Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Communism

2010-02-22T15:57:39Z

Wikipedianprotester:

{{Communism sidebar |expanded=all}}
{{sprotected2}}{{pp-move-indef}}
'''Communism''' is a [[social structure]] in which [[Classless society|classes are abolished]] and [[property]] is commonly controlled, as well as a [[political philosophy]] and [[social movement]] that advocates and aims to create such a society.<ref name="columbia">{{Cite encyclopedia|title=[http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/communism.aspx Communism]|encyclopedia = Columbia Encyclopedia| date = 2008|accessdate = 29 November 2009}}</ref> [[Karl Marx]], the father of communist thought, posited that communism would be the final stage in [[society]], which would be achieved through a [[proletarian revolution]] and only possible after a [[socialist]] stage develops the productive forces, leading to a superabundance of [[goods and services]].<ref name="KS">{{cite book |last=Schaff |first=Kory |title=Philosophy and the problems of work: a reader |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |location=Lanham, Md |year=2001 |pages=[http://books.google.com/books?id=mdLh5EMehwgC&pg=PA224&dq=isbn=0742507955&source=gbs_search_r&cad=0_1&sig=ACfU3U2S6uiRNCig9mq_bY4yKB7877tY4A 224] |isbn=0-7425-0795-5}}</ref><ref name="WA">{{cite book |last=Walicki |first=Andrzej |title=Marxism and the leap to the kingdom of freedom: the rise and fall of the Communist utopia |publisher=Stanford University Press |location=Stanford, Calif |year=1995 |isbn=0-8047-2384-2 |page=95}}</ref>

"[[Pure communism]]" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, [[Stateless society|stateless]] and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made [[direct democracy|democratically]], allowing every member of society to participate in the [[decision making|decision-making process]] in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various [[communist states]] which were [[authoritarian]] governments that had ownership of all the [[means of production]] and [[Planned economy|centrally planned economies]]. Most communist governments based their ideology on [[Marxism-Leninism]].

As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of [[socialism]]; a broad group of economic and [[political philosophy|political philosophies]] that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of
theorists of the [[Industrial Revolution]] and the [[French Revolution]].<ref>"Socialism." Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. [[Columbia University Press]]. 03 Feb. 2008.<reference.com http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/socialis>.</ref> Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the [[criticism of capitalism|problems]] with the [[capitalism|capitalist]] [[market economy]] and the legacy of [[imperialism]] and [[nationalism]].

Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the [[working class]] (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class ([[bourgeoisie]]), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a [[free society]], without class or racial divisions.<ref name="columbia"/> The dominant forms of communism, such as [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]] and [[Trotskyism]] are based on [[Marxism]], as well as others forms of communism (such as [[Luxemburgism]] and [[Council communism]]), but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as [[Christian communism]] and [[Anarchist communism]]) also exist.

Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of [[private ownership]] of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology.

==Terminology==
{{Split section| List of communist ideologies|date=October 2009}}
In the schema of [[historical materialism]], communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In [[Marxist philosophy|Marxist theory]], the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from [[privatism]], to collective ownership.<ref> {{cite web |title=Critique of the Gotha Programme--IV |work=Critique of the Gotha Programme |url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm |accessdate=2009-10-18}}</ref>
In [[political science]], the term "communism" is sometimes used to refer to [[communist state]]s, a [[form of government]] in which the [[Sovereign state|state]] operates under a [[single-party state|one-party system]] and declares allegiance to [[Marxism-Leninism]] or a derivative thereof.

==Marxist schools of communism==
Self-identified communists hold a variety of views, including [[Marxism-Leninism]], [[Trotskyism]], [[council communism]], [[Luxemburgism]], [[anarchist communism]], [[Christian communism]], and various currents of [[left communism]]. However, the offshoots of the [[Marxist-Leninist]] interpretations of [[Marxism]] are the most well-known of these and have been a driving force in [[international relations]] during most of the 20th century.<ref name="columbia">{{cite encyclopedia |title=Communism |url=http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/communism.html |encyclopedia=[[The Columbia Encyclopedia]] |edition=6th |year=2007}}</ref>

===Marxism===
[[File:communist-manifesto.png|thumb|left|[[The Communist Manifesto]].]]

{{Main|Marxism}}

Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers. But whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term [[Reform movement|social reform]], Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to the socialist state.{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}

According to the Marxist argument for communism, the main characteristic of human life in [[Social class|class society]] is [[Marx's theory of alienation|alienation]]; and communism is desirable because it entails the full realization of [[Human Freedom|human freedom]].<ref>Stephen Whitefield. "Communism." ''The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics''. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. [[Oxford University Press]], 2003.</ref> Marx here follows [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of restraints but as action with content.<ref name="mclean">McLean and McMillan, 2003.</ref> According to Marx, Communism's outlook on freedom was based on an agent, obstacle, and goal. The agent is the common/working people; the obstacles are class divisions, economic inequalities, unequal [[Life chances|life-chances]], and [[false consciousness]]; and the goal is the fulfillment of human needs including satisfying work, and fair share of the product.<ref>Ball and Dagger 118</ref><ref>Terence Ball and Richard Dagger. "Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal." [[Pearson Education]], Inc.:2006.</ref> They believed that communism allowed people to do what they want, but also put humans in such conditions and such relations with one another that they would not wish to exploit, or have any need to. Whereas for Hegel the unfolding of this ethical life in history is mainly driven by the realm of ideas, for Marx, communism emerged from material forces, particularly the development of the [[means of production]].<ref name = "mclean"/>

Marxism holds that a process of [[class conflict]] and revolutionary struggle will result in victory for the [[proletariat]] and the establishment of a [[communist society]] in which private ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community. Marx himself wrote little about life under communism, giving only the most general indication as to what constituted a communist society. It is clear that it entails abundance in which there is little limit to the projects that humans may undertake.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}} In the popular slogan that was adopted by the [[Communist Movement|communist movement]], communism was a world in which each gave according to their abilities, and received according to their needs. ''[[The German Ideology]]'' (1845) was one of Marx's few writings to elaborate on the communist future:

<blockquote>"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."<ref>Karl Marx, (1845). ''[[The German Ideology]]'', Marx-Engels Institute, Moscow. ISBN 978-1-57392-258-6. Sources available at [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm The German Ideology] at www.marxists.org.</ref>
</blockquote>

Marx's lasting vision was to add this vision to a theory of how society was moving in a law-governed way toward communism, and, with some tension, a political theory that explained why revolutionary activity was required to bring it about.<ref name="mclean"/>

In the late 19th century, the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully [[Developed country|developed state]], but would pass through a "first phase" in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. The "first phase" would eventually evolve into a "higher phase" in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism.{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}

These later aspects, particularly as developed by [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]], provided the underpinning for the mobilizing features of 20th century Communist parties.

===Marxism-Leninism===
{{Main|Marxism-Leninism}}

Marxism-Leninism is a version of socialism adopted by the Soviet Union and most Communist Parties across the world today. It shaped the Soviet Union and influenced Communist Parties worldwide. It was heralded as a possibility of building communism via a massive program of [[industrialization]] and [[Collectivization in the Soviet Union|collectivization]]. Historically, under the ideology of Marxism-Leninism the rapid development of industry, and above all the victory of the Soviet Union in the Second World War occurred alongside a third of the world being lead by Marxist-Leninist inspired parties. Despite the fall of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries, many communist Parties of the world today still lay claim to uphold the Marxist-Leninist banner. Marxism-Leninism expands on Marxists thoughts by bringing the theories to what Lenin and other Communists considered, the age of capitalist imperialism, and a renewed focus on party building, the development of a [[socialist state]], and democratic centralism as an organizational principle.

Lenin adapted Marx’s urban revolution to Russia’s agricultural conditions, sparking the “revolutionary nationalism of the poor”.<ref>''Faces of Janus'' p. 133.</ref> The pamphlet ''[[What is to be Done? (pamphlet)|What is to be Done?]]'' (1902), proposed that the (urban) [[proletariat]] can successfully achieve revolutionary consciousness only under the leadership of a [[vanguard party]] of [[professional revolutionaries]] — who can achieve aims only with internal [[democratic centralism]] in the party; tactical and ideological policy decisions are agreed via democracy, and every member must support and promote the agreed party policy.

To wit, [[capitalism]] can be overthrown only with [[revolution]] — because attempts to ''reform'' capitalism from within ([[Fabianism]]) and from without ([[democratic socialism]]) will fail because of its inherent contradictions. The purpose of a Leninist revolutionary [[vanguard party]] is the forceful [[deposition (politics)|deposition]] of the incumbent government; assume power (as agent of the proletariat) and establish a [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] government. Moreover, as the government, the vanguard party must [[education|educate]] the proletariat — to dispel the societal [[false consciousness]] of [[religion]] and [[nationalism]] that are culturally instilled by the [[bourgeoisie]] in facilitating [[exploitation]]. The dictatorship of the proletariat is governed with a de-centralized [[direct democracy]] practised via [[soviet (council)|soviets]] (councils) where the workers exercise political power (cf. [[soviet democracy]]); the fifth chapter of ''State & Revolution'', describes it:

<blockquote>
“. . . the dictatorship of the proletariat — i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors. . . . An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich: . . . and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the ''transition'' from capitalism to communism.”<ref>Hill, Christopher ''Lenin and the Russian Revolution'' (1971) Penguin Books:Londonp. 86.</ref>
</blockquote>

The Bolshevik government was hostile to nationalism, especially to [[Russian nationalism]], the “Great Russian chauvinism”, as an obstacle to establishing the proletarian dictatorship.<ref>Harding, Neil (ed.) ''The State in Socialist Society'', second edition (1984) St. Antony's College: Oxford, p. 189.</ref> The revolutionary elements of Leninism — the disciplined vanguard party, a dictatorship of the proletariat, and class war.

====Stalinism====
{{Main|Stalinism}}
"Stalinism" refers to the [[political system]] of the [[Soviet Union]], and the countries within the Soviet [[sphere of influence]], during the leadership of Joseph Stalin. The term usually defines the style of a government rather than an ideology. The ideology was "[[Marxism-Leninism]] theory", reflecting that Stalin himself was not a theoretician, in contrast to [[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], and prided himself on maintaining the legacy of Lenin as a founding father for the Soviet Union and the future Socialist world. Stalinism is an interpretation of their ideas, and a certain political regime claiming to apply those ideas in ways fitting the changing needs of society, as with the transition from "socialism at a snail's pace" in the mid-twenties to the rapid industrialization of the [[Five-Year Plans for the National Economy of the Soviet Union|Five-Year Plan]]s.

The main contributions of Stalin to communist theory were:
* The groundwork for the Soviet policy concerning nationalities, laid in Stalin's 1913 work ''Marxism and the National Question'',<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm "Marxism and the National Question"]</ref> praised by Lenin.
* [[Socialism in One Country]],
* The theory of [[aggravation of class struggle under socialism|aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism]], a theoretical base supporting the repression of political opponents as necessary.

====Trotskyism====
[[File:Trotsky militant.jpg|thumb|right|250px|right|[[Leon Trotsky]] reading ''[[The Militant]]''.]]
{{Main|Trotskyism}}

Trotsky and his supporters organized into the ''[[Left Opposition]]'' and their platform became known as ''[[Trotskyism]]''. Stalin eventually succeeded in gaining control of the Soviet regime and Trotskyist attempts to remove Stalin from power resulted in Trotsky's exile from the Soviet Union in 1929. During Trotsky's exile, world communism fractured into two distinct branches: [[Marxism-Leninism]] and [[Trotskyism]].<ref name="columbia"/> Trotsky later founded the [[Fourth International]], a Trotskyist rival to the [[Comintern]], in 1938.

Trotskyist ideas have continually found a modest echo among [[political movement]]s in some countries in [[Latin America]] and [[Asia]], especially in [[Argentina]], [[Brazil]], [[Bolivia]] and [[Sri Lanka]]. Many Trotskyist organizations are also active in more stable, developed countries in [[North America]] and [[Western Europe]]. Trotsky's politics differed sharply from those of Stalin and Mao, most importantly in declaring the need for an international proletarian revolution (rather than socialism in one country) and unwavering support for a true dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic principles.

However, as a whole, Trotsky's theories and attitudes were never accepted in worldwide mainstream Communist circles after Trotsky's expulsion, either within or outside of the [[Eastern Bloc|Soviet bloc]]. This remained the case even after the [[Secret Speech]] and subsequent events critics claim exposed the fallibility of [[Stalin]].

Some criticize Trotskyism as incapable of using concrete analysis on its theories, rather resorting to phrases and abstract notions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73NB.html |title=On Trotskyism |publisher=Marx2mao.com |date= |accessdate=2009-10-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/32cTrotskyism.html |title=Swedish FRP on anti-Marxist-Leninist dogmas of Trotskyism |publisher=Home.flash.net |date= |accessdate=2009-10-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080201115440/http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/ |title=What's Your Line? |publisher=Web.archive.org |date= |accessdate=2009-10-18}}</ref>

====Maoism====
[[File:5PadriComunisti.svg|thumb|right|200px|This poster shows Mao Zedong as continuing the legacy set by former Communist leaders.<ref>This poster has been jokingly referred to as "The History of Shaving" [http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger/if.html Stefan Landsberger's Chinese Propaganda Poster Pages-Ideological Foundations]</ref>]]
{{Main|Maoism}}

Maoism is the Marxist-Leninist trend of Communism associated with [[Mao Zedong]] and was mostly practiced within the [[People's Republic of China]]. Khrushchev's reforms heightened ideological differences between the [[People's Republic of China]] and the Soviet Union, which became increasingly apparent in the 1960s. As the [[Sino-Soviet Split]] in the [[History of communism|international Communist movement]] turned toward open hostility, China portrayed itself as a leader of the underdeveloped world against the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}

Parties and groups that supported the [[Communist Party of China]] (CPC) in their criticism against the new Soviet leadership proclaimed themselves as 'anti-revisionist' and denounced the CPSU and the parties aligned with it as [[Revisionism (Marxism)|revisionist]] "capitalist-roaders." The Sino-Soviet Split resulted in divisions amongst communist parties around the world. Notably, the [[Party of Labour of Albania]] sided with the People's Republic of China. Effectively, the CPC under Mao's leadership became the rallying forces of a parallel international Communist tendency. The ideology of CPC, Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought (generally referred to as 'Maoism'), was adopted by many of these groups.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}

After Mao's death and his replacement by [[Deng Xiaoping]], the international Maoist movement diverged. One sector accepted the new leadership in China; a second renounced the new leadership and reaffirmed their commitment to Mao's legacy; and a third renounced Maoism altogether and aligned with [[People's Socialist Republic of Albania|Albania]].{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}

====Hoxhaism====
{{main|Hoxhaism}}
Another variant of [[anti-revisionist]] [[Marxism-Leninism]] appeared after the [[Sino-Albanian split|ideological row]] between the [[Communist Party of China]] and the [[Party of Labour of Albania]] in 1978. The Albanians rallied a new separate international tendency. This tendency would demarcate itself by a strict defense of the legacy of Joseph Stalin and fierce criticism of virtually all other Communist groupings as [[Revisionism (Marxism)|revisionism]]. Critical of the United States, Soviet Union, and China, [[Enver Hoxha]] declared the latter two to be [[social-imperialist]] and condemned the [[Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia]] by withdrawing from the [[Warsaw Pact]] in response. Hoxha declared Albania to be the world's only Marxist-Leninist state after 1978. The Albanians were able to win over a large share of the Maoists, mainly in [[Latin America]] such as the [[Popular Liberation Army]], but also had a significant [[Party of Labour of Albania#External following|international following]] in general. This tendency has occasionally been labeled as 'Hoxhaism' after him.

After the fall of the Communist government in Albania, the pro-Albanian parties are grouped around an [[International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle)|international conference]] and the publication 'Unity and Struggle'.

===Titoism===
{{Main|Titoism}}
Elements of Titoism are characterized by policies and practices based on the principle that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country. During Tito’s era, this specifically meant that the communist goal should be pursued independently of (and often in opposition to) the policies of the [[Soviet Union]].

The term was originally meant as a [[pejorative]], and was labeled by Moscow as a heresy during the period of tensions between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia known as the ''[[Informbiro]]'' period from 1948 to 1955.

Unlike the rest of [[Eastern Bloc|East Europe]], which fell under [[Stalin]]'s influence post-World War II, [[SFRY|Yugoslavia]], due to the strong leadership of [[Josip Broz Tito|Marshal Tito]] and the fact that the [[Yugoslav Partisans]] liberated Yugoslavia with only limited help from the [[Red Army]], remained independent from Moscow. It became the only country in the [[Balkans]] to resist pressure from Moscow to join the [[Warsaw Pact]] and remained "socialist, but independent" right up until the collapse of Soviet socialism in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Throughout his time in office, Tito prided himself on Yugoslavia's independence from Russia, with Yugoslavia never accepting full membership of the [[Comecon]] and Tito's open rejection of many aspects of [[Stalinism]] as the most obvious manifestations of this.

===Eurocommunism===
{{Main|Eurocommunism}}
Since the early 1970s, the term [[Eurocommunism]] was used to refer to moderate, reformist Communist parties in western Europe. These parties did not support the Soviet Union and denounced its policies. Such parties were politically active and electorally significant in [[Italy]] ([[Italian Communist Party|PCI]]), [[France]] ([[French Communist Party|PCF]]), and [[Spain]] ([[Communist Party of Spain|PCE]]).{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}

===Council communism===
{{Main|Council communism}}
Council communism is a [[far-left]] movement originating in [[Germany]] and the [[Netherlands]] in the 1920s. Its primary organization was the [[Communist Workers Party of Germany]] (KAPD). Council communism continues today as a theoretical and activist position within both left-wing [[Marxism]] and [[libertarian socialism]].

The central argument of council communism, in contrast to those of [[social democracy]] and [[Leninism|Leninist]] Communism, is that democratic [[workers' councils]] arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural form of working class organisation and governmental power. This view is opposed to both the [[reformist]] and the Leninist [[ideology|ideologies]], with their stress on, respectively, [[parliament]]s and [[New institutionalism|institutional]] government (i.e., by applying social reforms), on the one hand, and [[vanguard party|vanguard parties]] and participative [[democratic centralism]] on the other).

The core principle of council communism is that the [[government]] and the [[economic system|economy]] should be managed by [[workers' councils]] composed of [[delegate]]s elected at workplaces and [[recall election|recallable]] at any moment. As such, council communists oppose [[planned economy|state-run]] [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] "[[State socialism]]"/"[[State capitalism]]". They also oppose the idea of a "revolutionary party", since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a worker's democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers' councils. Council communism (and other types of "[[antiauthoritarianism|anti-authoritarian]] and [[Anti-Leninism|Anti-leninist]] Marxism" such as [[Autonomism]]) are often viewed as being similar to [[Anarchism]] because they criticize Leninist ideologies for being authoritarian and reject the idea of a vanguard party.

===Luxemburgism===
{{Main|Luxemburgism}}
Luxemburgism, based on the writing of [[Rosa Luxemburg]], is an interpretation of [[Marxism]] which, while supporting the [[Russian Revolution (1917)|Russian Revolution]], as Luxemburg did, agrees with her criticisms of the politics of [[Lenin]] and [[Trotsky]]; she did not see their concept of "[[democratic centralism]]" as democracy.

The chief tenets of Luxemburgism are commitment to [[democracy]] and the necessity of the revolution taking place as soon as possible. In this regard, it is similar to [[Council Communism]], but differs in that, for example, Luxemburgists don't reject [[election]]s by principle. It resembles [[anarchism]] in its insistence that only relying on the people themselves as opposed to their leaders can avoid an [[authoritarian]] society, but differs in that it sees the importance of a revolutionary party, and mainly the centrality of the [[working class]] in the revolutionary struggle. It resembles [[Trotskyism]] in its opposition to the [[totalitarianism]] of [[Stalinist]] government while simultaneously avoiding the reformist politics of modern [[Social Democracy]], but differs from Trotskyism in arguing that Lenin and Trotsky also made undemocratic errors.

Luxemburg's idea of democracy, which [[Stanley Aronowitz]] calls "''generalized'' democracy in an unarticulated form", represents Luxemburgism's greatest break with "mainstream communism", since it effectively diminishes the role of the [[Communist Party]], but is in fact very similar to the views of [[Karl Marx]] ("''The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves''"). According to Aronowitz, the vagueness of Luxembourgian democracy is one reason for its initial difficulty in gaining widespread support. However, since the fall of the [[Soviet Union]], Luxemburgism has been seen by some socialist thinkers as a way to avoid the [[totalitarianism]] of Stalinism. Early on, Luxemburg attacked undemocratic tendencies present in the Russian Revolution.

===Juche===
{{Unreferenced section|date=November 2008}}
{{Main|Juche}}
In 1992, [[Juche]] replaced [[Marxism-Leninism]] in the revised North Korean constitution as the official state ideology, this being a response to the [[Sino-Soviet split]]. Juche was originally defined as a creative application of Marxism-Leninism, but after the 1991 collapse of the [[Soviet Union]] (North Korea’s greatest economic benefactor), all reference to Marxism-Leninism was dropped in the revised 1998 constitution. The establishment of the [[Songun]] doctrine in the mid-1990s has formally designated the [[military]], not the [[proletariat]] or [[working class]], as the main revolutionary force in North Korea. All reference to communism had been dropped in the 2009 revised constitution.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSEO253213</ref>

According to Kim Jong-il's ''On the Juche Idea'', the application of Juche in state policy entails the following:
# The people must have independence (''chajusong'') in thought and [[politics]], economic [[self-sufficiency]], and self-reliance in defense.
# Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.
# Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.
# The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

===Prachandapath===
[[File:Prachanda.jpg|thumb|left|[[Prachanda]], giving a speech at the Nepalese city of [[Pokhara]].]]
{{Main|Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)}}
Prachanda Path refers to the ideological line of the [[Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)|Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)]]. This thought doesn't make an ideological break with [[Marxism]], [[Leninism]] and [[Maoism]] but it is an extension of these ideologies totally based on home-ground politics of [[Nepal]]. The doctrine came into existence after it was realized that the ideology of Marxism, Leninism and Maoism couldn't be practiced completely as it was done in the past. And an ideology suitable, based on the ground reality of Nepalese politics was adopted by the party.

After five years of armed struggle, the party realized that none of the proletarian revolutions of the past could be carried out on Nepal’s context. So moving further ahead than Marxism, Leninism and Maoism, the party determined its own ideology, Prachanda Path.

Having analyzed the serious challenges and growing changes in the [[Global Arena|global arena]], the party started moving on its own doctrine. Prachanda Path in essence is a different kind of uprising, which can be described as the fusion of a protracted people’s war strategy which was adopted by [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] in China and the Russian model of armed revolution. Most of the Maoist leaders think that the adoption of Prachanda Path after the second national conference is what nudged the party into moving ahead with a clear vision ahead after five years of ‘people’s war’.

Senior Maoist leader Mohan Vaidya alias Kiran says, ‘Just as Marxism was born in Germany, Leninism in Russia and Maoism in China and Prachanda Path is Nepal’s identity of revolution. Just as Marxism has three facets- philosophy, [[political economy]] and scientific socialism, Prachanda Path is a combination of all three totally in Nepal’s political context.’ Talking about the party’s philosophy, Maoist chairman [[Prachanda]] says, ‘The party considers Prachanda path as an enrichment of Marxism, Leninism and Maoism.’ After the party brought forward its new doctrine, the government was trying to comprehend the new ideology, Prachanda Path.

''see also: [[Nepalese Civil War|'People's Revolution' In Nepal]]''

==Non-Marxist schools==
The dominant forms of communism, such as [[Leninism]], [[Trotskyism]] and [[Maoism]], are based on [[Marxism]], but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as [[Christian communism]] and [[anarchist communism]]) also exist and are growing in importance since the [[History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)#Dissolution of the USSR|fall of the Soviet Union]].

===Anarcho-communism===
{{Main|Anarcho-communism}}

Some of Marx's contemporaries espoused similar ideas, but differed in their views of how to reach to a classless society. Following the split between those associated with Marx and [[Mikhail Bakunin]] at the [[International Workingmen's Association|First International]], the anarchists formed the [[International Workers Association]].<ref>Marshall, Peter. "Demanding the Impossible  — A History of Anarchism" p. 9. Fontana Press, London, 1993 ISBN 978-0-00-686245-1</ref> Anarchists argued that capitalism and the state were inseparable and that one could not be abolished without the other. [[Anarchist communism|Anarchist-communists]] such as [[Peter Kropotkin]] theorized an immediate transition to one society with no classes. [[Anarcho-syndicalism]] became one of the dominant forms of [[List of anarchist organizations|anarchist organization]], arguing that [[Trade union|labor unions]], as opposed to Communist parties, are the organizations that can change society. Consequently, many anarchists have been in opposition to Marxist communism to this day.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}

Anarchist communists propose that the freest form of [[social organisation]] would be a society composed of [[self-governance|self-governing]] [[Commune (socialism)|communes]] with collective use of the [[means of production]], organized by [[direct democracy]], and related to other communes through [[federation]].<ref name="LibCom">[[Isaac Puente|Puente, Isaac]].[http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html "Libertarian Communism"]. ''The Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review''. Issue 6 Orkney 1982.</ref> However, some anarchist communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and favor [[consensus democracy]].<ref>[[David Graeber|Graeber, David]] and Grubacic, Andrej. ''Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century''.</ref>

===Christian communism===
{{Main|Christian communism}}

Christian communism is a form of religious communism centered on Christianity. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the [[Jesus|teachings of Jesus]] Christ urge Christians to support communism as the ideal [[Social structure|social system]]. Christian communists trace the origins of their practice to teachings in the [[New Testament]], such as this one from [[Acts of the Apostles]] at chapter 2 and verses 42, 44, and 45:
<blockquote>'''42''' ''And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship [...]'' '''44''' ''And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;'' '''45''' ''And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.'' ([[Authorized King James Version|King James Version]])</blockquote>

Christian communism can be seen as a radical form of [[Christian socialism]]. Also, due to the fact that many Christian communists have formed independent stateless communes in the past, there is also a link between Christian communism and [[Christian anarchism]]. Christian communists may or may not agree with various parts of [[Marxism]].

Christian communists also share some of the political goals of Marxists, for example replacing capitalism with [[socialism]], which should in turn be followed by communism at a later point in the future. However, Christian communists sometimes disagree with Marxists (and particularly with [[Leninism|Leninists]]) on the way a socialist or communist society should be organized.

==History==
{{Main|History of communism}}

===Early communism===
{{See|Primitive communism|Religious communism}}

Karl Heinrich Marx saw [[primitive communism]] as the original, [[hunter-gatherer]] state of humankind from which it arose. For Marx, only after humanity was capable of producing [[Economic surplus|surplus]], did private property develop.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}

In the [[History of Western philosophy|history of Western thought]], certain elements of the idea of a society based on common ownership of property can be traced back to [[Ancient history|ancient times]] .{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}} Examples include the [[Spartacus]] [[Slave rebellion|slave revolt]] in Rome.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/spartacus.html |title=Historical Background for Spartacus |publisher=Vroma.org |date= |accessdate=2009-10-18}}</ref> The [[5th century|fifth century]] [[Mazdak]] movement in what is now [[Iran]] has been described as "communistic" for challenging the enormous privileges of the noble classes and the clergy, criticizing the institution of private property and for striving for an egalitarian society.<ref>''The Cambridge History of Iran'' Volume 3, [http://web.archive.org/web/20080611075040/http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/mazdak.html The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Period], edited by [[Ehsan Yarshater]], Parts 1 and 2, p1019, [[Cambridge University Press]] (1983)</ref>

At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the inspiration of [[Scripture]].<ref name="britannica">"Communism." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2006. [[Encyclopædia Britannica]] Online.</ref> In the [[Middle Ages|medieval]] [[Christian Church|Christian church]], for example, some [[Monasticism|monastic]] communities and [[religious order]]s shared their land and other property (see [[religious communism]] and [[Christian communism]]). These groups often believed that concern with [[private property]] was a distraction from religious service to God and neighbor.{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}

Communist thought has also been traced back to the work of [[16th century]] English writer [[Thomas More]]. In his treatise ''[[Utopia (book)|Utopia]]'' (1516), More portrayed a society based on [[common ownership]] of property, whose rulers administered it through the application of reason.{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}} In the 17th century, communist thought arguably surfaced again in England. In 17th century England, a [[Puritan]] [[Religious denomination|religious group]] known as the [[Diggers]] advocated the abolition of private ownership of land.{{Citation needed|date=May 2008}} [[Eduard Bernstein]], in his 1895 ''Cromwell and Communism''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1895/cromwell/ Eduard Bernstein: Cromwell and Communism (1895)]</ref> argued that several groupings in the [[English Civil War]], especially the [[Diggers]] espoused clear communistic, agrarian ideals, and that [[Oliver Cromwell]]'s attitude to these groups was at best ambivalent and often hostile.<ref>Eduard Bernstein, (1895). ''Kommunistische und demokratisch-sozialistische Strömungen während der englischen Revolution'', J.H.W. Dietz, Stuttgart. {{OCLC|36367345}} Sources available at [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1895/cromwell/ Eduard Bernstein: Cromwell and Communism (1895)] at www.marxists.org.</ref>

Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the [[Age of Enlightenment]] of the 18th century, through such thinkers as [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]] in France.{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}} Later, following the upheaval of the [[French Revolution]], communism emerged as a political doctrine.<ref> "Communism" ''A Dictionary of Sociology''. John Scott and [[Gordon Marshall]]. Oxford University Press 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.</ref> [[François-Noël Babeuf|François Noël Babeuf]], in particular, espoused the goals of common ownership of land and total economic and political equality among citizens.{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}

Various social reformers in the early 19th century founded communities based on common ownership. But unlike many previous communist communities, they replaced the religious emphasis with a rational and philanthropic basis.<ref name="britannica"/> Notable among them were [[Robert Owen]], who founded [[New Harmony, Indiana|New Harmony]] in Indiana (1825), and [[Charles Fourier]], whose followers organized other settlements in the United States such as [[Brook Farm]] (1841–47).<ref name="britannica"/> Later in the 19th century, Karl Marx described these social reformers as "[[utopian socialism|utopian socialists]]" to contrast them with his program of "[[scientific socialism]]" (a term coined by [[Friedrich Engels]]). Other writers described by Marx as "utopian socialists" included [[Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon|Saint-Simon]].

In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement of 19th century Europe.{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}} As the [[Industrial Revolution]] advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for the misery of the [[proletariat]]  — a new class of urban factory workers who labored under often-hazardous conditions. Foremost among these critics were the [[List of German-language philosophers|German philosopher]] Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels. In 1848, Marx and Engels offered a new definition of communism and popularized the term in their famous pamphlet ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]''.<ref name="britannica"/> Engels, who lived in [[Manchester]], observed the organization of the [[Chartism|Chartist]] movement (''see [[History of British socialism]]''), while Marx departed from his university comrades to meet the proletariat in France and Germany.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}

===Growth of modern communism===
[[File:Soviet Union, Lenin (55).jpg|thumb|left|[[Vladimir Lenin]], following his return to [[Saint Petersburg|Petrograd]].]]
{{Main|History of Communism}}

In the late 19th century, Russian Marxism developed a distinct character. The first major figure of Russian Marxism was [[Georgi Plekhanov]]. Underlying the work of Plekhanov was the assumption that Russia, less urbanized and industrialized than Western Europe, had many years to go before society would be ready for proletarian revolution to occur, and a transitional period of a bourgeois democratic regime would be required to replace [[Tsar]]ism with a socialist and later communist society. (EB){{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

In Russia, the [[October Revolution|1917 October Revolution]] was the first time any party with an avowedly Marxist orientation, in this case the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Bolshevik Party]], seized [[Political power|state power]]. The assumption of state power by the Bolsheviks generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate [[peasantry]] and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeoisie capitalism.<ref>Marc Edelman, "Late Marx and the Russian road: Marx and the 'Peripheries of Capitalism'" - [[book review]]s. ''Monthly Review'', Dec., 1984. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_v36/ai_3537723 Late Marx and the Russian road: Marx and the "Peripheries of Capitalism." - book reviews Monthly Review Find Articles at BNET] at www.findarticles.com.</ref> Other socialists also believed that a [[October Revolution|Russian revolution]] could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.

The moderate [[Menshevik]]s opposed Lenin's Bolshevik plan for [[Communist revolution|socialist revolution]] before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans "peace, bread, and land" and "All power to the Soviets", slogans which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the [[World War I|First World War]], the peasants' demand for [[land reform]], and popular support for the [[Soviet (council)|Soviets]].{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}

The usage of the terms "communism" and "socialism" shifted after 1917, when the Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a [[single party state|single party]] regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies under [[Leninism]].{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}} The [[Second International]] had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the [[World War I|war]], instead generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the [[Third International]] (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the [[Twenty-one Conditions]], which included [[democratic centralism]], to all European [[Democratic socialism|socialist parties]] willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of the [[French Section of the Workers' International]] (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form the [[French Communist Party|French Section of the Communist International]] (SFIC).{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}} Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] as well as the development of a [[Socialist economics|socialist economy]]. Ultimately, if their program held, there would develop a harmonious classless society, with the [[withering away of the state]].{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}

[[File:Sino-Soviet split 1980.svg|thumb|right|300px|A map of countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist or Maoist definition (in other words, "communist states") in 1980. The map also includes Communist alignment: either to the Soviet Union, China or independent]]
During the [[Russian Civil War]] (1918–1922), the Bolsheviks [[nationalization|nationalized]] all productive property and imposed a policy of ''[[war communism]]'', which put factories and railroads under strict government control, collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of industry. After three years of war and the 1921 [[Kronstadt rebellion]], Lenin declared the [[New Economic Policy]] (NEP) in 1921, which was to give a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until 1928, when [[Joseph Stalin]] achieved party leadership, and the introduction of the first Five Year Plan spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks formed in 1922 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or [[Soviet Union]], from the former [[Russian Empire]].

Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Communist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base; they were made up only of elite [[cadre]]s approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to [[party discipline]].<ref>[[Norman Davies]]. "Communism" ''The Oxford Companion to World War II''. Ed. I. C. B. Dear and [[M. R. D. Foot]]. Oxford University Press, 2001.</ref>

After [[World War II]], Communists consolidated power in [[Eastern Europe]], and in 1949, the [[Communist Party of China]] (CPC) led by [[Mao Zedong]] established the [[People's Republic of China]], which would later follow its own ideological path of Communist development.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}} [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]], [[Vietnam]], [[Laos]], [[Cambodia]], [[Angola]], and [[Mozambique]] were among the other countries in the [[Third World]] that adopted or imposed a pro-Communist government at some point. Although never formally unified as a single political entity, by the early 1980s almost one-third of the world's population lived in [[Communist state]]s, including the former [[Soviet Union]] and [[People's Republic of China]]. By comparison, the [[British Empire]] had ruled up to one-quarter of the world's population at its greatest extent.<ref>{{cite news |last=Hildreth |first=Jeremy |title=The British Empire's Lessons for Our own |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB111870387824258558.html |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |date=2005-06-14 |accessdate=2009-10-18}}</ref>

Communist states such as the Soviet Union and China succeeded in becoming industrial and technological powers, challenging the capitalists' powers in the [[arms race]] and [[space race]] and military conflicts.

===Cold War years===
[[File:Sputnik-stamp-ussr.jpg|right|150px|thumb|USSR postage stamp depicting the [[communist state]] launching the first artificial satellite [[Sputnik 1]].]]

By virtue of the Soviet Union's victory in the [[World War II|Second World War]] in 1945, the [[Red Army|Soviet Army]] had occupied nations in both [[Eastern Europe]] and [[East Asia]]; as a result, communism as a movement spread to many new countries. This expansion of communism both in Europe and Asia gave rise to a few different branches of its own, such as [[Maoism]].{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}

Communism had been vastly strengthened by the winning of many new nations into the sphere of Soviet influence and strength in Eastern Europe. Governments modeled on Soviet Communism took power with Soviet assistance in [[Bulgaria]], [[Czechoslovakia]], [[East Germany]], [[Poland]], [[Hungary]] and [[Romania]]. A Communist government was also created under [[Joseph Tito|Marshal Tito]] in [[Yugoslavia]], but Tito's independent policies led to the expulsion of [[Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]] from the [[Cominform]], which had replaced the [[Comintern]]. [[Titoism]], a new branch in the world communist movement, was labeled ''[[deviationism|deviationist]]''. [[Albania]] also became an independent Communist nation after World War II.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}

By 1950, the [[Communist Party of China|Chinese Communists]] held all of [[Mainland China]], thus controlling the most populous nation in the world. Other areas where rising Communist strength provoked dissension and in some cases led to actual fighting through conventional and [[guerrilla warfare]] include the [[Korean War]], [[Laos]], many nations of the [[Middle East]] and [[Africa]], and notably succeeded in the case of the [[Vietnam War]] against the [[Armed forces|military power]] of the United States and its allies. With varying degrees of success, Communists attempted to unite with [[nationalism|nationalist]] and [[socialism|socialist]] forces against what they saw as [[Western world|Western]] [[imperialism]] in these poor countries.

===Fear of communism===
[[File:Is this tomorrow.jpg|thumb|left|150px|A 1947 [[propaganda]] book published by the Catechetical Guild Educational Society "warning of the dangers" of a Communist takeover.]]
{{Main|Red Scare}}

With the exception of the Soviet Union's, China's and the [[Italian resistance movement]]'s great contribution in [[World War II]], communism was seen as a rival, and a threat to western democracies and capitalism for most of the twentieth century.{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}} This rivalry peaked during the [[Cold War]], as the world's two remaining superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, polarized most of the world into two camps of nations (characterized in the West as "The Free World" vs. "Behind the Iron Curtain"); supported the spread of their economic and political systems (capitalism and democracy vs. communism); strengthened their military power, developed new weapon systems and stockpiled [[nuclear weapon]]s; competed with each other in space exploration; and even fought each other through proxy client nations.

Near the beginning of the Cold War, on February 9, 1950, Senator [[Joseph McCarthy]] from [[Wisconsin]] accused 205 Americans working in the [[United States Department of State|State Department]] of being "card-carrying Communists".<ref>{{cite book |title=Without Precedent |last=Adams |first=John G. |year=1983 |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |location=New York, N.Y. |isbn=0-393-01616-1
|page=285}}</ref> The fear of communism in the U.S. spurred aggressive investigations and the [[red-baiting]], [[blacklist]]ing, jailing and deportation of people suspected of following Communist or other left-wing ideology. Many famous actors and writers were put on a "blacklist" from 1950 to 1954, which meant they would not be hired and would be subject to public disdain.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=The Hollywood Blacklist |last=Georgakas |first=Dan |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of the American Left |publisher=University of Illinois Press |year=1992}}</ref>

===After the collapse of the Soviet Union===
[[File:Sino-Soviet split 2008.svg|thumb|right|300px|A map of countries who declare themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist or Maoist definition (in other words, "communist states") today. The map also includes Communist alignment: either to China or independent]]

In 1985, [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] became leader of the Soviet Union and relaxed central control, in accordance with reform policies of [[glasnost]] (openness) and [[perestroika]] (restructuring). The Soviet Union did not intervene as [[Poland]], [[East Germany]], [[Czechoslovakia]], [[Bulgaria]], [[Romania]], and [[Hungary]] all abandoned Communist rule by 1990. In 1991, the Soviet Union itself dissolved.

By the beginning of the 21st century, states controlled by Communist parties under a single-party system include the [[People's Republic of China]], [[Cuba]], [[Laos]], [[Vietnam]], and informally [[North Korea]]. Communist parties, or their descendant parties, remain politically important in many countries. President [[Dimitris Christofias]] of [[Cyprus]] is a member of the [[Progressive Party of Working People]], but the country is not run under single-party rule. In [[South Africa]], the [[SACP|Communist Party]] is a partner in the [[African National Congress|ANC]]-led government. In [[India]], communists lead the governments of three [[states and territories of India|states]], with a combined population of more than 115 million. In [[Nepal]], communists hold a majority in the [[Nepalese Constituent Assembly|parliament]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11057207&fsrc=nwl |title=Nepal's election The Maoists triumph Economist.com |publisher=Economist.com |date=2008-04-17 |accessdate=2009-10-18}}</ref>

The People's Republic of China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy; and the People's Republic of China, Laos, Vietnam, and, to a far lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. The People's Republic of China runs [[Special Economic Zone]]s dedicated to market-oriented enterprise, free from [[central government]] control. Several other communist states have also attempted to implement market-based reforms, including Vietnam.
[[File:Kerala communist tableaux.jpg|thumb|left|150px|A [[tableau vivant|tableau]] in a communist rally in [[Kerala]], [[India]], of a young farmer and worker.]]

Theories within Marxism as to why communism in Eastern Europe was not achieved after socialist revolutions pointed to such elements as the pressure of external capitalist states, the relative backwardness of the societies in which the revolutions occurred, and the emergence of a bureaucratic stratum or class that arrested or diverted the transition press in its own interests. (Scott and Marshall, 2005) Marxist critics of the Soviet Union, most notably Trotsky, referred to the [[Politics of the Soviet Union|Soviet system]], along with other Communist states, as "[[degenerated workers' state|degenerated]]" or "[[deformed workers' state]]s", arguing that the Soviet system fell far short of Marx's communist ideal and he claimed the [[working class]] was politically dispossessed. The ruling stratum of the Soviet Union was held to be a bureaucratic [[caste]], but not a new [[ruling class]], despite their political control. Anarchists who adhere to [[Participatory economics]] claim that the Soviet Union became dominated by powerful intellectual elites who in a capitalist system crown the proletariat’s labor on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

Non-Marxists, in contrast, have often applied the term to any society ruled by a Communist Party and to any party aspiring to create a society similar to such existing [[Nation state|nation-state]]s. In the [[social sciences]], societies ruled by Communist Parties are distinct for their single party control and their socialist economic bases. While some social and [[List of political scientists|political scientists]] applied the concept of "[[totalitarianism]]" to these societies, others identified possibilities for independent political activity within them,<ref>{{cite journal |author=H. Gordon Skilling |month=April | year=1966 |title=Interest Groups and Communist Politics |journal=World Politics |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=435–451 |doi=10.2307/2009764}}?UNIQ3ab34e171166e61b-HTMLCommentStrip7c7dfbc41ccbeb7000000002</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=[[J. Arch Getty]] |year=1985 |title=Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered: 1933–1938 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-33570-6}}</ref> and stressed their continued evolution up to the point of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe during the late 1980s and early 1990s.{{Citation needed|date=December 2008}}

Today, Marxist revolutionaries are conducting armed insurgencies in [[India]], [[Philippines]], [[Peru]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Iran]], [[Turkey]], and [[Colombia]].

==Criticism==
{{Main|Criticisms of communism|anti-communism}}

A diverse array of writers and political activists have published [[criticisms of communism|criticism of communism]], such as:
* Soviet bloc dissidents [[Lech Wałęsa]], [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] and [[Václav Havel]];
* Social theorists [[Hannah Arendt]], [[Raymond Aron]], [[Ralf Dahrendorf]], [[Seymour Martin Lipset]], and [[Karl August Wittfogel|Karl Wittfogel]];
* Economists [[Ludwig von Mises]], [[Friedrich Hayek]], and [[Milton Friedman]];
* Historians and social scientists [[Robert Conquest]], [[Stéphane Courtois]], [[Richard Pipes]], and [[R. J. Rummel]];
* [[Anti-Stalinist left]]ists [[Ignazio Silone]], [[George Orwell]], [[Saul Alinsky]], [[Richard Wright (author)|Richard Wright]], [[Arthur Koestler]], and [[Bernard-Henri Levy]];
* Russian-born novelist and philosopher [[Ayn Rand]]
* Philosophers [[Leszek Kołakowski]] and [[Karl Popper]].

Part of this criticism is on the policies adopted by one-party states ruled by Communist parties (known as "[[Communist state]]s"). Critics are specially focused on their economic performance compared to market based economies. Their [[human rights]] records are thought to be responsible for the flight of refugees from communist states, and are alleged by some scholars to be responsible for famines, purges and warfare resulting in deaths far in excess of previous empires, capitalist or Axis regimes.<ref>{{cite book |title= [[Red Holocaust (2009 book)|Red Holocaust]] |last= Rosefielde |first= Steven |authorlink= Steven Rosefielde |coauthors= |year= 2009 |publisher= [[Routledge]] |location= |isbn= 978-0-415-77757-5 |page= |pages= |url= |accessdate=}}</ref><ref>[[Daniel Jonah Goldhagen]]. ''Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity.'' [[PublicAffairs]], 2009. ISBN 1586487698 p. 54: "...in the past century communist regimes, led and inspired by the Soviet Union and China, have killed more people than any other regime type."</ref><ref>Benjamin A. Valentino. ''Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century.'' [[Cornell University Press]], 2004. [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LQfeXVU_EvgC&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q=&f=false p.91] ISBN 0801439655</ref>

Some writers, such as Courtois, argue that the actions of Communist states were the inevitable (though sometimes unintentional) result of Marxist principles;<ref>Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panne, Jean-Louis Margolin, [[Andrzej Paczkowski]], [[Stéphane Courtois]], ''[[Black Book of Communism|The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]]'', [[Harvard University Press]], 1999, hardcover, 858 pages, ISBN 978-0-674-07608-2</ref> thus, these authors present the events occurring in those countries, particularly under Stalin and Mao, as an argument against Marxism itself. Some critics were former Marxists, such as Wittfogel, who applied Marx's concept of "[[Oriental despotism]]" to Communist states such as the [[Soviet Union]],<ref>Wittfogel, Karl ''Oriental Despotism'', Vintage, 1981</ref> Silone, Wright and Koestler (among other writers) who contributed essays to the book ''[[The God that Failed]]'' (the title refers not to the [[God|Christian God]] but to Marxism).<ref> Crossman, Richard, ed., ''[[The God That Failed]]''. [[Harper & Brothers|Harper & Bros]], 1949</ref> [[Czesław Miłosz]], author of the influential essay ''[[The Captive Mind]]'', was an example of a sceptic holding a party post, that of [[cultural attaché]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/obituaries/15milosz.html?pagewanted=all Czeslaw Milosz, Poet and Nobelist Who Wrote of Modern Cruelties, Dies at 93], ''[[The New York Times]]'', accessed 3 January 2010.</ref>

There have also been more direct [[criticisms of Marxism]], such as criticisms of the [[labor theory of value]] or [[criticisms of Marxism#Marx's predictions|Marx's predictions]]. Nevertheless, Communist parties outside of the [[Warsaw Pact]], such as the Communist parties in Western Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa, differed greatly.

Economic criticisms of communal and/or government property are described under [[criticisms of socialism]].

==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==Further reading==
* [http://www.marxist.com/rircontents-5.htm Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science By Alan Woods and Ted Grant]
* Forman, James D., "Communism from Marx's Manifesto to 20th century Reality", New York, Watts. 1972. ISBN 978-0-531-02571-0
* [http://www.marxist.com/marxist-books.htm Books on Communism, Socialism and Trotskyism]
* [[François Furet|Furet, Francois]], Furet, Deborah Kan (Translator), "The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century", [[University of Chicago Press]], 2000, ISBN 978-0-226-27341-9
* Daniels, Robert Vincent, "A Documentary History of Communism and the World: From Revolution to Collapse", University Press of [[New England]], 1994, ISBN 978-0-87451-678-4
* [[Karl Marx|Marx, Karl]] and [[Friedrich Engels]], "Communist Manifesto", (Mass Market Paperback - REPRINT), Signet Classics, 1998, ISBN 978-0-451-52710-3
* Dirlik, Arif, "Origins of Chinese Communism", Oxford University Press, 1989, ISBN 978-0-19-505454-5
* Beer, Max, "The General [[History of socialism|History of Socialism]] and Social Struggles Volumes 1 & 2", New York, Russel and Russel, Inc. 1957
* Adami, Stefano, 'Communism', in Encyclopedia of Italian [[Literary criticism|Literary Studies]], ed. Gaetana Marrone - P.Puppa, Routledge, New York- London, 2006

==External links==
{{Commonscat|Communism}}
{{Wikiquote|Communism}}
{{Wiktionary|communism}}
* [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/019-53246-091-04-14-902-20090401IPR53245-01-04-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm European Parliament resolution on European conscience and totalitarianism]
* [http://www.marxist.com/ In Defense of Marxism]
* [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/index.html Anarchy Archives] Includes the works of anarchist communists.
* [http://www.libcom.org/library Libertarian Communist Library]
* [http://www.marxists.org/ Marxists Internet Archive]
* [http://www.marxist.net/ Marxist.net]
* [http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/outtakes/communism.htm The Mu Particle in "Communism"], a short etymological essay by [[Wu Ming]].
* [http://www.osaarchivum.org/guide/fonds/communismandcoldwar.shtml Open Society Archives], one of the biggest history of communism and cold war archives in the world.
* [http://www.quran-miracle.info/Quran-Communism.htm Islam and Communism]


{{Template group
|list =
{{Political ideologies}}
{{Communism}}
}}

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Economic ideologies]]
[[Category:Far-left politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Political culture]]

{{Link FA|cs}}
{{Link FA|yi}}


[[af:Kommunisme]]
[[ar:شيوعية]]
[[an:Comunismo]]
[[ast:Comunismu]]
[[az:Kommunizm]]
[[bn:কমিউনিজম]]
[[zh-min-nan:Kiōng-sán-chú-gī]]
[[be:Камунізм]]
[[be-x-old:Камунізм]]
[[bs:Komunizam]]
[[br:Komunouriezh]]
[[bg:Комунизъм]]
[[ca:Comunisme]]
[[cs:Komunismus]]
[[cy:Comiwnyddiaeth]]
[[da:Kommunisme]]
[[de:Kommunismus]]
[[et:Kommunism]]
[[el:Κομμουνισμός]]
[[es:Comunismo]]
[[eo:Komunismo]]
[[eu:Komunismo]]
[[fa:کمونیسم]]
[[fo:Kommunisma]]
[[fr:Communisme]]
[[fy:Kommunisme]]
[[ga:Cumannachas]]
[[gl:Comunismo]]
[[gan:共產主義]]
[[ko:공산주의]]
[[hi:साम्यवाद]]
[[hr:Komunizam]]
[[io:Komunismo]]
[[id:Komunisme]]
[[is:Kommúnismi]]
[[it:Comunismo]]
[[he:קומוניזם]]
[[jv:Komunisme]]
[[kn:ಕಮ್ಯೂನಿಸಮ್]]
[[ka:კომუნიზმი]]
[[sw:Ukomunisti]]
[[ku:Komûnîzm]]
[[la:Communismus]]
[[lv:Komunisms]]
[[lb:Kommunismus]]
[[lt:Komunizmas]]
[[li:Communisme]]
[[ln:Komynisimɛ]]
[[jbo:kaurpo'esi'o]]
[[hu:Kommunizmus]]
[[mk:Комунизам]]
[[ml:കമ്യൂണിസം]]
[[mr:साम्यवाद]]
[[ms:Komunisme]]
[[mwl:Quemunismo]]
[[my:ကွန်မြူနစ်ဝါဒ]]
[[nl:Communisme]]
[[nds-nl:Kommunisme]]
[[ne:साम्यवाद]]
[[ja:共産主義]]
[[no:Kommunisme]]
[[nn:Kommunisme]]
[[nrm:Commeunisme]]
[[oc:Comunisme]]
[[nds:Kommunismus]]
[[pl:Komunizm]]
[[pt:Comunismo]]
[[ro:Comunism]]
[[qu:Kumunismu]]
[[ru:Коммунизм]]
[[sah:Коммунизм]]
[[stq:Kommunismus]]
[[st:Bokominisi]]
[[sq:Komunizmi]]
[[scn:Cumunismu]]
[[si:සමසමාජවාදය]]
[[simple:Communism]]
[[sk:Komunizmus]]
[[sl:Komunizem]]
[[sr:Комунизам]]
[[sh:Komunizam]]
[[fi:Kommunismi]]
[[sv:Kommunism]]
[[tl:Komunismo]]
[[ta:பொதுவுடமை]]
[[te:కమ్యూనిజం]]
[[th:คอมมิวนิสต์]]
[[tr:Komünizm]]
[[uk:Комунізм]]
[[vec:Comunismo]]
[[vi:Chủ nghĩa cộng sản]]
[[fiu-vro:Kommunism]]
[[zh-classical:共產主義]]
[[war:Komunismo]]
[[wuu:共产主义]]
[[yi:קאמוניזם]]
[[zh-yue:共產主義]]
[[bat-smg:Kuomonėzmos]]
[[zh:共产主义]]

Liberal

2010-02-22T15:54:50Z

Wikipedianprotester:

{{inuse}}
{{Dablink|This article discusses the ideology of liberalism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in [[Liberalism worldwide]]. For other uses, see [[Liberal]].}}
[[Image:WLMK hammer and tongs Votez Liberal poster 1930.jpg|thumb|200px|right|alt=Colored poster showing a man with a hammer as a welder, holding onto chains; "Votez Liberal" (in French) is seen in the background |[[Canada|Canadian]] poster for the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]], in [[French language|French]], showing [[William Lyon Mackenzie King|Prime Minister Mackenzie King]] welding together the provinces of the country ahead of the [[Canadian federal election, 1930|1930 election]]. The Liberals governed Canada for nearly 70 years in the 20th century, but they suffered a rare and serious defeat in 1930.]]
{{Liberalism sidebar}}
'''Liberalism''' (from the Latin ''liberalis'', "of freedom"<ref>[http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=liberalis&ending= Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid] University of Notre Dame. Retrieved 2010-02-20</ref>) is the belief in the importance of [[liberty|individual liberty]].<ref>Gaus pp. 22 ''The British philosopher [[Maurice Cranston]] is quoted: "a liberal is [one] who believes in liberty."''</ref> Liberals are very diverse in their specific views depending on their understanding of liberty, although most liberals support fundamental ideas like [[liberal democracy]], written [[Constitution|constitutions]], free and fair [[Election|elections]], [[Equal opportunity|equality of opportunity]], [[free markets]], [[free trade]], and [[secularism|secular society]]. These ideas and policies are often accepted even among political groups that do not openly profess a liberal [[political spectrum|ideological orientation]]. Liberalism encompasses several [[List of liberal theorists|intellectual trends and traditions]], but the dominant variants are [[social liberalism]], which became popular in the 20th century, and [[classical liberalism]], the original incarnation of liberal philosophy.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the [[Age of Enlightenment]], rejecting many [[Foundationalism|foundational]] assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as [[Nobility|hereditary status]], [[state religion|established religions]], [[Absolute monarchy|absolute monarchies]], and the [[Divine Right of Kings]]. Early thinkers like [[John Locke]], who is often regarded as the founder of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of [[natural rights]] to argue for the protection of [[private property]], the [[consent of the governed]], and the prevalence of [[Legislature |legislative power]] over [[Autocracy |autocratic]] forms of rule. Liberal philosophy unfolded in the context of [[Social contract|social contract theory]], which maintained that the source of legitimacy for any ruling order ultimately lied with the people, who gave up their authority in return for the [[rule of law]].

The [[French Revolution]], which implemented several liberal ideas, was the most seminal event in the history of liberalism, paving the way for the development of [[modern history]] by launching or inspiring liberal movements around the world. Other political earthquakes that preceded the French Revolution, like the [[Glorious Revolution]] and the [[American Revolution]], also accelerated the advance of liberalism. In the 19th century, liberal governments were established in many nations across [[Liberalism in Europe|Europe]], [[Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America|Latin America]], and [[Liberalism in the United States|North America]]—often through violent [[Revolution|revolutions]] and [[Civil war|civil wars]]. Liberal power increased even further in the 20th century, when liberal democracies triumphed in the [[World war|two world wars]] and survived major ideological challenges from [[fascism]] and [[communism]]. Today, liberalism is [[Liberalism worldwide|organized politically]] on all major continents, and the influence of liberals on the modern world is profound. Liberals have played a decisive role in the growth of [[republic|republics]], the spread of [[civil rights]] and [[civil liberties]], the establishment of the [[Liberal welfare reforms|modern welfare state]], the institution of [[religious toleration]] and [[Freedom of religion|religious freedom]], the evolution of [[Liberal Christianity|theological ideas]], the rise of [[Pluralism (political philosophy)|political pluralism]], and the development of [[globalization]]. They have also shown strong support for regional and international organizations like the [[European Union]] and the [[United Nations]], hoping to reduce conflict through [[diplomacy]] and [[Multilateralism|multilateral negotiations]]. Aiming to highlight the importance of liberalism in modern life, [[Political science|political scientist]] [[Alan Wolfe]] claimed that "liberalism is the answer for which modernity is the question".<ref>Wolfe pp. 254</ref>

==Etymology and definition==
Words like ''liberal'', ''[[liberty]]'', and ''[[libertarian]]'' all trace their history to the [[Latin]] ''liber'', which means "free".<ref>Gross pp. 5</ref> One of the first recorded instances of the word ''liberal'' occurs in 1375, when it was used to describe the ''[[liberal arts]]''.<ref>Ibid., pp. 5</ref> The word's early connection with the classical education of a [[medieval university]], however, 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.<ref>Ibid., pp. 5</ref> In 16th century [[Kingdom of England|England]], ''liberal'' could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion.<ref>Ibid., pp. 5</ref> In ''[[Much Ado About Nothing]]'', [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]] wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath...confest his vile encounters".<ref>Ibid., pp. 5</ref> With the rise of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]], the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823.<ref>Ibid., pp. 5</ref> Meanwhile, in 1815, the first use of the word ''liberalism'' appeared in [[English language|English]].<ref>Kirchner pp. 2-3</ref> By the middle of the 19th century, ''liberal'' had become famous and popular enough to transition into a fully politicized term for [[Liberal Party|political parties and movements]] all over the world.

The ''[[Oxford English Dictionary|Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary]]'' defines the word ''liberal'' as "giving freely, generous, not sparing; open-minded, not prejudiced; not literal (of interpretation); for general broadening of the mind".<ref>Dorrien pp. xix</ref> It also defines the word as "regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change".<ref>Ibid., pp. xix</ref> Identifying any definitive meaning for the word, however, has proven challenging to scholars and to the general public. The widespread use of the word ''liberal'' often inspires people to understand it based on a wide array of factors, like geographic location or [[political spectrum|political orientation]].<ref>Kirchner pp. 2</ref> The [[United States|American]] [[Political science|political scientist]] [[Louis Hartz]] echoed this frustration and confusion, writing that "Liberalism is an even vaguer term, clouded as it is by all sorts of modern social reform connotations, and even when one insists on using it in the Lockian sense...there are aspects of our original life in the Puritan colonies and the South which hardly fit its meaning".<ref>Hartz pp. 3-4</ref> Hartz emphasized the European origin of the word in his studies, conceptualizing a liberal as someone who believed in liberty, [[Equal opportunity|equality]], and [[capitalism]]—in opposition to the association that [[Conservatism in the United States|American conservatives]] have tried to establish between liberalism and centralized government.<ref>Ibid., pp. ix</ref>

==History==
The history of liberalism spans the better part of the last four centuries, beginning in the [[English Civil War]] and continuing after the end of the [[Cold War]]. Liberalism started as a major doctrine and intellectual endeavor in response to the [[European wars of religion|religious wars]] gripping Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. Its first notable incarnation came with the [[American Revolution]] before it fully exploded as a comprehensive movement against the [[Ancien Régime|old order]] during the [[French Revolution]], which set the pace for the future development of both liberal and human history. [[Classical liberalism|Classical liberals]], who broadly emphasized the importance of [[free market|free markets]] and [[civil liberties]], dominated liberal history for a century after the French Revolution. The onset of the [[First World War]] and the [[Great Depression]], however, accelerated the trends begun in late 19th century [[United Kingdom|Britain]] towards a [[social liberalism|new liberalism]] that emphasized a greater initiative for the state in ameliorating devastating social conditions. By the beginning of the 21st century, [[liberal democracy|liberal democracies]] and their fundamental characteristics—support for [[Constitution|constitutions]], [[Election|free and fair elections]], and [[Pluralism (political philosophy)|pluralistic society]]—had prevailed in most regions around the world.

===Prelude to liberalism===
{{main|Middle Ages}}
After centuries of dominance, the [[Roman Empire]] irrevocably splintered in 476 CE. The eastern part of the Roman world became the [[Byzantine Empire]] and the western part fractured into a series of kingdoms that collectively represented a shadow of the erstwhile Roman eagle. Despite these enormous geopolitical changes, however, one constant remained to give [[Europe]] a certain sense of unity and stability: [[Christianity]]. Originally insulted as a fringe cult, [[Christian|Christians]] were persecuted for centuries after the death of [[Jesus]], but they spread efficiently throughout the empire despite constant harassment from Roman authorities, appealing especially to the poor and those at the bottom of the social ladder.<ref>Colton and Palmer pp. 15 ''The Christian teaching spread at first among the poor, the people at the bottom of society, those whom Greek glories and Roman splendors had passed over or enslaved, and who had the least to delight in or to hope for in the existing world.''</ref> When [[Constantine I|Constantine]] integrated them into Roman life in the fourth century CE, the stage was set for the eventual domination of the Christian religion. Although the Roman Empire collapsed and splintered, Christianity was sufficiently entrenched into the fabric of society to survive the resulting sociopolitical chaos that characterized the period.<ref>Tanner pp. xviii</ref>
[[Image:reformation.gif|thumb|alt=Image of Europe showing Catholic and Protestant lands in the 16th and 17th centuries |[[Protestant Reformation|Reformation]] and [[Counter-Reformation|Counter Reformation]] in [[Europe]]. [[Protestant]] lands are shown in blue and [[Catholic]] lands in olive. The [[Catholic Church|Church]] tried to reverse Protestant gains for over a century before the [[Thirty Years' War|Thirty Years War]] finally halted further expansion from the Catholics. The failure of the Counter Reformation was one of the major sparks for the rise of liberalism in Europe.]]
Christianity provided the post-Roman European world with a sense of purpose and direction. European experiences during the [[Middle Ages]] were often characterized by fear, uncertainty, and warfare—the latter being especially endemic in medieval life.<ref>Ibid., pp. xx</ref> Christian societies largely believed that history unfolded according to a divine plan over which humans had little control. Something of a quid pro quo relationship emerged between [[Catholic Church|the Church]] and regional rulers: the Church gave kings and queens authority to rule while the latter spread the message of the Christian faith and did the bidding of Christian social and military forces.<ref>Colton and Palmer pp. 22-4</ref> It was an astute, symbiotic relationship in a world rife with uncertainty and danger. For much of the Middle Ages, the authority of the Church was virtually unquestioned and unquestionable. Leaders who challenged that authority were often severely rebuked and sometimes even publicly embarrassed, as evidenced by [[Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor|Henry IV]] waiting barefoot in the snow at the fort of [[Canossa]] to receive forgiveness from the Pope.<ref>Roberts pp. 476 ''To avoid trial before the German bishops presided over by Gregory (who was already on his way to Germany), Henry came in humiliation to Canossa, where he waited in the snow barefoot until Gregory would receive his penance in one of the most dramatic of all confrontations of lay and spiritual authority.''</ref> The world was very pious, and few aspects of life were spared from religious analysis and connotation. The influence of ''the Church'' can be clearly understood by the fact that the very term often referred to something like European society as a whole.<ref>Ibid., pp. 473 ''By 'the Church' as an earthly institution, Christians mean the whole body of the faithful, lay and cleric alike. In this sense the Church came to be the same thing as European society during the Middle Ages.''</ref> When it invoked the will of God in 1095, the Church set the stage for dozens of [[Crusades|crusades]] against [[Paganism|pagans]], [[Muslim|Muslims]], and various other groups.

The Church experienced fortunate times that lasted for centuries, but outside events and internal struggles crippled the power of the greatest institution in European life. In the 14th century, disputes over papal successions—and, indeed, over just who was the Pope and who was not—rocked the [[Western world]].<ref>Tanner pp. 1</ref> These disputes significantly harmed the reputation of the Church. The middle of the 14th century also witnessed the spread of the [[Black Death]], which exterminated perhaps up to one-third of the European population—some 20 million humans gone in just a few years.<ref>Ibid., xix</ref> These enormous fatality rates incensed people across the continent, and much of their rage was directed at the Church, which was viewed as ineffectual in the face of such carnage. Flagellant confraternities gained popularity during the Black Death, edged onwards by the prophecies of [[Joachim of Fiore]], who had predicted that the world would end imminently.<ref>Ibid., 101</ref> The Black Death had a profound influence on future [[History of Europe|European history]], laying the groundwork—through peasant uprisings and the eventual emergence of a small class of property owners—for the eventual [[Pluralism (political philosophy)|pluralism]] that became a hallmark of the liberal world.<ref>Colton and Palmer pp. 47-8</ref> Further disillusionment with the Church prompted the growth of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. The [[Protestant Reformation]] developed from sentiments that viewed the Church as an oppressive ruling order too involved in the [[feudalism|feudal]] and baronial structure of European society.<ref>Ibid., pp. 75 ''They might wish to manage their own religious affairs as they did their other business, believing that the church hierarchy was too much embedded in a feudal, baronial, and monarchical system with which they had little in common.''</ref> The growth of the [[Renaissance]] also weakened the influence of the Church while reinvigorating interest in the [[Classical antiquity|classical world]]. In the middle of the 16th century, the Church launched a [[Counter-Reformation|Counter Reformation]] to contain the bubbling agitation, but this effort ultimately unraveled in the [[Thirty Years' War|Thirty Years War]], a deadly European conflict that lasted from 1618 until 1648, which saw Catholic forces suffer massive defeats and failing to unify the European continent religiously. Meanwhile, in [[Kingdom of England|England]], disputes between the [[Parliament of England|Parliament]] and King [[Charles I of England|Charles I]] sparked a [[English Civil War|massive civil war]] in the 1640s. Charles was executed in 1649 and the Parliament finally succeeded in establishing a limited and [[constitutional monarchy]] after centuries of chaos.

These frenzied events sparked a deluge of social and political dialogue in English intellectual circles. The main facets of early liberal ideology emerged from these discussions, and two historians characterize the period in the following light:

{{Cquote|The unique thing about England was that Parliament, in defeating the king, arrived at a workable form of government. Government remained strong but came under parliamentary control. This determined the character of modern England and launched into the history of Europe and of the world the great movement of liberalism.<ref>Ibid., pp. 171</ref>}}

===Enter liberalism===
[[Image:John Locke.jpg|thumb|150px| |alt=Portrait of philosopher John Locke as an old man in his study |[[John Locke]] is widely regarded as the ''Father of Liberalism'' for his important contributions to liberal philosophy. Locke coherently described some of the elementary principles of the nascent liberal movement, like the right to [[private property]] and the [[consent of the governed]].]]
The early hero of that movement, the founder of liberal thought as a distinct ideology and the frequently identified ''Father of Liberalism'',<ref>Delaney pp. 18</ref><ref>Godwin et al., pp. 12</ref> was an English physician and philosopher whose words later inspired revolutions: [[John Locke]]. To fully appreciate the thinking of Locke, however, requires knowing a few facts about the people that he opposed. His greatest rival was [[Thomas Hobbes]]. Hobbes and Locke looked at the same world and disagreed on nearly everything, although their arguments laid the groundwork for later social contract theories outlining the relationship between people and their governments.<ref>Copleston pp. 39-41</ref> Their political sympathies and affiliations certainly inspired their ideas. Hobbes supported the monarchy and Locke backed Parliament. Hobbes was a fan of centralized, dictatorial authority. He wanted government to be like [[Leviathan]], a mythical sea monster from the [[Bible]]. Locke preferred the legislature much more because he felt like Parliament embodied the will of the people. Locke developed a relatively radical political notion that earned him the paternal liberal sobriquet, arguing that government acquires consent from the governed. His celebrated ''[[Two Treatises of Government|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."<ref>Locke pp. 170</ref> The stringent insistence that lawful government did not have a supernatural basis was a sharp break with most previous traditions of governance.

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 [[Bible |biblical]] teaching, claiming that the authority granted to [[Adam]] by God gave all the male successors of Adam a right of dominion over all other humans and creatures in the world.<ref>Copleston pp. 33</ref> Locke disagreed, to put it mildly. He disagreed so thoroughly and obsessively, in fact, that the ''First Treatise'' is something like 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".<ref>Kerber pp. 189</ref> Locke maintained that the grant of dominion in Genesis was not to men over women, as Filmer believed, but to humans over animals.<ref>Ibid., pp. 189</ref> Locke was certainly no [[feminism|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.<ref>Ibid., pp. 189</ref> The intellectual journey of liberalism continued beyond Locke.

[[René Descartes]] asked in the 17th century if there were any beliefs that one could hold axiomatically—that is, any beliefs that could be regarded as a priori knowledge. He personally concluded that self-existence—"I think, therefore I am"—and the existence of a supernatural deity were two such beliefs.<ref>Colton and Palmer pp. 291</ref> Descartes was looking for these kinds of absolutely certain beliefs because he was a deeply skeptical philosopher. He was so skeptical, in fact, that he launched a quest to find out if there was anything about the world that he could really be certain of. Once Descartes introduced systematic doubt as a formal philosophy, the intelligentsia of the European world took up the banner and spearheaded the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]], a period of profound intellectual vitality that questioned old traditions and influenced several European monarchies throughout the 18th century. A prominent example of a monarch who took the Enlightenment project seriously was [[Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor|Joseph II]] of Austria, who ruled from 1780 to 1790 and implemented a wide array of radical reforms, like the complete abolition of [[serfdom]], the imposition of equal taxation policies between the [[aristocracy]] and the [[Peasant|peasantry]], the institution of [[religious toleration]], including equal [[civil rights]] for [[Jews]], and the suppression of Catholic religious authority throughout his empire, creating a more [[Secularism |secular]] nation in its place.<ref>Ibid., pp. 333</ref> The ideas circulating in the Enlightenment did not exist in a vacuum, a fact to which the Americans and later the French, with permanent consequences for human history, paid much tribute.

===Liberalism and revolution===
{{main|French Revolution}}
{{main|American Revolution}}
[[Image:Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States.png|250px|left|thumb|alt=An image showing the framers discussing the United States Constitution in Philadelphia |The [[Philadelphia Convention]] in 1787 adopted the [[United States Constitution]], a very radical document for its time. The Constitution established a [[Federalism|federalist]] [[republic]] with three [[Separation of powers|equal branches of government]], a reflection of [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] influence on the American framers.]]
The [[Thirteen Colonies|American colonies]] had been loyal British subjects for decades, but tensions between the two sides were exacerbated by the [[Seven Years War]], which lasted from 1756 until 1763. The war drained British coffers and forced the monarchy to squeeze more and more resources from its recalcitrant colonies. The colonies resented this [[No taxation without representation|taxation without representation]] and decided, after a myriad of internal discussions and petitions to the British government, that they would declare independence and face the consequences. Military engagements in the [[American Revolution]] began in 1775 and were largely complete by 1781, when a Franco-American army combined with a [[Battle of the Chesapeake|French fleet]] bottled up thousands of British troops at [[Siege of Yorktown|Yorktown]]. The American Revolution formally concluded in 1783 with the [[Peace of Paris (1783)|Treaty of Paris]], in which the British recognized American independence.

After the war, the colonies debated about how to move forward. Their first attempt at something like unity occurred with the [[Articles of Confederation]], which were eventually regarded as too inadequate to provide security, or just even a functional government. The colonies held a [[Philadelphia Convention|Constitutional Convention]] in 1787 to resolve the problems stemming from the Articles of Confederation. The resulting [[Constitution of the United States]] was a monumental document, not just in American history but in world history as well. In the context of the times, the Constitution symbolized—true to the revolution that made it happen—an extremely revolutionary and liberal document. The Americans skipped the monarchical system and settled on a [[republic]], laying the groundwork for over two centuries of liberal democratic expansion throughout the globe. The Constitution revealed the degree to which the Enlightenment had influenced the American colonies. The very basic fabric of the new American government was lifted from the pages of a French philosopher, the [[Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu|Baron de Montesquieu]], whose ''[[The Spirit of the Laws|Spirit of Laws]]'' (1748) laid the framework for a republic with three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.<ref>Colton and Palmer pp. 320</ref> The American theorists and politicians that created the Constitution were also heavily influenced by the ideas of Locke. As one historian writes: "The American adoption of a democratic theory that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, as it had been put as early as the Declaration of Independence, was epoch-marking."<ref>Roberts pp. 701</ref> The American Revolution was an important struggle in liberal history, and it was quickly followed by the most important: the [[French Revolution]].
[[Image:Women's March on Versailles.jpg|250px|right|thumb|alt=An engraving showing women armed with pikes and other weapons marching |The [[The Women's March on Versailles|march of the women]] on [[Versailles]] in October 1789, one of the most famous examples of popular political participation during the [[French Revolution]], forced the royal court back to [[Paris]]. It would remain there until the proclamation of the [[First French Republic|First Republic]] in 1792.]]
"The world has never since been the same,"<ref>Colton and Palmer pp. 361</ref> wrote two historians, after France fell into revolution in 1789. German writer [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe|Johann von Goethe]] reportedly told the defeated Prussian soldiers after [[Battle of Valmy|Valmy]] that "from this place and from this time forth commences a new era in world history, and you can all say that you were present at its birth".<ref>Coker pp. 3</ref> Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in [[human history]], and the end of the [[early modern period]], which started around 1500, is traditionally attributed to the onset of the French Revolution in 1789.<ref>Frey, Foreword</ref> The Revolution is often seen as marking the "dawn of the [[modern history|modern era]]".<ref>Ibid, Preface</ref> Describing the participatory politics of the French Revolution, one historian commented that "thousands of men and even many women gained firsthand experience in the political arena: they talked, read, and listened in new ways; they voted; they joined new organizations; and they marched for their political goals. Revolution became a tradition, and [[republicanism]] an enduring option."<ref>Hanson, p. 189</ref>

The French Revolution began in 1789 with the convocation of the [[Estates-General of 1789|Estates-General]] in May. The first year of the Revolution witnessed members of the [[Third Estate]] proclaiming the [[Tennis Court Oath]] in June, the [[Storming of the Bastille|assault on the Bastille]] in July, the passage of the [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]] in August, and an [[The Women's March on Versailles|epic march]] on [[Versailles]] that forced the royal court back to [[Paris]] in October. The next few years were dominated by tensions between a liberal legislature and a [[conservatism|conservative]] monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms. The liberals proclaimed a [[First French Republic|republic]] in September 1792 and the [[Louis XVI of France|king]] was executed the next year. External threats also played a dominant role in the development of the Revolution. The [[French Revolutionary Wars]] started in 1792 and ultimately featured spectacular French victories that facilitated the conquest of the [[Italian peninsula]], the [[Low Countries]], and most territories west of the [[Rhine]]—achievements that had defied previous French governments for centuries. Internally, popular sentiments radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the brutal [[Reign of Terror]] from 1793 until 1794. After the fall of [[Maximilien Robespierre|Robespierre]] and the [[Jacobin (politics)|Jacobins]], the [[French Directory|Directory]] assumed control of the French state in 1795 and held power until 1799, when it was replaced by the [[French Consulate|Consulate]] under [[Napoleon Bonaparte]].
[[File:Charles Meynier - Napoleon in Berlin.png|thumb|right|250px|alt=A painting showing cavalry in parade in Berlin, with the Brandenburg Gate in the background |With the ''[[La Marseillaise|Marseillaise]]'' echoing across the streets, the massive [[Grande Armée|French]] parade through [[Berlin]] in 1806 was a chance for [[Napoleon Bonaparte|Napoleon]] to showcase himself as the liberal guardian of the [[French Revolution|Revolution]]. His opponents, however, thought he was a capricious dictator who represented a fundamental threat to European security.]]
Napoleon ruled as First Consul for about five years, centralizing power and streamlining the bureaucracy along the way. The [[Napoleonic Wars]], pitting the heirs of a revolutionary state against the old monarchies of Europe, started in 1805 and lasted for a decade. Along with their boots and [[Charleville musket|Charleville muskets]], [[Grande Armée|French soldiers]] brought to the rest of the European continent the liquidation of the feudal system, the liberalization of property laws, the end of seigneurial dues, the abolition of guilds, the legalization of divorce, the disintegration of Jewish ghettos, the collapse of the Inquisition, the permanent destruction of the Holy Roman Empire, the elimination of church courts and religious authority, the establishment of the metric system, and equality under the law for all men.<ref>Colton and Palmer pp. 428-9</ref> Napoleon wrote that "the peoples of Germany, as of France, Italy and Spain, want equality and liberal ideas,"<ref>Ibid., pp. 428</ref> with some historians suggesting that he may have been the first person ever to use the word ''liberal'' in a political sense.<ref>Ibid., pp. 428</ref> He also governed through a method that one historian described as "civilian dictatorship," which "drew its legitimacy from direct consultation with the people, in the form of a plebiscite".<ref>Lyons pp. 111</ref> Napoleon did not always live up the liberal ideals he espoused, however. His most lasting achievement, the Civil Code, served as "an object of emulation all over the globe,"<ref>Ibid., pp. 94</ref> but it also perpetuated further discrimination against women under the banner of the "natural order".<ref>Ibid., pp. 98-102</ref>

Stubborn French ambitions combined with a long conflict against Britain, the failure of the [[Continental System]], and the [[French invasion of Russia|catastrophe in Russia]] eventually led to the collapse of the [[First French Empire|First Empire]] in 1815 at the [[Battle of Waterloo|fields of Waterloo]], where the [[Imperial Guard (Napoleon I)|Imperial Guard]] made its last stand under the rhythms of the ''[[La Marseillaise|Marseillaise]]'', which was banned in the [[Bourbon Restoration]].<ref>Ibid., pp. 139</ref> [[Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich|Metternich]], the Austrian foreign minister, laid the groundwork for the conservative decades that stretched into the middle of the 19th century. This unprecedented period of chaos and revolution, however, had introduced the world to a new movement and ideology from which there was seemingly no escape.

===Children of revolution===
{{main|Classical liberalism}}
[[Image:En Mendigorría.jpg|thumb|290px|left|alt=Black and white engraving showing large numbers of soldiers arrayed against one another at the Battle of Mendigorría |The Liberals arrayed against the [[Carlism|Carlists]] at [[Battle of Mendigorría|Mendigorría]], the most important battle of the [[First Carlist War]], which resulted in a heavy defeat for the conservative Carlists. The [[Carlist Wars]] plagued [[Spain]] throughout the 19th century, even though the Carlists never managed to assume power.]]
The world after the [[French Revolution]] provided liberals with an opportunity to reshape the basic structures of society. [[Abolitionism |Abolitionist]] and [[suffrage]] movements took off in the 19th century throughout the Western world. Slowly but surely, democratic ideals were spreading. Parliamentary power in Britain increased, France established an [[French Third Republic|enduring republic]] in the 1870s, and a [[American Civil War|vicious war]] in the United States ensured the survival of that nation and signaled the end of slavery. Meanwhile, strange assortments of liberal and nationalist sentiments were on the march in [[Italy]] and [[Germany]], which finally coalesced into nations in the late 19th century. Liberal agitation in [[Latin America]] reached a fever pitch as the region was gradually brought into the common social and political patterns of the modern world.

Liberals after the Revolution wanted to develop a world free from government intervention, or at least free from too much government intervention. They championed the ideal of [[negative liberty]], which constitutes the absence of coercion and the absence of external constraints.<ref>Heywood pp. 47</ref> They believed governments were cumbersome burdens and they wanted governments to stay out of the lives of individuals.<ref>Ibid., pp. 47-8</ref> Liberals simultaneously pushed for the expansion of [[civil rights]] and for the expansion of [[Free market|free markets]] and [[free trade]]. The latter kind of economic thinking had been formalized by [[Adam Smith]] in his monumental ''[[Wealth of Nations]]'' (1776), which revolutionized the field of economics and established the "invisible hand" of the free market as a self-regulating mechanism that did not depend on external interference.<ref>Ibid., pp. 52</ref> Sheltered by liberalism, the ''[[laissez-faire]]'' economic world of the nineteenth century emerged with full tenacity, particularly in the [[United States]] and in the [[United Kingdom]].<ref>Ibid., pp. 53</ref>
[[Image:Eugène Delacroix - La liberté guidant le peuple.jpg|thumb|290px|right|alt=Colored painting showing a bare-breasted woman waving the French flag and being followed by a band of revolutionaries |''[[Liberty Leading the People]]'' by [[Eugène Delacroix]]. The iconic image of romantic revolution, it celebrates the [[July Revolution]] of 1830 in [[France]]. The July Revolution permanently removed the [[House of Bourbon|Bourbon monarchy]] from French soil and catapulted the [[Orléanist|Orléanist liberals]] to power for nearly two decades, after which the [[Revolutions of 1848|1848 revolutions]] established the [[Second French Republic|Second Republic]].]]
Politically, liberals saw the 19th century as a gateway to achieving the promises of 1789. In Spain, the ''Liberales'', the first group to use the 'liberal' label in a political context,<ref>Colton and Palmer pp. 479</ref> fought for the implementation of the [[Spanish Constitution of 1812|1812 Constitution]] for decades—overthrowing the monarchy in 1820 as part of the ''[[Trienio Liberal]]'' and [[First Carlist War|defeating]] the conservative [[Carlists]] in the 1830s. In France, the July Revolution of 1830, orchestrated by liberal politicians and journalists, removed the Bourbon monarchy and inspired similar uprisings elsewhere in Europe. Frustration with the pace of political progress, however, sparked even more gigantic [[Revolutions of 1848|revolutions in 1848]]. Revolutions spread throughout the Austrian Empire, the German states, and the Italian states. Governments fell rapidly. Liberal nationalists demanded written constitutions, representative assemblies, greater suffrage rights, and freedom of the press.<ref>Ibid., pp. 510</ref> A [[French Second Republic|second republic]] was proclaimed in France. Serfdom was abolished in Prussia, Galicia, Bohemia, and Hungary.<ref>Ibid., pp. 510</ref> The supposedly indomitable Metternich, the Austrian builder of the reigning conservative order, shocked Europe when he resigned and fled to Britain in panic and disguise.<ref>Ibid., pp. 509</ref> Eventually, however, the success of the revolutionaries petered out. Without French help, the Italians were easily defeated by the Austrians. With some luck and skill, Austria also managed to contain the bubbling nationalist sentiments in Germany and Hungary, helped along by the failure of the Frankfurt Assembly to unify the German states into a single nation. Under abler leadership, however, the Italians and the Germans wound up realizing their dreams for independence. The Sardinian Prime Minister, Camillo di Cavour, was a shrewd liberal who understood that the only effective way for the Italians to gain independence was if the French were on their side.<ref>Ibid., 546-7</ref> [[Napoleon III of France|Napoleon III]] agreed to Cavour's request for assistance and France defeated Austria in the [[Second Italian War of Independence|Franco-Austrian War]] of 1859, setting the stage for Italian independence. German unification transpired under the leadership of [[Otto von Bismarck]], who decapitated the enemies of Prussia in war after war, finally [[Franco-Prussian War|triumphing against France]] in 1871 and proclaiming the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, ending another saga in the drive for nationalization. The French proclaimed a [[French Third Republic|third republic]] after their loss in the war, and the rest of French history transpired under republican eyes.
[[Image:Eloy Alfaro Delgado.jpg|thumb|130px|left|alt=Colored painting of Eloy Alfaro as an old man in his uniform |[[Eloy Alfaro]] was the leader of the [[Ecuadorian Radical Liberal Party|Radical Liberals]] and the founder of modern [[Ecuador]]. He led the [[Liberal Revolution of 1895]], which toppled a conservative government that had ruled Ecuador for several decades.]]
Just a few decades after the French Revolution, liberalism went global. The liberal and conservative struggles in Spain also replicated themselves in Latin America. Like its former master, the region was a hotbed of wars, conflicts, and revolutionary activity throughout the nineteenth century. In Mexico, the ''liberales'' instituted the program of ''La Reforma'' in the 1850s, reducing the power of the military and the Catholic Church.<ref>Stacy pp. 698</ref> The ''conservadores'' were outraged at these steps and launched a revolt, which sparked a deadly conflict. From 1857 to 1861, Mexico was gripped in the bloody [[Reform War|War of Reform]], a massive internal and ideological confrontation between the liberals and the conservatives.<ref>Ibid., 698</ref> The liberals eventually triumphed and Benito Juárez, a dedicated liberal and now a Mexican national hero, became the president of the republic. After Juárez, Mexico suffered from prolonged periods of dictatorial repression, which lasted until the [[Mexican Revolution]] in the early 20th century. Another regional example of liberal agitation can be found in [[Ecuador]]. Like other nations throughout the region at the time, Ecuador was steeped in conflict and uncertainty after gaining independence from Spain. By the middle of the 19th century, the country had descended into chaos and madness, with the people divided between rival liberal and conservative camps. From these conflicts, [[Gabriel García Moreno|García Moreno]] established a conservative government that ruled the country for several years. Predictably, the liberals were incensed at the conservative regime and overthrew the whole thing in the [[Liberal Revolution of 1895]]. The [[Ecuadorian Radical Liberal Party|Radical Liberals]] that toppled the conservatives were led by [[Eloy Alfaro]], a firebrand who implemented a variety of sociopolitical reforms, including the separation of church and state, the legalization of divorce, and the establishment of public schools.<ref>Handelsman pp. 10</ref>

Liberals were active throughout the world in the 19th century, but it was in Britain that the future character of liberalism would take shape. The liberal sentiments unleashed after the French Revolution ultimately coalesced into the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]], formed in 1859 from various [[Radicals (UK)|Radical]] and [[Whig (British political party)|Whig]] elements, which went on to produce one of the greatest British prime ministers ever—[[William Gladstone]], who was also known as the 'Grand Old Man'.<ref>Cook pp. 31</ref> Under Gladstone, the Liberals reformed education, disestablished the Church of Ireland, and introduced the secret ballot for local and parliamentary elections. Following Gladstone, and after a period of [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] domination, the Liberals returned with a vengeance in the [[United Kingdom general election, 1906|general election of 1906]], aided by working class voters worried about food prices. After that historic victory, the Liberal Party shifted from its classical liberalism and laid the groundwork for the future British [[welfare state]], establishing various forms of health insurance, unemployment insurance, and pensions for elderly workers.<ref>Heywood pp. 61</ref> The intellectual foundations for this [[Social liberalism|new liberalism]] were coherently established by philosopher [[Thomas Hill Green]], who conceived of [[positive liberty]] as the affirmation of autonomous individual capacities.<ref>Ibid., pp. 59</ref> Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by self-interest, emphasizing 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 social and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity.<ref>Adams pp. 54-5</ref> After various global and catastrophic events, like wars and economic collapses, this new kind of liberalism would sweep over much of the world in the 20th century.

===Modern liberalism===
{{main|Social liberalism}}
[[Image:Liberal reforms socialism.jpg|thumb|290px|right|alt=Colored poster showing a man trying to get a bull across a river with stepping stones that spell "socialism."|A [[National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations|Conservative]] poster in Britain attacking the [[Liberal welfare reforms]] of Prime Minister [[David Lloyd George]] as [[socialism|socialist]]. The reinvention of liberalism as a driving force behind the [[welfare state]] sparked many accusations of socialism from the [[Right-wing politics|right]] in various countries.]]
The 20th century started perilously for liberalism. The [[First World War]] sparked geopolitical turmoil throughout the European continent and threatened to unravel the success of [[liberal democracy]]. However, the Allies managed to win the war, and the number of republics in Europe reached 13 by the end of the war, as compared with only three at the start of the war in 1914.<ref>Mazower pp. 3</ref> The [[Russian Revolution (1917)|Russian Revolution]], which occurred during the war, marked another milestone on the road of modernity. The eventual communist victory and the creation of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] highlighted the threat that liberalism now faced from a new and deadly enemy. Meanwhile, the uncertain world that emerged from the cauldron of the First World War suffered from massive economic setbacks in the years following 1918. Inflation skyrocketed in many European nations and the stock market in the United States collapsed in 1929, triggering a series of recessions throughout the Western world that became collectively known as the [[Great Depression]]. Liberalism survived through the rise of [[fascism]] and the [[Second World War]] before facing off against communism for several more decades during the [[Cold War]].

World War I proved a major challenge for liberal democracies, although they ultimately defeated the dictatorial states of the [[Central Powers]]. The war precipitated the collapse of older forms of government, like [[Empire|empires]] and [[Dynasty|dynastic states]], a phenomenon that became quite apparent in Russia. The massive defeats that Russia sustained in the first few years of World War I significantly tainted the reputation of the monarchy, already reeling from [[Russo-Japanese War|earlier losses]] to [[Japan]] and political struggles with the [[Constitutional Democratic Party|Kadets]], a powerful liberal bloc in the Duma. Facing huge shortages in basic necessities along with [[February Revolution|widespread riots in early 1917]], Czar Nicholas II abdicated in March, bringing to an end three centuries of Romanov rule and paving the way for liberals to declare a republic. To Russia's liberals, the French Revolution was the centerpiece of human history, and they repeatedly used the slogans, symbols, and ideas of the Revolution—plastering ''[[liberté, égalité, fraternité]]'' over major public spaces—to establish an emotional attachment to the past, an attachment that liberals hoped would galvanize the public to fight for modern values.<ref>Shlapentokh pp. 220-8</ref> But democracy was no simple task, and the Provisional Government that took over the country's administration needed the cooperation of the Petrograd Soviet, an organization that united leftist industrial laborers, to function and survive. Under the uncertain leadership of Alexander Kerensky, however, the Provisional Government mismanaged Russia's continuing involvement in the war, prompting angry reactions from the Petrograd workers, who drifted further and further to the left. The Bolsheviks, a communist group led by [[Vladimir Lenin]], seized the political opportunity from this confusion and launched a [[October Revolution|second revolution]] in Russia during the same year. The communists violently overthrew the fragile liberal-socialist order in October, after which Russia witnessed several years of civil war between communists and conservatives wishing to restore the monarchy. The communist challenge to liberalism, however, paled in comparison to the economic problems that rocked the Western world in the 1930s.
[[Image:John Maynard Keynes.jpg|thumb|200px|right|alt=Black and white photograph of economist John Maynard Keynes smiling as an old man |[[John Maynard Keynes]] is widely regarded as one of the most influential economists of all time. He was a brilliant investor and a committed member of the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]]. His ideas, which are still [[2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence|widely felt]], formalized modern liberal economic policy.]]
The Great Depression fundamentally changed the liberal world. It was such a calamitous period in Western civilization that the civilization itself looked like it was risking total and complete collapse. There was an inkling of a new liberalism during the [[First World War]], and even earlier in the 19th century among some states and regions, but [[social liberalism|modern liberalism]] finally hatched in the 1930s with the Great Depression and a new economic mastermind whose ideas formalized the responsibilities of the modern state in its administration of the economy: [[John Maynard Keynes]]. Classical liberals posited that completely free markets were the optimal units capable of effectively allocating resources—that over time, in other words, they would produce full employment and economic security.<ref>Shaw pp. 2-3</ref> Keynes spearheaded a broad assault on classical economics and its derivatives, arguing that totally free markets were actually not that ideal, and that hard economic times required intervention and investment from the state. Where the market failed to properly allocate resources, for example, 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.<ref>Colton and Palmer pp. 808</ref>
[[Image:Wpa1.JPG|thumb|270px|left|alt=Colored photograph from the 1930s showing workers digging with their shovels; a red truck in the background. |Unskilled laborers working for the [[Works Progress Administration]], a [[New Deal]] agency that employed millions of workers during the [[Great Depression]]. Putting the unemployed to work through public programs is a key tenet of [[social liberalism]].]]
The social liberal program launched by [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt|President Roosevelt]] in the United States, the [[New Deal]], proved very popular with the American public. In 1933, when FDR came into office, the unemployment rate of the United States stood at roughly 25 percent.<ref>Auerbach and Kotlikoff pp. 299</ref> The size of the economy, measured by the [[Gross National Product|GNP]], had fallen to half the value it had in early 1929.<ref>Dobson pp. 264</ref> The electoral victories of FDR and the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]] precipitated a deluge of deficit spending and public works programs. In 1940, the level of unemployment had fallen by 10 points to around 15 percent.<ref>Steindl pp. 111</ref> Additional state spending and the gigantic public works program sparked by the [[Second World War]] eventually pulled the United States out of the Great Depression. From 1940 to 1941, government spending increased by a mammoth amount of 59 percent, the GDP skyrocketed 17 percent, and unemployment fell below 10 percent for the first time since 1929.<ref>Knoop pp. 151</ref> By 1945, after vast quantities of government spending, public debt stood at a staggering 120 percent of GNP, but unemployment had been effectively eliminated.<ref>Rivlin pp. 53</ref> Most nations that emerged from the Great Depression, including the likes of Sweden and Germany, did so with deficit spending and strong intervention from the state.

The economic woes of the period prompted widespread unrest in the European political world, leading to the rise of [[fascism]] as an ideology and a movement arrayed against both liberalism and communism. Broadly speaking, fascist ideology emphasized elite rule and absolute leadership, a radical rejection of equality, the imposition of patriarchal society, a stern commitment to war as an instrument of natural behavior, the elimination of supposedly inferior or subhuman groups from the structure of the nation, and the conception of life as an "unending struggle" in which the strong would destroy and dominate the weak.<ref>Heywood pp. 218-26</ref> In Germany, the Nazis slighted the first year of the French Revolution: "1789 is abolished".<ref>Ibid., pp. 214</ref> Echoing the Germans, Mussolini stated that "we stand for a new principle in the world; we stand for the sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy...to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789".<ref>Perry et al., pp. 759</ref> Hitler went further, commenting that the chief principle of fascism was "to abolish the liberal concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity, and to substitute for them the Volk community, rooted in the soil and united by the bond of its common blood".<ref>Ibid., pp. 759</ref> The fascist and nationalist grievances of the 1930s eventually culminated in the [[Second World War]], the deadliest conflict in human history. The Allies won the war by 1945, and their victory set the stage for the [[Cold War]] between communist states and liberal democracies.

The Cold War featured extensive ideological competition and several [[Proxy war|proxy wars]], but the Soviet Union and the United States never fought against one another directly. At the end of the 20th century, communist states in [[Eastern Europe]] collapsed precipitously, leaving liberal democracies as the only legitimate forms of government. At the beginning of the Second World War, the number of democracies around the world was about the same as it had been forty years before.<ref>Colomer pp. 62</ref> After 1945, liberal democracies spread like wildfires. Even as late as 1974, roughly 75 percent of all nations were considered dictatorial, but now more than half of all countries are democracies.<ref>Diamond, cover flap</ref> This last achievement speaks volumes about the influence of liberalism, and it prompted an American intellectual, speculating on the "[[end of history]]," to make the following claim:

{{Cquote|What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such; that is, the end point of...ideological evolution and the universalization of...liberal democracy as the final form of human government.<ref>Browning et al., pp. 61</ref>}}

==Philosophy==
Liberal philosophy had precursons in the Classical world. The Roman Emperor [[Marcus Aurelius]] wrote praising "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".<ref>Marcus Aurelius, ''Meditations'', Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780199540594.</ref> But liberalism is a philosophy of the city, and disappeared from Europe during the Middle Ages. In the medieval period, the Near East was more liberal than Europe; [[Islamic ethics]] allowed more [[freedom of religion]] than the [[Roman Catholic Church]].<ref>{{citation|first=Antony T.|last=Sullivan|title=Istanbul Conference Traces Islamic Roots of Western Law, Society|journal=[[Washington Report on Middle East Affairs]]|date=January-February 1997|page=36|url=http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0197/9701036.htm|accessdate=2008-02-29}}</ref><ref>{{citation|last=Weeramantry|first=Judge Christopher G.|title=Justice Without Frontiers: Furthering Human Rights|year=1997|publisher=[[Brill Publishers]]|isbn=9041102418|page=134}}</ref> The return of liberalism to Europe was presaged by such pivotal events as the ''[[Magna Carta]]'', which reduced the power of the English monarch.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050003/Magna-Carta "Magna Carta"] in ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' Online</ref>. Most histories of modern liberal thought, however, begin with [[John Locke]] (1632–1704).

Locke's ''[[Two Treatises on Government]]'' (1689) discussed two fundamental liberal ideas: intellectual liberty, including freedom of conscience, which he further expounded in the same year in ''[[A Letter Concerning Toleration]]'', and economic liberty, the right to have and use property. These early liberal ideas were tentative (and published anonymously). Locke did not extend religious freedom to [[Roman Catholic]]s or atheists and thought that the right to have and use property, included the right to own slaves. Locke developed further the earlier idea of [[natural law|natural rights]], a forerunner of the modern conception of [[human rights]], which Locke described as the right to "life, health, liberty, or possessions".

Another 17th-century Englishman, [[John Lilburne]] (also known as ''Freeborn John''), argued for basic human rights which he called [[freeborn|freeborn rights]], the [[natural rights]] that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.<ref>Pauline Gregg, ''Free-Born John: A Biography of John Lilburne'', Phoenix Press, 2001,
ISBN 9781842122006</ref>

[[Image:Charles Montesquieu.jpg|thumb|left|100px|alt=Portrait of philosopher Charles Montesquieu as an old man |[[Charles Montesquieu]] wrote ''[[The Spirit of the Laws|The Spirit of Laws]]'' in 1748.]]
On the European continent, the doctrine of laws restraining even monarchs was expounded by [[Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu]], whose ''[[The Spirit of the Laws]]'' argues that "Better is it to say, that the government most conformable to nature is that which best agrees with the humour and disposition of the people in whose favour it is established", rather than accept as natural the mere rule of force. Following in his footsteps, political economist [[Jean-Baptiste Say]] and [[Destutt de Tracy]] were ardent exponents of the "harmonies" of the market, and in all probability it was they who coined the term ''[[laissez-faire]]''. This evolved into the [[physiocrats]], and to the [[political economy]] of [[Rousseau]].<ref>Charles de Montesquieu, ''The Spirit of the Laws'', Cambridge University Press, 1989, ISBN 9780521369749</ref><ref>Richard Whatmore, ''Republicanism and the French Revolution: An Intellectual History of Jean-Baptiste Say's Political Economy'', Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN 9780199241156</ref>

The late French enlightenment saw two figures who would have tremendous influence on later liberal thought: [[Voltaire]], who argued that the French should adopt [[constitutional monarchy]] and disestablish the ''Second Estate'', and Rousseau, who argued for a natural freedom for mankind.

[[Image:Anders Chydenius.jpg|100px|thumb|right|[[Anders Chydenius]]]]
Rousseau also argued the importance of a concept that appears repeatedly in the history of liberal thought, namely, the [[social contract]]. He rooted this in the nature of the individual and asserted that each person knows their own interest best. His assertion that man is born free, and that education was sufficient to restrain him within society, rocked the monarchical society of his age. His ideas were a key element in the declaration of the [[National Assembly]] during the French Revolution, and in the thinking of Americans such as [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]]. In his view the unity of a state came from the concerted action of consent, or the "national will". This unity of action would allow states to exist without being chained to pre-existing social orders, such as aristocracy.<ref>Will and Ariel Durant, ''Rousseau and Revolution'', MJF Books, 1997, ISBN 9781567310214</ref>

The "[[Scottish Enlightenment]]" included the writers [[David Hume]] and [[Adam Smith]].
[[Image:Adam Smith.jpg|100px|thumb|left|alt=Black and white engraving of Adam Smith as an old man, looking to the side |[[Adam Smith]] was one of the most important [[classical liberalism|classical liberal]] thinkers.]]

[[David Hume]]'s contributions were many and varied, but most important was his assertion that fundamental rules of human behavior would overwhelm attempts to restrict or regulate them. In ''[[A Treatise of Human Nature]]'', 1739–1740, he disparaged [[mercantilism]] and the accumulation of gold and silver by governments. He argued that prices were related to the quantity of money, and that hoarding gold and issuing paper money would only lead to inflation.<ref>David Hume, ''A Treatise of Human Nature'', Cornell University, 2009, ISBN 9781112156120</ref>

Although Adam Smith is the most famous of the economic liberal thinkers, he was not without antecedents. The [[physiocrats]] in France had proposed the systematic study of political economy and asserted the self-organizing nature of markets. Benjamin Franklin wrote in favor of the freedom of American industry in 1750. In [[Sweden-Finland]] the period of liberty and parliamentary government from 1718 to 1772 produced a Finnish parliamentarian, [[Anders Chydenius]], who was one of the first to propose free trade and unregulated industry, in ''[[The National Gain]]'', 1765. His impact has proven to be lasting particularly in the Nordic area, but it also had a powerful effect in later developments elsewhere.<ref>A. Marisson, ''Free Trade and Its Reception 1815-1960: Freedom and Trade'', Routledge, 1998, ISBN 9780415155274</ref>

[[Adam Smith]] (1723–1790) expounded the theory that individuals could structure both moral and economic life without direction from the state, and that nations would be strongest when their citizens were free to follow their own initiative. He advocated an end to feudal and mercantile regulations, to state-granted monopolies and patents, and he promulgated "[[laissez-faire]]" economics. In ''[[The Theory of Moral Sentiments]]'', 1759, he developed a theory of motivation which tried to reconcile human self-interest and an unregulated social order. In ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', 1776, he argued that the market, under certain conditions, would naturally regulate itself and would produce more than the heavily restricted markets that were the norm at the time. He assigned to government the role of taking on tasks which could not be entrusted to the profit motive, such as preventing individuals from using force or fraud to disrupt competition, trade, or production. His theory of taxation was that governments should levy taxes only in ways which did not harm the economy, and that "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." He agreed with Hume that capital, not gold, is the wealth of a nation.<ref>Adam Smith, ''The Wealth of Nations'', Bantam Classics,2003, ISBN 9780553585971</ref><ref>Adam Smith, ''The Theory of Moral Sentiments'', Book Jungle, 2007, ISBN 9781604244199</ref>

[[Image:Immanuel Kant (painted portrait).jpg|100px|thumb|[[Immanuel Kant]]]]
[[Immanuel Kant]] was strongly influenced by both Hume's empiricism and continental rationalism. His most important contributions to liberal thinking are in the realm of ethics, particularly his assertion of the [[categorical imperative]]. Kant argued that received systems of reason and morals were subordinate to natural law, and that, therefore, attempts to stifle this basic law would meet with failure. His idealism would become increasingly influential, since it asserted that there were fundamental truths upon which systems of knowledge could be based. This meshed well with the ideas of the English Enlightenment about natural rights.<ref>Immanuel Kant, ''Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals'', 3rd ed.. Hackett, 1993, ISBN 9780872201675</ref>

=== Philosophical foundations for liberalism ===
==== Natural rights liberalism ====
The early liberal thinkers like [[John Locke]] endorsed liberal politics because of a belief in [[natural rights]]. They believed that humans beings were endowed with certain rights, and that the purpose of government was to protect these rights. Prominent liberal thinkers of this school include the aforementioned Locke, [[Thomas Paine]], [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[Robert Nozick]]. This viewpoint is closely related to [[deontological libertarianism]].{{citation needed|date=February 2010}}

==== Consequentialist liberalism ====
The concept of natural rights later fell out of favor, and [[consequentialist]] arguments became prominent. Philosophers like [[David Hume]], [[Jeremy Bentham]] and [[John Stuart Mill]] were responsible for this trend, and they criticized earlier concepts about natural rights. Bentham famously denounced them as "nonsense upon stilts".{{citation needed|date=February 2010}} Thus, consequentialist liberals support liberal policies because they think that these policies best promote human well-being and happiness. Consequentialist arguments in favor of liberal policies are especially common within economics. Some prominent consequentialist liberals, in addition to the aforementioned thinkers, include [[Adam Smith]], [[Karl Popper]] and [[Friedrich Hayek]]. This viewpoint is closely related to [[consequentialist libertarianism]].{{citation needed|date=February 2010}}

==Liberalism worldwide==
{{main|Liberalism worldwide}}
{{Quote box|align=right|width=30%|Liberals are committed to build and safeguard free, fair and open societies, in which they seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity...Liberalism aims to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. |[[Liberal International]]<ref>[http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=508 The International] Liberal International. Retrieved 2010-02-20.</ref>}}
Politically, liberalism is organized extensively throughout the world. [[Liberal Party|Liberal parties]], think tanks, and other institutions are common in many nations, although they advocate for different causes based on their ideological orientation. Liberal parties can be [[Centre-left|center-left]], [[Centrism|centrist]], or [[Centre-right|center-right]] depending on their location. They can further be divided based on their adherence to [[social liberalism]] or [[classical liberalism]], although all liberal parties and individuals share basic similarities like support for [[civil rights]] and [[Democracy|democratic institutions]]. On a global level, liberals are united in the [[Liberal International]], which has over 100 influential liberal parties and organizations from across the [[Political spectrum|ideological spectrum]]. Some parties in the LI are among the most famous in the world, like the [[Liberal Party of Canada]], while others are among the smallest, like the [[Liberal Party of Gibraltar]]. Regionally, liberals are organized through various institutions depending on the prevailing geopolitical context. In the [[European Parliament]], for example, the [[Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe]] is the predominant group that represents the interest of European liberals.

===Europe===
{{main|Liberalism in Europe}}
[[Image:Liberal Democrats UK Logo.svg|thumb|200px|right|alt=Logo showing yellow dove in white background |The [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Liberal Democrats]] have achieved one of the most remarkable comebacks in the political history of European liberalism. After the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]] almost went extinct in the 1950s, a long period of renewal culminated in a union with the [[Social Democratic Party (UK)|Social Democratic Party]] in 1988 to form the current party, [[Party standings in the British House of Commons|one of the largest in Britain]].]]
In [[Liberalism in Europe|Europe]], liberalism has a long tradition dating back to 17th century. Scholars often split those traditions into English and French versions, with the former version of liberalism emphasizing the expansion of democratic values and constitutional reform and the latter rejecting authoritarian political and economic structures, as well as being involved with nation-building.<ref>Kirchner pp. 3</ref> The continental French version was deeply divided between ''moderates'' and ''progressives'', with the moderates tending to elitism and the progressives supporting the universalization of fundamental institutions, such as [[universal suffrage]], [[Public education|universal education]], and the expansion of [[Property|property rights]].<ref>Ibid., pp. 3</ref> Over time, the moderates displaced the progressives as the main guardians of continental European liberalism. Moderates were identified with liberalism or [[liberal conservatism]] whereas progressives could fall under a number of [[Left-wing politics|left-wing]] camps, from liberalism and [[Political radicalism|radicalism]] to [[republicanism]] and [[social democracy]].<ref>Ibid., pp. 3</ref> A prominent example of these divisions is the German [[Free Democratic Party (Germany)|Free Democratic Party]], which was historically divided between national liberal and social liberal factions.<ref>Ibid., pp. 4</ref>
[[Image:Katarina Kresal.jpg|thumb|220px|left|alt=Photograph of smiling woman with blonde hair; white background |[[Katarina Kresal]] is the leader of the [[Centre-left|center-left]] [[Liberal Democracy of Slovenia|Liberal Democrats]], the most powerful party in [[Slovenia]] since the [[breakup of Yugoslavia]].]]
Modern European liberal parties exhibit diverse tendencies. Before the [[First World War]], liberal parties dominated the European political scene, but they were gradually displaced by socialists and social democrats in the early 20th century. The fortunes of liberal parties since [[World War II]] have been mixed, with some gaining strength while others suffering from continuous declines.<ref>Ibid., pp. 10</ref> The [[Collapse of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)|fall of the Soviet Union]] and the [[breakup of Yugoslavia]] at the end of the 20th century, however, allowed the formation of many liberal parties throughout [[Eastern Europe]]. These parties developed varying ideological characters. Some, like the [[Slovenia|Slovenian]] [[Liberal Democracy of Slovenia|Liberal Democrats]] or the [[Lithuania|Lithuanian]] [[New Union (Social Liberals)|Social Liberals]], have been characterized as [[Centre-left|center-left]].<ref>Karatnycky et al., pp. 247</ref><ref>Hafner and Ramet pp. 104</ref> Others, like the [[Romania|Romanian]] [[National Liberal Party (Romania)|National Liberal Party]], have been classified as [[Centre-right|center-right]].<ref>Various authors pp. 1615</ref> Meanwhile, some liberal parties in Western Europe have undergone renewal and transformation, coming back to the political limelight after historic disappointments. Perhaps the most famous case features the [[Liberal Democrats]] in [[United Kingdom|Britain]]. The Liberal Democrats are the heirs of the once-mighty [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]], which suffered a huge erosion of support to the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] in the early 20th century. After nearly vanishing from the British political scene altogether, the Liberals eventually united with the [[Social Democratic Party (UK)|Social Democratic Party]], a Labour splinter group, in 1988—forming the current Liberal Democrats along the way. The Liberal Democrats have earned significant popular support in [[United Kingdom general election, 2005|recent general elections]] and [[United Kingdom local elections, 2008|local council elections]], marking the first time in decades that a British party with a liberal ideology has achieved such electoral success. Both in Britain and elsewhere in Western Europe, liberal parties have cooperated often with socialist and social democratic parties, as evidenced by the [[Purple (government)|Purple Coalition]] in the [[Netherlands]] at the turn of the 21st century. The Purple Coalition, one of the most consequential in [[History of the Netherlands|Dutch history]], brought together the progressive left-liberal [[Democrats 66|D66]],<ref>Schie and Voermann pp. 121</ref> the market liberal and center-right [[People's Party for Freedom and Democracy|VVD]],<ref>Gallagher et al., pp. 226</ref> and the socialist [[Dutch Labour Party|Labour Party]]—an unusual combination that ultimately [[Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands|legalized same-sex marriage]], [[Euthanasia in the Netherlands|legalized euthanasia]], [[Prostitution in the Netherlands|legalized prostitution]], and instituted a non-enforcement [[Drug policy of the Netherlands|policy on marijuana]].

===Americas===
{{main|Liberalism in the United States}}
{{main|Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America}}
[[Image:ObamaAbingtonPA.JPG|thumb|200px|right|alt=Photograph of Barack Obama speaking in front of a teleprompter |[[Barack Obama]] is the current, [[List of Presidents of the United States|44th]] [[President of the United States]] and the leader of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]]. He arrived in office facing a [[Financial crisis of 2007–2010|major economic crisis]], to which he and his party responded by passing the [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|Recovery Act]] as a source of [[Fiscal policy|fiscal stimulus]].]]
In [[North America]], unlike in Europe, the word ''liberalism'' almost exclusively refers to [[social liberalism]] in contemporary politics. The dominant [[Canada|Canadian]] and [[United States|American]] parties, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] and the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]], are frequently identified as being modern liberal or [[Centre-left|center-left]] organizations in the academic literature.<ref>Puddington pp. 142 ''After a dozen years of center-left Liberal Party rule, the Conservative Party emerged from the 2006 parliamentary elections with a plurality and established a fragile minority government.''</ref><ref>Grigsby pp. 106-7 [Talking about the Democratic Party] ''Its liberalism is for the most part the later version of liberalism—modern liberalism.''</ref><ref>Arnold pp. 3 ''Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States.''</ref> [[Modern liberalism in the United States]] traces its history to the popular presidency of [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], who initiated the [[New Deal]] in response to the [[Great Depression]] and won an unprecedented four elections. The [[New Deal coalition|New Deal tradition]] established by FDR left a decisive legacy and impacted many future American presidents, including [[John F. Kennedy]], who defined a liberal as follows:

{{Cquote|...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad.<ref>Alterman pp. 32</ref>}}

[[Liberalism in the United States|American liberals]] and other American [[Political ideologies in the United States|ideological groups]] have been the subject of significant demographic analysis. From January to December 2009, polls conducted by the [[The New York Times|New York Times]] and [[CBS News]] revealed that between 20% and 27% of American adults identify as ''liberal'', versus ''moderate'' or ''conservative''.<ref>[http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-the-war-in-afghanistan#p=12 New York Times/CBS News Poll] New York Times. Retrieved 2010-02-21</ref> In the [[United States presidential election, 2008|2008 presidential election]], exit polls showed that 22% of the electorate self-identified as ''liberal'', 34% as ''conservative'', and 44% as ''moderate''.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Exit Polls Conducted by Edison Research Media] CNN. Retrieved 2010-02-21</ref>

In Canada, the long-dominant Liberal Party, affectionately known as ''the Grits'', [[History of the Liberal Party of Canada|ruled the country]] for nearly 70 years during the 20th century. The party produced some of the most famous prime ministers in [[History of Canada|Canadian history]], like [[Pierre Trudeau]] and [[Jean Chrétien]], and has been primarily responsible for the development of the Canadian [[welfare state]]. The enormous success of the Liberals—virtually unmatched in any other [[liberal democracy]]—has prompted many political commentators over time to identify them as the nation's ''natural governing party''.<ref>Penniman pp. 72</ref><ref>Chodos et al., pp. 9</ref>

In [[Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America|Latin America]], liberal agitation dates back to the 19th century, when liberal groups frequently fought against and violently overthrew [[Conservatism|conservative]] regimes in several countries across the region. Liberal revolutions in countries like [[Mexican Revolution|Mexico]] and [[Liberal Revolution of 1895|Ecuador]] ushered in the modern world for much of Latin America. Today, [[Classical liberalism|market liberals]] in Latin America are organized in the [[Liberal Network for Latin America|Red Liberal de América Latina]], a network that brings together dozens of liberal parties and organizations. RELIAL includes parties like [[New Alliance Party (Mexico)|Nueva Alianza]] in [[Mexico]] and the [[Cuban Liberal Union]], which aims to secure power in [[Cuba]]. Some major liberal parties in the region continue, however, to align themselves with social liberal ideas and policies—a notable case being the [[Colombian Liberal Party]], which is a member of the [[Socialist International]]. Another famous example is the [[Paraguay|Paraguayan]] [[Authentic Radical Liberal Party]], one of the most powerful parties in the country, which has also been classified as center-left.<ref>Ameringer pp. 489</ref>

===Asia and Oceania===
[[Image:Liberal ph.png|thumb|200px|right|alt=Logo showing a big white "L" on a red and blue background with the word "liberal" above |The [[Philippines|Filipino]] [[Liberal Party (Philippines)|Liberal Party]] has produced [[List of Presidents of the Philippines|three presidents]] since it was founded in 1945.]]
In [[Asia]], liberalism is a much younger political current than in [[Europe]] or the [[Americas]]. Continentally, liberals are organized through the [[Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats]], which includes powerful parties like the [[Liberal Party (Philippines)|Liberal Party]] in the [[Philippines]], the [[Democratic Progressive Party]] in [[Taiwan]], and the [[Democrat Party (Thailand)|Democrat Party]] in [[Thailand]]. Two notable examples of liberal influence can be found in [[India]] and [[Australia]].

In [[Australia]], liberalism is primarily championed by the [[Centre-right|center-right]] [[Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal Party]].<ref>Monsma and Soper pp. 95</ref> The Liberals in Australia support [[free markets]] as well as [[social conservatism]].<ref>Ibid., pp. 95</ref><ref>Karatnycky pp. 59</ref> In [[India]], the most populous democracy in the world, the [[Indian National Congress]] has long dominated political affairs. The INC was founded in the late 19th century by liberal nationalists demanding the creation of a more liberal and autonomous India.<ref>Hodge pp. 346</ref> Liberalism continued to be the main ideological current of the group through the early years of the 20th century, but [[socialism]] gradually overshadowed the thinking of the party in the next few decades. A famous struggle led by the INC eventually earned India's independence from Britain. In recent times, the party has adopted more of a liberal streak, championing open markets while simultaneously seeking social justice. In its ''2009 Manifesto'', the INC praised a "secular and liberal" Indian nationalism against the nativist, communal, and conservative ideological tendencies it claims are espoused by the [[Right-wing politics|right]].<ref>[http://www.congress.org.in/manifesto09-eng.pdf 2009 Manifesto] Indian National Congress. Retrieved 2010-02-21</ref>

===Africa===
Liberalism in [[Africa]] is comparatively weak. In recent times, however, liberal parties and institutions have made a major push for political power. On a continental level, liberals are organized in the [[Africa Liberal Network]], which contains influential parties like the [[Popular Movement]] in [[Morocco]], the [[Senegalese Democratic Party|Democratic Party]] in [[Senegal]], and the [[Rally of the Republicans]] in [[Côte d'Ivoire]]. Among African nations, [[South Africa]] stands out for having a notable [[Liberalism in South Africa|liberal tradition]] that other countries on the continent lack. In the middle of the 20th century, the [[South African Liberal Party|Liberal Party]] and the [[Progressive Party (South Africa)|Progressive Party]] were formed to oppose the [[South Africa under apartheid|apartheid]] policies of the government. The Liberals formed a [[multiracial]] party that originally drew considerable support from [[Urban area|urban]] Africans and college-educated whites.<ref>Van den Berghe pp. 56</ref> It also gained supporters from the "westernized sectors of the [[Peasant|peasantry]]", and its public meetings were heavily attended by [[Black people|black Africans]].<ref>Ibid., pp. 57</ref> The party had 7,000 members at its height, although its appeal to the white population as a whole was too small to make any meaningful political changes.<ref>Ibid., pp. 56</ref> The Liberals were disbanded in 1968 after the government passed a law that prohibited parties from having multiracial membership. Today, liberalism in South Africa is represented by the [[Democratic Alliance (South Africa)|Democratic Alliance]], the official opposition party to the ruling [[African National Congress]].

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

==References==
*Adams, Ian. ''Ideology and politics in Britain today''. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998. ISBN 0-719-05056-1
*[[Eric Alterman|Alterman, Eric]]. ''Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America''. New York: Viking Adult, 2008. ISBN 0-670-01860-0
*Ameringer, Charles. ''Political parties of the Americas, 1980s to 1990s''. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1992. ISBN 0-313-27418-5
*Arnold, N. Scott. ''Imposing values: an essay on liberalism and regulation''. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. ISBN 0-495-50112-3
*Auerbach, Alan and Kotlikoff, Laurence. ''Macroeconomics'' Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998. ISBN 0-262-01170-0
*Browning, Gary et al. ''Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present''. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2000. ISBN 0-761-95926-2
*Chodos, Robert et al. ''The unmaking of Canada: the hidden theme in Canadian history since 1945''. Halifax: James Lorimer & Company, 1991. ISBN 1-550-28337-5
*Coker, Christopher. ''Twilight of the West''. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998. ISBN 0-813-33368-7
*Colomer, Josep Maria. ''Great Empires, Small Nations''. New York: Routledge, 2007. ISBN 0-415-43775-X
*Colton, Joel and [[Robert Roswell Palmer|Palmer, R.R.]] ''A History of the Modern World''. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1995. ISBN 0-07-040826-2
*Cook, Richard. ''The Grand Old Man''. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-419-16449-X
*Copleston, Frederick. ''A History of Philosophy: Volume V''. New York: Doubleday, 1959. ISBN 0-385-47042-8
*Delaney, Tim. ''The march of unreason: science, democracy, and the new fundamentalism''. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-192-80485-5
*Diamond, Larry. ''The Spirit of Democracy''. New York: Macmillan, 2008. ISBN 0-805-07869-X
*Dobson, John. ''Bulls, Bears, Boom, and Bust''. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2006. ISBN 1-851-09553-5
*Dorrien, Gary. ''The making of American liberal theology''. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. ISBN 0-664-22354-0
*Frey, Linda and Frey, Marsha. ''The French Revolution''. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004. ISBN 0-313-32193-0
*Gallagher, Michael et al. ''Representative government in modern Europe''. New York: McGraw Hill, 2001. ISBN 0-072-32267-5
*Gaus, Gerald. ''Contemporary theories of liberalism''. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2003. ISBN 0-761-96139-9
*Godwin, Kenneth et al. ''School choice tradeoffs: liberty, equity, and diversity''. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. ISBN 0-292-72842-5
*Grigsby, Ellen. ''Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Politics Science''. Florence: Cengage Learning, 2008. ISBN 0-495-50112-3
*Gross, Jonathan. ''Byron: the erotic liberal''. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001. ISBN 0-742-51162-6
*Hafner, Danica and Ramet, Sabrina. ''Democratic transition in Slovenia: value transformation, education, and media''. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006. ISBN 1-585-44525-8
*Handelsman, Michael. ''Culture and Customs of Ecuador''. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000. ISBN 0-313-30244-8
*Hanson, Paul. ''Contesting the French Revolution''. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing, 2009. ISBN 1-405-16083-7
*[[Louis Hartz|Hartz, Louis]]. ''The liberal tradition in America''. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1955. ISBN 0-156-51269-6
*Heywood, Andrew. ''Political Ideologies: An Introduction''. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. ISBN 0-333-96177-3
*Hodge, Carl. ''Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism, 1800-1944''. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. ISBN 0-313-33406-4
*Karatnycky, Adrian. ''Freedom in the World''. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers, 2000. ISBN 0-765-80760-2
*Karatnycky, Adrian et al. ''Nations in transit, 2001''. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers, 2001. ISBN 0-765-80897-8
*Kerber, Linda. "The Republican Mother: Women and the Enlightenment—An American Perspective," in [[American Quarterly]]. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1976, Vol. 28, No. 2.
*Kirchner, Emil. ''Liberal parties in Western Europe''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ISBN 0-521-32394-0
*Knoop, Todd. ''Recessions and Depressions'' Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004. ISBN 0-313-38163-1
*[[John Locke|Locke, John]]. ''Two Treatises of Government''. reprint, New York: Hafner Publishing Company, Inc., 1947. ISBN 0-028-48500-9
*Lyons, Martyn. ''Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution''. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1994. ISBN 0-312-12123-7
*Mazower, Mark. ''Dark Continent''. New York: Vintage Books, 1998. ISBN 0-679-75704-X
*Monsma, Stephen and Soper, J. Christopher. ''The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies‎''. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. ISBN 0-742-55417-1
*Penniman, Howard. ''Canada at the polls, 1984: a study of the federal general elections‎''. Durham: Duke University Press, 1988. ISBN 0-822-30821-5
*Perry, Marvin et al. ''Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society'' Florence, KY: Cengage Learning, 2008. ISBN 0-547-14742-2
*Puddington, Arch. ''Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties''. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. ISBN 0-742-55897-5
*Rivlin, Alice. ''Reviving the American Dream'' Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1992. ISBN 0-815-77476-1
*[[John Roberts (historian)|Roberts, J.M.]] ''The Penguin History of the World''. New York: Penguin Group, 1992. ISBN 0-19-521043-3
*Shaw, G. K. ''Keynesian Economics: The Permanent Revolution''. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar Publishing Company, 1988. ISBN 1-852-78099-1
*Shlapentokh, Dmitry. ''The French Revolution and the Russian Anti-Democratic Tradition''. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1997. ISBN 1-560-00244-1
*Stacy, Lee. ''Mexico and the United States''. New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2002. ISBN 0-761-47402-1
*Steindl, Frank. ''Understanding Economic Recovery in the 1930s''. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. ISBN 0-472-11348-8
*Tanner, Norman. ''The Church in the Later Middle Ages''. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2008. ISBN 1-845-11438-8
*Van den Berghe, Pierre. ''The Liberal dilemma in South Africa''. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 1979. ISBN 0-709-90136-4
*Van Schie, P. G. C. and Voermann, Gerrit. ''The dividing line between success and failure: a comparison of Liberalism in the Netherlands and Germany in the 19th and 20th Centuries''. Berlin: LIT Verlag Berlin-Hamburg-Münster, 2006. ISBN 3-825-87668-3
*Various authors. ''Countries of the World & Their Leaders Yearbook 08, Volume 2''. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007. ISBN 0-787-68108-3
*[[Alan Wolfe|Wolfe, Alan]]. ''The Future of Liberalism''. New York: Random House, Inc., 2009. ISBN 0-307-38625-2

== Further reading ==
=== Prominent law scholars ===
* Putting liberalism in its place / Paul W Kahn, 2005 ([[Yale University]])
* Liberalism divided: freedom of speech and the many uses of State power / Owen M Fiss, 1996 (Yale University)
* The future of liberal revolution / Bruce A Ackerman, 1992 (Yale University)
* Social justice in the liberal state / Bruce A Ackerman, 1980 (Yale University)
* Notions of fairness versus the Pareto principle: on the role of logical consistency / Louis Kaplow, 2000 ([[Harvard University]])
* Knowledge & politics / Roberto Mangabeira Unger., 1975 (Harvard University)
* Principles for a free society / Richard Allen Epstein, 1999 ([[University of Chicago]])
* Fairness in a liberal society / Richard Allen Epstein, 2005 (University of Chicago)
* Skepticism and freedom: a modern case for classical liberalism / Richard Allen Epstein., 2003 (University of Chicago)
* Cultivating humanity: a classical defense of reform in liberal education / Martha Nussbaum, 1997 (University of Chicago)
* Free markets and social justice / Cass R Sunstein, 1997 (University of Chicago)
* Reasonably radical: deliberative liberalism and the politics of identity / Anthony Simon Laden, 2001 (University of Chicago)
* The new inequality: creating solutions for poor America / ed. Joshua Cohen, 1999 ([[Stanford University]])
* The rise and fall of British liberalism, 1776-1988 / Alan Sykes, 1997 (Stanford University)
* A stream of windows: unsettling reflections on trade, immigration, and democracy / Jagdish Bhagwati, 1998 ([[Columbia University]])
* Nature and politics: liberalism in the philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau / Andrzej Rapaczynski, 1987 (Columbia University)
* Law and liberalism in the 1980s: the Rubin lectures at Columbia University / Vincent Blasi, 1991 (Columbia University)
* Ways of war and peace: realism, liberalism, and socialism / Michael W Doyle, 1997 (Columbia University)
* The Liberal future in America: essays in renewal / ed. Michael B Levy, 1985 ([[University of California, Berkeley]])
* Boundaries and allegiances: problems of justice and responsibility in liberal thought / Samuel Scheffler, 2001 (University of California, Berkeley)
* The anatomy of antiliberalism / Stephen Holmes, 1993 ([[University of New York]])
* Passions and constraint: on the theory of liberal democracy / Stephen Holmes, 1995 (University of New York)
* Benjamin Constant and the making of modern liberalism / Stephen Holmes, 1984 (University of New York)
* Liberal rights: collected papers, 1981-1991 / Jeremy Waldron, 1993 (University of New York)
* Liberals and social democrats / Peter Clarke., 1978 ([[University of Oxford]])
* Law and the community: the end of individualism? / ed. Leslie Green, 1989 (University of Oxford)
* From promise to contract: towards a liberal theory of contract / Dori Kimel, 2003 (University of Oxford)
* The new enlightenment: the rebirth of liberalism / ed. Peter Clarke, 1986 (University of Oxford)
* Constitutional justice: a liberal theory of the rule of law / T.R.S Allan, 2001 ([[University of Cambridge]])

=== Prominent philosophers ===
* Liberalism and social action / John Dewey, 1963 (University of Chicago)
* Combat liberalism / Mao Zedong, 1954 ([[Peking University]])
* Free thought and official propaganda / Bertrand Russell, 1922 (University of Cambridge)
* Political Liberalism / John Rawls, 2005 (Harvard University)
* Lectures on the history of political philosophy / John Rawls, 2007 (Harvard University)
* The law of peoples; with, The idea of public reason revisited / John Rawls., 1999 (Harvard University)
* Conditions of liberty: civil society and its rivals / Ernest Gellner, 1994 (University of Cambridge)
* Liberty: incorporating four essays on liberty / Isaiah Berlin., 2002 (University of Oxford)
* Objectivity and liberal scholarship / Noam Chomsky, 2003 ([[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]])
* Profit over people: neoliberalism and global order / Noam Chomsky, 1999 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
* Democracy in a neoliberal order: doctrines and reality / Noam Chomsky, 1997 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
* Liberal politics and the public sphere / Charles Taylor, 1995 (McGill University)
* Beyond liberalization: social opportunity and human capability / Amartya Kumar Sen., 1994 (Harvard University)
* Sovereign virtue: the theory and practice of equality / Ronald Dworkin, 2000 (University of New York))
* The legacy of Isaiah Berlin / ed. Ronald Dworkin., 2001 (University of New York)
* Concealment and exposure: and other essays / Thomas Nagel, 2002 (University of New York)
* Liberals and communitarians / Stephen Mulhall., 1992 (University of Oxford)
* John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism / Alan Ryan, 1995 (University of Oxford)
* Liberal reform in an illiberal regime: the creation of private property in Russia / Stephen Williams, 2006 (University of Oxford)
* Liberalism, religion, and the sources of value / Simon Blackburn, 2005 (University of Cambridge)
* Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America / Richard Rorty, 1999 (Stanford University)
* Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education / Bob Reich, 2002 (Stanford University)
* Boundaries and allegiances: problems of justice and responsibility in liberal thought / Samuel Scheffler, 2001 (University of California, Berkeley)
* The logos reader: rational radicalism and the future of politics / ed. Michael Thompson, 2006 (University of Pittsburgh)
* The feminist critique of liberalism / Martha Craven Nussbaum, 1997 (University of Chicago)
* Nietzsche, politics, and modernity: a critique of liberal reason / David Owen, 1995 (University of Arizona)
* Contemporary Theories of Liberalism / Gerald Gaus, 2003 (University of Arizona)
* Pragmatic Liberalism and the Critique of Modernity / Gary Gutting, 1999 (University of Notre Dame)

=== Prominent political scientists ===
* Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities/Gad Barzilai, 2003 [[University of Michigan]]
* Liberal America and the Third World; political development ideas in foreign aid and social science / Robert A Packenham, 1973 (Stanford University)
* Structural conflict: the Third World against global liberalism / Stephen D Krasner, 1985 (Stanford University)
* Democracy's discontent: America in search of a public philosophy / Michael J Sandel, 1998 (Harvard University)
* Liberalism and the limits of justice / Michael J Sandel, 1998 (Harvard University)
* The spirit of liberalism / Harvey Claflin Mansfield., 1978 (Harvard University)
* Liberalism and the moral life / Nancy L Rosenblum, 1989 (Harvard University)
* Bentham's theory of the modern state / Nancy L Rosenblum, 1978 (Harvard University)
* Another liberalism: romanticism and the reconstruction of liberal thought / Nancy L Rosenblum., 1987 (Harvard University)
* Liberalism and its critics / Michael J Sandel, 1984 (Harvard University)
* Technopols: freeing politics and markets in Latin America in the 1990s / Jorge I Domínguez., 1997 (Harvard University)
* The new majority: towards a popular progressive politics / Theda Skocpol, 1999 (Harvard University)
* Tyranny and liberty: big government and the individual in Tocqueville's science of politics / Harvey Mansfield., 1999 (Harvard University)
* The new American dilemma: liberal democracy and school desegregation / Jennifer L Hochschild, 1984 (Harvard University)
* Politics out of history / Wendy Brown, 2001 (University of California, Berkeley)
* Radicals and conservatives / William McGovern; David S Collier, 1957 (University of California, Berkeley)
* Tocqueville's revenge: state, society, and economy in contemporary France / Jonah D Levy, 1999 (University of California, Berkeley)
* Liberalism's crooked circle: letters to Adam Michnik / Ira Katznelson, 1996 (Columbia University)
* Liberal socialism (Carlo Rosselli) / ed. Nadia Urbinati, 1994 (Columbia University)
* On liberal revolution (Piero Gobetti) / ed. Nadia Urbinati, 2000 (Columbia University)
* The clash of orthodoxies: law, religion, and morality in crisis / Robert P George, 2001 ([[Princeton University]])
* Liberal equality / Amy Gutmann., 1980 (Princeton University)
* Diversity and distrust : civic education in a multicultural democracy / Stephen Macedo, 1999 (Princeton University)
* Liberal virtues: citizenship, virtue, and community in liberal constitutionalism / Stephen Macedo, 1991 (Princeton University)
* The inner ocean: individualism and democratic culture / George Kateb, 1992 (Princeton University)
* Economic change and political liberalization in Sub-Saharan Africa / Jennifer A Widner, 1994 (Princeton University)
* Natural law, liberalism, and morality: contemporary essays / Robert P George, 1996 (Princeton University)
* Natural law and public reason / Robert P George, 2000 (Princeton University)
* Liberal international relations theory: a social scientific assessment / Andrew Moravcsik., 2001 (Princeton University)
* Liberalism and international relations theory / Andrew Moravcsik, 1992 (Princeton University)
</div>

== External links ==
{{sisterlinks}}
* [http://www.liberal-international.org/ Liberal International] is the premier international political federation of liberal parties and institutions.
* [http://www.alde.eu/ Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe] is the major liberal political group in the European Parliament.
* [http://www.africaliberalnetwork.org/default.aspx?i_PageID=188 Africa Liberal Network] is the main organization for liberal parties on the African continent.
* [http://www.liberal.ca/ Liberal Party of Canada] is one of the largest and the most dominant liberal parties in the world.
* [http://www.liberal.gi/ Liberal Party of Gibraltar] is one of the smallest liberal parties in the world.
* [http://www.theliberal.co.uk The Liberal] is a British magazine dedicated to coverage of liberal politics and liberal culture.
* [http://mises.org/ Ludwig von Mises Institute] is a think tank devoted to the promotion of libertarian and classical liberal socioeconomic policies.
* [http://www.fnst-freiheit.org/webcom/show_article.php/_c-705/i.html Friedrich Naumann Foundation] is a global advocacy organization that supports liberal ideas and policies.
* [http://www.adaction.org/ Americans for Democratic Action] is an American advocacy organization that champions modern liberalism.
* [http://www.prospect.org/ The American Prospect] is an American political magazine that backs social liberal policies.
* [http://www.relial.org/ RELIAL] (in Spanish) is a group of Latin American liberal organizations that advocates for market liberal causes.
* [http://www.silc.se/ Swedish International Liberal Centre] (in Swedish) is a liberal organization that aims to spread pluralism and democracy worldwide.
* [http://liberalconspiracy.org/ Liberal Conspiracy] is the premier left-liberal blog about British politics.
* {{sep|liberalism}}

{{Template group
|list =
{{Liberalism}}
{{Political ideologies}}
{{Social and political philosophy}}
}}

[[Category:Liberalism| ]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Political philosophy]]
[[Category:Political culture]]
[[Category:Social theories]]
[[Category:Individualism]]

{{Link FA|ru}}
{{Link FA|vi}}

[[als:Liberalismus]]
[[ar:ليبرالية]]
[[an:Liberalismo]]
[[be:Лібералізм]]
[[be-x-old:Лібэралізм]]
[[bs:Liberalizam]]
[[br:Frankizouriezh]]
[[bg:Либерализъм]]
[[ca:Liberalisme]]
[[cs:Liberalismus]]
[[cy:Rhyddfrydiaeth]]
[[da:Liberalisme]]
[[de:Liberalismus]]
[[et:Liberalism]]
[[el:Φιλελευθερισμός]]
[[es:Liberalismo]]
[[eo:Liberalismo]]
[[eu:Liberalismo]]
[[fa:لیبرالیسم]]
[[fo:Liberalisma]]
[[fr:Libéralisme]]
[[fy:Liberalisme]]
[[ga:Liobrálachas]]
[[gd:Lachasachd]]
[[gl:Libertario]]
[[ko:자유주의]]
[[hi:उदारतावाद]]
[[hr:Liberalizam]]
[[ig:Liberalism]]
[[id:Liberalisme]]
[[is:Frjálslyndisstefna]]
[[it:Liberalismo]]
[[he:ליברליזם]]
[[jv:Liberalisme]]
[[ka:ლიბერალიზმი]]
[[ku:Lîberalîzm]]
[[la:Liberalismus]]
[[lv:Liberālisms]]
[[lt:Liberalizmas]]
[[hu:Liberalizmus]]
[[mk:Либерализам]]
[[arz:ليبراليه]]
[[ms:Liberalisme]]
[[mwl:Liberalismo]]
[[nl:Liberalisme]]
[[ja:自由主義]]
[[no:Liberalisme]]
[[nn:Liberalisme]]
[[oc:Liberalisme]]
[[uz:Liberalizm]]
[[ps:لېبراليزم]]
[[pl:Liberalizm]]
[[pt:Liberalismo]]
[[ro:Liberalism]]
[[ru:Либерализм]]
[[sah:Либерализм]]
[[sc:Liberalismu]]
[[simple:Liberalism]]
[[sk:Liberalizmus]]
[[sl:Liberalizem]]
[[ckb:لیبرالیزم]]
[[sr:Либерализам]]
[[sh:Liberalizam]]
[[fi:Liberalismi]]
[[sv:Liberalism]]
[[tl:Liberalismo]]
[[ta:தாராண்மையியம்]]
[[th:เสรีนิยม]]
[[tr:Liberalizm]]
[[uk:Лібералізм]]
[[ur:آزاد خیالی]]
[[ug:لىبېرالىزىم]]
[[vi:Chủ nghĩa tự do]]
[[fiu-vro:Liberalism]]
[[war:Liberalismo]]
[[yi:ליבעראליזם]]
[[zh-yue:自由主義]]
[[bat-smg:Liberalėzmos]]
[[zh:自由主义]]