald Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace, Oxford University Press, 2006, chapter 1.
- Mills, p. 69
- Mills, p. 76
- Mills, pp. 71–72
- Mills, p. 72.
- Erik Gartzke, “Economic Freedom and Peace,” in Economic Freedom of the World: 2005 Annual Report (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2005).
- Michael Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism(New York: Norton, 1997), p. 237 (ISBN0-393-96947-9).
- Richardson, p. 32
- See studies of Keynes by, e.g., Roy Harrod, Robert Skidelsky, Donald Moggridge, and Donald Markwell.
- Pressman, Steven (1999). Fifty Great Economists. London: London: Routledge. pp. 96–100. ISBN978-0-415-13481-1.
- Cassidy, John (10 October 2011). “The Demand Doctor”. The New Yorker.
- Skidelsky, Robert (2003). John Maynard Keynes: 1883–1946: Economist, Philosopher, Statesman. Pan MacMillan Ltd. pp. 494–500, 504, 509–510. ISBN978-0-330-488679.
- Keith Tribe, Economic careers: economics and economists in Britain, 1930–1970 (1997), p. 61.
- Colton and Palmer, p. 808.
- Jensen, p. 2.
- Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction. Oxon, United Kingdom: Unwin Human Ltd. Chapter 1
- Falco, pp. 47–48.
- John Stuart Mill: critical assessments, Volume 4, By John Cunningham Wood
- Mill, J.S. (1869) The Subjection of Women, Chapter 1
- Mill, John Stuart (1869). The Subjection of Women (1869 first ed.). London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer. Retrieved 10 December 2012.
- Brink, David (9 October 2007). “Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy”. Stanford University. Retrieved 1 October 2016.
- Black, Naomi (1989). Social Feminism. Cornell University Press.
- Halfmann, Jost (1989). “3. Social Change and Political Mobilization in West Germany”. In Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.). Industry and Politics in West Germany: Toward the Third Republic. p. 79. ISBN978-0801495953.
Equity-feminism differs from equality-feminism
- “Liberal Feminism”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 18 October 2007. Retrieved 24 February 2016. (revised 30 September 2013)
- Pinker, Steven (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Viking. p. 341. ISBN0670031518.
- Kuhle, Barry X. (2011). “Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism”. Evolutionary Psychology. Archived from the original on 16 January 2012.
- Stewart, Ross E. (1984). “Sismondi’s Forgotten Ethical Critique of Early Capitalism”. Journal of Business Ethics. 3 (3): 227–234. doi:10.1007/BF00382924.
- Spiegel, Henry William (1991). The Growth of Economic Thought. Duke University Press. pp. 302–303.
- Stedman Jones, Gareth (2006). “Saint-Simon and the Liberal origins of the Socialist critique of Political Economy”. In Aprile, Sylvie; Bensimon, Fabrice (eds.). La France et l’Angleterre au XIXe siècle. Échanges, représentations, comparaisons. Créaphis. pp. 21–47.
- Richardson, pp. 36–37.
- Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony (1999). Contemporary political ideologies. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN9780826451736.
- Mill, John Stuart On Liberty Penguin Classics, 2006 ISBN978-0-14-144147-4pp. 90–91.
- Mill, John Stuart On Liberty Penguin Classics, 2006 ISBN978-0-14-144147-4pp. 10–11.
- John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), “The Contest in America”. Harper’s New Monthly Magazine. Volume 24. Issue 143. pp. 683–684. Harper & Bros. New York. April 1862. Cornell.edu.
- IREF | Pour la liberte economique et la concurrence fiscale (PDF) Archived 27 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine
- Mill, John Stuart; Bentham, Jeremy (2004). Ryan, Alan (ed.). Utilitarianism and other essays. London: Penguin Books. p. 11. ISBN978-0-14-043272-5.
- Nicholson, P. P., “T. H. Green and State Action: Liquor Legislation”, History of Political Thought, 6 (1985), 517–50. Reprinted in A. Vincent, ed., The Philosophy of T. H. Green (Aldershot: Gower, 1986), pp. 76–103
- Michael Freeden, The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform (Oxford UP, 1978).
- Adams, Ian (2001). Political Ideology Today (Politics Today). Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN978-0719060205.
- The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, p. 599
- Stanislao G. Pugliese. Carlo Rosselli: socialist heretic and antifascist exile. Harvard University Press, 1999. p. 99.
- Noel W. Thompson. Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884–2005. 2nd edition. Oxon, England; New York, New York: Routledge, 2006. pp. 60–61.
- Nadia Urbinati. J.S. Mill’s political thought: a bicentennial reassessment. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007 p. 101.
- Steve Bastow, James Martin. Third way discourse: European ideologies in the twentieth century. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: Edinburgh University Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 72.
- Raico, Ralph (2004) Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th centuryEcole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie AppliqueeArchived 10 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine, Unité associée au CNRS
- Molinari, Gustave de (1849) The Production of SecurityArchived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine (trans. J. Huston McCulloch). Retrieved 15 July 2006.
- “A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker.” Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987, ISBN978-0-631-17944-3, p. 290
- Morris, Andrew (2008). “Anarcho-Capitalism”. In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 13–14. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n8. ISBN978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN2008009151. OCLC750831024.
- Edward Stringham, Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice,p. 51.
- “Review of Kosanke’s Instead of Politics – Don Stacy” Libertarian Papers VOL. 3, ART. NO. 3 (2011)
- Rothbard, Murray. For A New Liberty. 12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
- Steven Pincus (2009). 1688: The First Modern Revolution. Yale University Press. ISBN978-0-300-15605-8. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
- Roberts, p. 701.
- Milan Zafirovski (2007). Liberal Modernity and Its Adversaries: Freedom, Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism in the 21st Century. Brill. pp. 237–38. ISBN978-90-04-16052-1.
- German songs like Die Gedanken sind frei (Thoughts Are Free) can be dated even centuries before that.
- Jon Meacham (2014). Thomas Jefferson: President and Philosopher. Random House. p. 131. ISBN9780385387514.
- Colton and Palmer, pp. 428–29.
- Lyons, p. 94.
- Lyons, pp. 98–102.
- Turner, p. 86
- Ardao, Arturo (1963). “Assimilation and Transformation of Positivism in Latin America”(PDF). Journal of the History of Ideas. 24 (4): 515–522. doi:10.2307/2707981. JSTOR2707981. Archived from the original on 12 February 2015.
- Don H. Doyle, The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War (2014)
- Abdelmoula, Ezzeddine (2015). Al Jazeera and Democratization: The Rise of the Arab Public Sphere. Routledge. pp. 50–52. ISBN978-1317518471. Retrieved 7 May 2017.
- Roderic. H. Davison, Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History, 1774–1923 – The Impact of West, Texas 1990, pp. 115-116.
- Lindgren, Allana; Ross, Stephen (2015). The Modernist World. Routledge. ISBN978-1317696162. Retrieved 6 May 2017.
- Kurzman, Charles (1998). Liberal Islam: A Source Book. Oxford University Press. p. 10. ISBN978-0195116229. Retrieved 25 May 2017.
- Moaddel, Mansoor (2005). Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism: Episode and Discourse. University of Chicago Press. p. 4. ISBN978-0226533339.
- Lapidus, Ira Marvin (2002). A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press. p. 496. ISBN978-0521779333.
- Lorentz, John H. (2010). The A to Z of Iran. Scarecrow Press. p. 224. ISBN978-1461731917. Retrieved 9 May 2017.
- Hanssen, Jens; Weiss, Max (2016). Arabic Thought beyond the Liberal Age: Towards an Intellectual History of the Nahda. Cambridge University Press. p. 299. ISBN978-1107136335. Retrieved 10 May 2017.
- Alterman, p. 32.
- Pressman, Steven (1999). Fifty Great Economists. London: London: routledge. pp. 96–100. ISBN978-0-415-13481-1.
- Heywood, pp. 218–26.
- James Risen (16 April 2000). “Secrets of History: The C.I.A. in Iran”. The New York Times. Retrieved 3 November 2006.
- Clandestine Service History: Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran (March 1954). p. iii.
- Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization. I.B.Tauris. 2007. pp. 775 of 1082. ISBN9781845113476.
- Bryne, Malcolm (18 August 2013). “CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran’s Coup”. Foreign Policy.
- The CIA’s history of the 1953 coup in Iran is made up of the following documents: a historian’s note, a summary introduction, a lengthy narrative account written by Dr. Donald N. Wilber and as appendices five planning documents he attached. Published on 18 June 2000 under the title “The C.I.A. in Iran” by The New York Times.
- Mackenzie and Weisbrot, p. 178.
- Mackenzie and Weisbrot, p. 5.
- Colomer, p. 62.
- Larry Diamond (2008). The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. Henry Holt. p. 7. ISBN978-0-8050-7869-5.
- “Freedom in the World 2016”. Freedom House. 27 January 2016.
- Grigsby, p. 108.
- Grigsby, pp. 119–22.
- Koerner, pp. 9–12.
- Selsam, Howard; Martel, Harry (1963). Reader in Marxist Philosophy. International Publishers. p. 37. ISBN978-0717801671. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
- Lenin, Vladimir (2008). On Culture and Cultural Revolution. Wildside Press LLC. p. 34. ISBN978-1434463524. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
- Social Security Online History Pages
- Rodriguez, Junius P. (2007). Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia, Volumen 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 500. ISBN9781851095445. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
- Grew, Raymond (1997). “Liberty and the Catholic Church in 19th century Europe”. In Helmstadter, Richard (ed.). Freedom and Religion in the 19th Century. Stanford University Press. p. 201. ISBN978-0-8047-3087-7.
- Koerner, p. 14.
- Lightfoot, p. 17.
- Susser, p. 110.
- Riff, pp. 34–36.
- Riff, p. 34.
- Wolfe, p. 116.
- Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, Margaret Jacob, James R. Jacob. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society – From 1600, Volume 2. 9th ed. Boston, Massaschussetts: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009 pp. 760.
- Sternhell, Zeev, Mario Sznajder and Maia Ashéri. The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994) 7.
- Venturelli, p. 247.
- Tiounine, Margot; Hannen, Tom, eds. (27 June 2019). “Liberalism ‘has outlived its purpose’ — President Putin speaks exclusively to the Financial Times”. Financial Times. Retrieved 23 August 2019.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia