The difference between neo-liberalism and traditional liberalism

The debate about liberalism that arose at the end of 1990s has roughly demonstrated its theoretical connotation. The subtlety of this argument is obviously not enough. On the one hand, this is because the external conditions on which the debate is based are still relatively tense. On the other hand, it is because the theoretical reserves of intellectuals on this issue are still relatively scarce. However, from the statements of the parties involved in the debate about its theoretical position, we can basically get a glimpse of its theoretical meaning and practical intention. This kind of peep can have two angles. One is the opposition between the "right wing" of liberalism and the "left wing" of socialism, and the other is the inherent differences contained in liberalism. The former contributes to the theoretical orientation of liberalism, while the latter helps to ensure the accuracy of the theoretical statement of liberalism. What kind of value standpoint liberalism should state, what kind of social system model it should establish and what kind of social reform approach it should highlight are all issues worthy of attention.

First, the transformation of the spirit of freedom.

The recent debate among intellectuals in China about liberalism began with the New Left 1 blaming liberalism for the mistakes of China's reform and opening up and even social inequality. Scholars who agree with the value position of liberalism protest against the claims of the new left, and on this basis, discuss the theory and practice of liberalism. This defensive ideological debate is obviously emotional. However, aside from emotional remarks, people should pay attention to the ideological and practical issues involved in this debate.

Therefore, it is meaningful to briefly review this pair of arguments. First of all, look at the criticism of liberalism by the new left. This criticism focuses on three problem domains: the first problem domain is the inherent fuzziness of liberalism. They accused those who promised the value of liberalism in the context of China, and they talked about liberalism vaguely, with unclear theoretical reference. Indeed, the theoretical focus of traditional liberalism, neo-liberalism and so-called post-modern liberalism is very different. Simply talking about liberalism from the bottom line of rights seems to be insufficient to clearly answer the question of what liberalism is. The second problem area is the practical defects of liberalism. They accuse the liberal constitutional system of causing a series of social injustices within the nation-state, and only pay attention to protecting the interests of the powerful. In the international community, it tends to hegemonism and exploit modern countries. On some important issues, these accusations are not unreasonable. As two wings of modern liberalism theory, rights and justice have indeed encountered many difficulties in political practice. These problems are exactly what liberal theorists are trying to solve. The third problem area is the bleak future of liberalism. They pointed out that the contemporary construction of liberalism has become "powerless", and communitarianism's criticism of liberalism has a tendency to replace liberalism as the dominant idea of a fair society. As far as communitarianism is concerned, it is reasonable for the new left to criticize liberalism on the issue of local theory. Because individual-oriented liberal right philosophy and justice philosophy have always been in a weak position in paying attention to community issues. It can be said that the criticism of the new left in these three problem areas really touches the key of liberalism and has a great influence on the self-confirmation of liberalism. Liberalism explains these problems along the theoretical boundary of practical needs, because liberalism theory has never been a conceptual system established to meet the needs of complete theoretical argumentation. In fact, Rawls' theoretical progress from A Theory of Justice to Political Liberalism and then to the Law of Peoples is the best embodiment of this theoretical logic. However, the long-term embarrassing situation of liberalism in China's context makes liberals have to reflect on their own theoretical problems while answering the questions raised by the new left.

It can be seen that when the confrontation between liberalism and the new left reaches a certain level, each needs to review its own theoretical connotation. Under the influence of such ideological logic, it is necessary to clean up the rich liberalism theory itself, which has its own emphasis in theory and practice. This leads to the question of what kind of basic value proposition liberalism should adopt and what kind of actual system appeal liberalism should advocate. In this way, the differences between traditional liberalism and neo-liberalism have become the focus of this debate. As for post-modern liberalism, due to its theoretical thinness, it has not attracted extensive attention from western academic circles, nor has it attracted great attention from China academic circles. Therefore, it is not enough to form a wing of the internal review of liberal theory.

Obviously, in the debate on liberalism in the late 1990s, not many people clearly adhered to the traditional liberal stance. People who express the tendency of liberalism theory have an overwhelming affection for neoliberalism on the basis of recognizing liberalism. In particular, the neo-liberal theory with obvious colors of welfare socialism and social democracy has won the applause of most people. Looking back at the history of China's liberal communication in 1990s, we can find that the communication in the early 1990s adopted a general way of identification, thus blurring the subdivision boundaries within the liberal theory. Therefore, once a liberal like Gu Zhun was discovered, people expressed their admiration. "Gu Zhun fever" can be regarded as a sign of the rise of liberalism fever in China in 1990s. Of course, this symbol is a cultural symbol. Because we can't confirm which specific liberalism theory should be the object of our identification. Later, "the end of history" was issued in the western liberal camp, which played up the glory of liberalism, and made the issue of liberal identity have a bonding point with the issues of China and human beings. Scholars who tend to the left-wing socialist trend of thought and those who tend to liberalism have been unable to maintain a unified intellectual alliance. The split of the unified ranks of intellectuals has become an obvious ideological event. Moreover, those scholars who consciously identify with liberalism, when cleaning up the complex liberal ideology, also found that various liberal theories that appeared in the historical evolution of liberalism could not be completely compatible. Therefore, following the first split between "Left" and "Right", there has been a second split within liberalism-there has been another confrontation between scholars who tend to "Left" liberalism (neo-liberalism, even social democracy) and those who tend to "Right" liberalism (traditional liberalism). If we vaguely mention the identity of liberalism, we can either fail to understand the differences in the internal value identification of liberalism or the internal expression of liberalism in solving the China issue. Therefore, between traditional liberalism and neo-liberalism, there is a question of which comes first, China's liberalism.

Give you a website/03fx/shehuixue/shehuixue/20060919/39674.html.

You can refer to this article.

Between classical liberalism and neoliberalism