Liberalism

Liberalism, no longer silenced.

Proponents and subideologies

Note: People marked with an asterisk are their countries' starting leaders.

Subideology	Description	Adherents
Classical Liberalism	It is difficult to overstate how much the philosophical and political tides of 1600s and 1700s Europe influenced the modern understanding of politics. The traditional centers of power of the king's throne and priest's altar, as well as traditional social relations of feudalism and guilds, had their inviolability explicitly and implicitly questioned by treatises on the nature of mankind and government. Through contact with the rest of the world, aided by the printing press and increased public literacy, much of global political thought — from the most basic ideas of liberalism and conservatism — has existed in the shadow of this European Age of Enlightenment. It is only now, centuries of development later, that a delineation can be made around Classical Liberalism. At the roots of the Enlightenment liberal thought were a number of principles. Thinkers like Locke and de Condorcet would expound on natural human rights — of the individual rather than the collective — that a person could become aware of and exercise. While the extent of the political changes they desired varied, the hope was to have a government representative of its people, whether a monarchy limited by constitutionalism or an outright republic. The mercantilist, state-controlled paradigm of commercial trade was also challenged by this new tide of bourgeois intellectuals, who saw virtue and potential in canny individuals being able to make their fortune themselves. But the aforementioned principles are a common heritage to liberalism as a whole. Classical Liberalism has become a recognizable tendency in opposition to others that were differentiated over time, chiefly over how to respond to economic questions raised under the new order. In some respects, this school is the old guard of liberalism, hewing to principles of individual freedom when others see a place for an expanded role of the state. It must be remembered, however, that in many countries liberalism entered the scene through dramatic upheaval. In parts of the world where the feudal order remains, the old liberal creed still holds revolutionary promise for those who dare to know.	Godfrey Huggins* Ali Kemal Pasha* Andrew Mellon* Pavel Milyukov
Libertarian Capitalism	Karl Marx wrote that the bourgeoisie had played a revolutionary role in casting aside feudalism, and yet immediately the question became how to survive what replaced it. When the individual supplanted the collective, how would they endure their newfound freedom? The solution to the Enlightenment and its discontents lies not in retreating from the gains of liberalism, nor does it hinge on defending what has been achieved. No, the solution is recognizing that the work is not yet done. Capitalism is not a necessary evil or the least-bad of available options, but a positive, productive ideal, the most perfect and just means for humanity to thrive. While the unprepared may balk at the conclusions, others choose something more bold: the path of Libertarian Capitalism. The intellectual background of this tendency is most obviously an evolution of liberalism. It emphasizes the ability of individuals to act rationally in their interest, and hews to a quasi-fundamentalist reading of universal human rights — especially property rights. Some, however, explicitly look to anarchist explanations of hierarchy and the inherent violence of state power. While the results can vary considerably, the ultimate goal is a liberal government that governs the least — sometimes characterized as a night-watchman chiefly concerned with national defence and law enforcement. Others may hold that, while free expression is a core value, certain principles should not be a matter of political debate, lest the masses vote themselves into new shackles. In contrast to the encroaching statist trend of the world, Libertarian Capitalism presents something heroic, untamed. Decried on one hand as the final degeneration of the liberal state, and on the other as its purest exploitative expression, it has nonetheless gained some credibility in conventional liberal parties since the end of the Great War. Whether out of self-interest or as a roar of defiance against the authoritarian tide, its adherents believe in its promise: Limitless potential awaits for the daring, those who would reshape the world to its foundation. What right do tyrants have to stop man from seizing it?	Ludwig von Mises Kim Koo Zainal Abidin bin Ahmad Alisa Rosenbaum
National Liberalism	While the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars would spread the Enlightenment conception of liberalism across Europe, it also carried the idea of the nation with it. After all, the Republic had consciously emphasized the French people as a whole, rather than their divided ruling houses. In the aftermath of that tumult, when the old order sought to reassert itself, both ideals had their aspirations frustrated, and in some cases would become a united cause against the kings and empires atop them. Additionally, through the latter half of the 1800s, some liberal movements that already had a voice in government grew more concerned with the national interest. What resulted came to be called National Liberalism. The ideology can seem a tangle of contradictions at first glance. Where national independence had come late, preoccupation with a united population and a state strong enough to preserve its independence led to compromises on the standard liberal upholding of individual rights and free economic activity. Protectionism and state subsidy to support local industry was no longer taboo, and a powerful central government was a necessary trade-off for national mobilization or maintaining control of a population with major divisions of identity. As such, it became a dominant strain of liberalism in places that were long subservient to large empires, but also in the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires that were seeking to clamp down on regionalism in the first place. An ocean away, the Progressive Movement in the United States would also include liberal reformers who pursued a more assertive foreign policy and aggressively tried to subsume regional and immigrant identities into a united American nationalism. But what will be the legacy of this National Liberalism? Does it illustrate the limits of the Enlightenment foundations it claims? Is it a muscular rejoinder to an age of "big stick" diplomacy and industrial warfare, a liberalism that marches alongside the vigorous national state? Whatever the truth, the pragmatism of the ideology makes it an effective collaborator with other parties of the centre. Let the opposition maintain their lofty principles — they will be able to thanks to our work.	Muhammad Iqbal* Sofoklis Venizelos Danzan Tundutov+ Thomas Mann
Social Liberalism	Just as monarchism had become variegated into different stripes of absolutism and constitutionalism, the liberal tide would inevitably split into currents of its own. Once the Phrygian caps were put back in the closet, the questions of what freedom and rights meant ceased to be purely theoretical. Outside the salons that hosted philosophers and revolutionaries, there was a wider society that the great liberal experiment was acting on, and their material concerns remained pressing. In response, a new tendency could be differentiated that came to be called Social Liberalism by the end of the 19th century. The differences within the liberal school developed early on. Adam Smith, the doyen of free-market economists, characterized property as a social rather than individual institution. Parliamentarian and philosopher James Mill would also develop Enlightenment liberalism along the lines of effective governance and expanded franchise, and his son John Stuart Mill only went further in examining the desired limits of liberty and authority. Perhaps, some wondered, the state has an affirmative duty to sustain the conditions where every citizen can learn and use their rights. It was under these theories that Liberal parties of the world began to construct the first welfare states. With immediate material needs better addressed, and with the tools to develop oneself within reach, the individual is thus empowered to utilize what is guaranteed by their natural rights. Social Liberalism is still a creature of the Enlightenment. Whatever social reforms it might raise, and however it might intervene to smooth the relations of labour and capital, it still does not conceive of the state as the ultimate manager of society. The individual still holds their fate in their hands, but their government coordinates the societal good and security that better cultivates those individuals. Despite the past century of challenges to the liberal hegemony, there is still hope yet that it is not merely a status quo overdue for destruction, but a conscious, ongoing choice.	Ivanoe Bonomi* Phraya Phahon* Francisco Prestes Maia Anatoly Pepelyayev