Introduction
Liberalism, Socialism, and Anarchism are three different views on the structure of the society, government, and principles according to which people should live. It is possible to discuss all approaches from the perspective of political philosophy. The research shows that Liberalism, Socialism, and Anarchism have distinct natures and view the ideal society and government differently. In addition, these philosophical approaches have different opinions concerning the dynamics in society and the country’s political life. The values that are emphasized in political and social spheres determine the differences between Liberalism, Socialism, and Anarchism.
Discussion
Liberalism
Liberalism is the dominant view on the structure of the government and society in the modern world. The fundamental principles of liberalism are centered around equal rights of all citizens, freedom, individuality, and the idea that citizens agree with the decisions of the chosen government (Nutters, 2017). Liberalism supposes that people can have different views and the right to individual opinions. As a result, liberals can develop different perspectives guaranteed by political and economic freedom, religious beliefs, secularism, free market, and freedom of speech (Nutters, 2017). These basic principles of liberalism ensure that all people have equal access to all services; they are not segregated and discriminated against due to their differences.
Liberalism supposes that people have the opportunity to change the situation in the country, and they can influence the government. The main principle of liberalism is the social contract between people that supposes all individuals are guaranteed their natural rights to have property, freedom, and life (Nutters, 2017). At the same time, the government is the reflection of the choice of all citizens, which means that people should obey the law (Nutters, 2017). These principles of liberalism are essential in a democratic society, and the proponents of this theory regard it as the most natural and effective solution for the social order.
Liberalism is diverse by nature, which leads to the development of contradictory ideas. At the same time, all these views share the same values as the importance of consent, the integrity of human health and life, the autonomy of the individual, a tolerant attitude to everybody, and pluralism (Nutters, 2017). Pluralism generally leads to opposite views on state organizations (Nutters, 2017). For instance, the existence of anarchic views that deny the superiority of the law and the power of the government is acceptable from the liberal point of view when the person does not infringe the rights of other people in practice.
The different nature of the liberal approach is reflected in the example of the attitude to religion and the church. According to liberal views, the church is separated from the state, and all people are guaranteed the right to choose their religious beliefs (Fawcett, 2018). It means that faith is the individual right of every citizen, and other members of society should tolerate their views unless these religious views infringe on their rights. Moreover, the government and the state do not influence the church, which means that the spiritual authorities do not appeal to citizens in the political context and do not serve the governmental needs (Fawcett, 2018). These aspects are critical in forming a society where all people have equal guarantees of their natural rights.
The liberal approach helps people understand the dynamics of politics and society from the perspective of equality and freedom. The idea of the social contract between all members of the community and the government is central to this theory (Fawcett, 2018). It determines how people evaluate the effectiveness of the decisions of the politicians and the conditions of life in society. In other words, people believe that they have equal opportunities in life and they have the power to change the surrounding reality.
Socialism
The theory of socialism also supposes equal rights for all people in the country. At the same time, it emphasizes the importance of social ownership of all means of production in the country that guarantees equal division of the profits among people. Private ownership, one of the basic ideas of liberalism and its capitalistic views, is ultimately denied in the socialist society (Baer, 2020). The socialist approach to political and social life is the collectivist one, and the interests of the community are more critical than the ones of one individual (Palmer & Galston, 2021). However, socialism can be compared to the welfare state because the government is responsible for making the conditions of life for all people equal. It results in social programs that help the most vulnerable categories of people, including children, single parents, older adults, and people with health problems (Palmer & Galston, 2021). In other words, the critical principle of equality is realized in the denial of private ownership and guaranteed by the socialist government.
It is possible to illustrate the nature of socialism with the example of free social programs available for all citizens. For example, all children have the right to education, and education is free for everyone. All children study at school, and they can go to the university for free if they pass the necessary examination that shows their level of knowledge is adequate for higher education. Though, university graduates in socialist countries must work where the state chooses for several years (Baer, 2020). It is the way the citizen “pays” the country for free education. Another example is the state regulation of all spheres of human life, including religious views. For instance, religion was officially prohibited in the USSR, which tried to implement the socialist model (Baer, 2020). State regulations lead to a lack of freedom in society and show that the rigid governmental system and restrictions cannot survive in practice. They lead to the formation of totalitarian control that deprives people of their fundamental rights.
The socialist approach helps people to understand the dynamics of politics and society from the perspective of equal conditions for all people in the country. It is different from the liberal approach, where all people have equal rights to gain public property, but their conditions of life depend on their skills, talents, and other factors. In socialism, the state guarantees all people that they will have a decent quality of life even when they cannot provide for themselves.
Even though the theoretic description of socialism might seem flawless, the practical implementation of this approach is far from ideal. Socialist countries like the USSR pursued the principles of state ownership and denied private property, which led to a rigid economic system that could not adapt to the requirements of the society (Baer, 2020). The absence of the free market made people’s lives worse than they could be, which showed the practical impossibility of implementing a purely socialist model in real life. At the same time, many Western countries implement the elements of the social approach to make the community more oriented toward the needs of vulnerable populations (Baer, 2020). The combination of liberalism, free market, and socialist trends in welfare show positive results. Therefore, the utterly socialist approach is too radical in practice.
Anarchism
Anarchism denies the government’s authority and emphasizes the importance of absolute freedom for all people. According to this approach, all institutions that impose regulations on people should be abolished. Free unions, in their turn, should become the only possible alternative for state institutions because individuals should cooperate based on their free desires and motives (Ervin, 2021). No need to say that the vital principle of absolute freedom is difficult to implement in community life because it leads to the oppression of the weakest members of the society and the rule of the strongest ones. Anarchism does not protect those people who cannot do it themselves, which is the main flaw of this political theory.
Self-governance is the example that illustrates the unique nature of the anarchic approach. A person can apply this principle to their life, thinking they can live without supervision and control of the authorities (Ervin, 2021). Though, it is impossible to imagine a society where all people have abilities to regulate their actions and to live according to the social contract. Self-governance might soon lead to crimes, injustice, and chaos because not all individuals are interested in preserving the social order.
The anarchic approach shows that the dynamics of politics and society are closely connected with the rules. Without these rules, the strongest individuals acquire power and impose their regulations on others (Ervin, 2021). In other words, the anarchic approach shows that society cannot live in a state of unregulated chaos for a long time, and someone will become the authority when the state does not regulate the situation. It is possible to make parallels between the state of revolution in the country and anarchism (Ervin, 2021). During a revolution, the government and the laws do not function, and all people are self-governed, which causes chaos and injustice.
Conclusion
Liberalism, Socialism, and Anarchism have more differences than common aspects. These three political philosophy theories describe completely distinct views on society, political organization, and the individual’s rights. History shows that liberalism is the most practically applicable view of the country’s organization because it is a balanced approach. Liberalism combines order and freedom, and the laws are the result of the democratic choice of the majority of citizens. Even though this political theory has its drawbacks and weak sides, it is still the optimal solution for a democratic country. Anarchism, in turn, leads to chaos in society when the most assertive individuals suppress the weak ones, take their property, and deprive them of their rights. Socialism is utopian by its essence, and the practical implementation of these ideas leads to the overuse of power by the state. It is possible to hypothesize that some aspects of socialism, especially the guarantee of social support and protection of the vulnerable part of the community, can be implemented into the liberal model to achieve better results. The contemporary Western society tries to elaborate on this approach, which means that the liberal theory of social and governmental structure is evolving.
References
Baer, H. A. (2020). Democratic eco-socialism as a real utopia: Transitioning to an alternative world system. Berghahn Books.
Ervin, L. K. (2021). Anarchism and the black revolution: The definitive edition. Pluto Press.
Fawcett, E. (2018). Liberalism: The life of an idea. Princeton University Press.
Palmer, T. G., & Galston, W. A. (2021). Truth and governance: Religious and secular views. Brookings Institution Press.
Nutters, R. D. (2017). Recovering the liberal tradition. Journal of Modern Literature, 41(1), 161–168.