How Liberalism Was Understood In the Early Days - Essay Example

How Liberalism Was Understood In the Early Days In the days of fascism and socialism, liberal democracy was seen as a corruption of the society. These were the days when racial purity was regarded a very significant determinant in the success of a nation or state. Yet, liberal democracy was seen as way to allow all sorts of people to have the same rights as everyone. Under the early social orders such as socialism, any foreigners and especially those who came from races which were considered to be inferior, could not have equal rights as the other people. This was not going to be the same under liberal democracy. Liberal democracy also threatened the national unity because under it, the individual would be able to live independent of the others. What the early people understood liberal democracy to be was that it would kill off the social cohesion emanating from the other forms of social orders such as the fascism and socialism. According to Lecture Notes (5), fascism is a system of government that is led by an authoritarian regime where the society was held by the leadership of a central authority. In this regard, liberal democracy was seen as a way to corrupt the nation where people will be separated from each other. Under socialism governments, leaders and even citizens were inclined to social orders which were seen to promote collaboration and the management of the nation as a single unit where the good of one individual was the interest of everyone. The fact that liberal democracy sought to support the rights of the independence of the individual and especially the protect the rights of the various minorities was also another issue. The fact that most industrial leaders in the early days thought that enterprise or industry of any kind needed the support of the government to succeed would be one of the reason why liberal democracy was not supported (Frieden, 65). They believed that the government had to own and control part of the industries in order for these industries to have success. As Nagell (65) says, before socialism and the division of labor, every part of the world would be economically independent and such a world would be difficult to rule. Socialism was a major hindrance to liberal democracy also because of a number of critical reasons. For instance, the very core and fundamental principle of socialism was in direct conflict with liberal democracy. Socialism was geared towards the common interest of the nation while liberal democracy was geared towards the individual rights of individual citizens. This alone made liberal democracy to look like a principle that would come to do away with the state and lead to the demolition of a cohesive nation. At the same time, socialism was geared towards a system of common ownership of property and the wealth of the nation while liberal democracy was geared towards helping individuals to make their own wealth. At a time when liberal democracy had not been practiced anywhere, this looked scary band threatening not only to the government that would have preferred to have a socialist society that was easier to govern, but also to individuals who thought that the socialist order was better for them. In this regard, liberal democracy, even for those who doubted whether socialism was a good system, was the angel they did not know. Because of this, they preferred to have the socialism they knew its negatives and positives rather than try a system that they did not understand. At the same time, there was general understanding that it was concern of the many to have everybody as productive as possible (Hilferding, 69). Liberal democracy did not support, or at least did not concentrate on state ownership of property. Socialism supported the state ownership of property and in this regard, created a sense of security, albeit perceived, to all citizens who felt that since the state looked for their interests, the ownership of property by the state guaranteed that their interests will be perceived. Socialism did not focus on the recognition of individual rights since it was thought that the interests of the many were far much better than the rights of the individual. Liberal democracy on the other hand failed to provide for this kind of ownership and focused on the individual and his rights, both civil and property. At the same time, as Tooze (13) says, the Third Reich gave hopeful promises to the population, thus making socialism to be seen as the best social order and system. More than anything, socialism had tendencies towards state and ethnic cleansing. Under socialism, citizens of a state felt the sense of belonging to a state and that they were the custodians of the state and all its property. If for instance a state conquered and the nation, the wealth achieved by this way was supposed to belong to all the citizens. The citizens were then seen as a family, and if a person did not relate to the central races that made the nation, one was considered as an outsider. Liberal democracy on the other hand failed to have this puritan approach to it and considered everyone as equal, regardless of their race and ethnicity. Those in power could not have wanted this to happen because governing people under a liberally democratic society could be more difficult than governing a socialist nation. This is because liberal democracy shifted the power from rulers to the people while socialism concentrated the power to those in government. It is very principle of the liberal democracy system that did not sit well with most people. Socialism, while having some common principles such as the principle of every individual contributing corresponding to their strength and receiving equal to their needs, also has a number of contradicting principles with communalism. First of all, communism is designed under the principle of a classless society where everyone is equal and no one is greater than the other. Under communism, the concept of profit through enterprise is also not supported, mainly because there are no classes and the production is only done to meet the needs of everyone equally and not to make profits. This is not entirely what it is expected to happen under socialism. Under socialism the concept of profit is still there and in this regard, everyone is supposed to be paid or compensated according to their contribution to the society. In this regard, while they are both relate in a way, they are also fundamentally difference. In this regard, it is surprising that socialism was to take over in Russia where communism was common place. However, given that most of the other fundamental pillars of these two systems are the same, socialism could have been the next logical step. However, socialism could not have made it in Europe by the 19th century because most European nation especially those in the eastern and central parts of Europe were already too industrially developed. This industrial development was built around some other social orders such capitalism, which was not supported by socialism. Works Cited Clark, Christopher. "The First Calamity,." London Review of Books, Vol. 35 (16) (2013 ): pp. 1-17. Frieden, Jeffry. Global capitalism: its fall and rise in the twentieth century. Michigan, MI: W. W. Norton, 2012. Hilferding, Rudolf. "The organised econimy: Economic Upheavals: Ratiolanisation, Inflation, and Depression." NA. Joll, James. Europe since 1870: an international history. London, Uk: Penguin Books, 1990. Lecrure Notes. Class lecture: What is fascism? NA, 2014. Lecture Notes: The Origins of world war one. The Origins of world war one. 2014. Nagell, Norman. The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power to National Advantage. London, UK: Library of Alexandria, 1935. Tooze, Adam. "Economics, Ideology and Cohesion in the Third Reich: A critique of Goetz Aly’s Hitlers Volksstaat." 2005. Read More