![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
borislvinA great liberal thinker, Ludwig von Mises, was always opposed to the existence of liberal parties because he felt that these political groups, by attempting to monopolize liberalism, ended up denaturalizing it, pigeonholing it, forcing it into the narrow molds of party power struggles. Instead, he believed that the liberal philosophy should be a general culture shared with all the political currents and movements co-existing in an open society supportive of democracy, a school of thought to nourish social Christians, radicals, social democrats, conservatives and democratic socialists alike. There is a lot of truth to this theory. Thus, in our day, we have seen cases of conservative governments, such as those of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and José María Aznar, which promoted deeply liberal reforms. At the same time, we have seen nominally socialist leaders, such as Tony Blair in the United Kingdom and Ricardo Lagos in Chile, implement economic and social policies that can only be classified as liberal.
Although the term "liberal" continues to be a dirty word that every politically correct Latin American has the obligation to detest, essentially liberal ideas and attitudes have begun to infect both the right and the left on the continent of lost illusions for some time now. This explains why, in recent years, Latin American democracies have not collapsed or been replaced by military dictatorships, despite the economic crises, corruption and failure of so many governments to realize their potential. Of course they are still there: Cuba has that authoritarian fossil Fidel Castro, who with 46 years of enslaving his country, is the longest-living dictator in Latin American history. And the ill-fated Venezuela now suffers at the hand of Commander Hugo Chavez, an inadequate contender to become a lowercase Fidel Castro. But they are two exceptions on a continent which, and this should be stressed, has never had so many civil governments engendered from relatively free elections. And there are interesting and encouraging cases such as that of Lula in Brazil who, before becoming president, espoused a populist doctrine, an economic nationalism and the traditional hostility of the left towards the market, but who is now a practitioner of fiscal discipline and a promoter of foreign investment, private business and globalization, although he wrongly opposes the Free Trade Area of the Americas. With more fiery rhetoric infused with bravado, Argentine President Kirchner is following his example, although unfortunately he seems to do so unwillingly and somewhat erringly at times. In addition, there are indications that the recently inaugurated government in Uruguay, led by Tabaré Vázquez, is willing to follow Lula’s economic policy example rather than repeat the stale state-controlled, centralist recipe that has caused so much devastation on our continent. Even the left has been reluctant to renege on the privatization of pensions--which has occurred in eleven Latin American countries to date--whereas the more backward left in the United States opposes the privatization of Social Security. These are positive signs of a certain modernization of the left, which, without recognizing it, is admitting that the road to economic progress and social justice passes through democracy and the market, which we liberals have long preached into the void. If in fact the Latin American left has accepted liberal politics, albeit cloaked in a rhetoric that denies it, all the better. It is a step forward suggesting that Latin America may finally shed the ballast of underdevelopment and dictatorships. It is an advance, as is the emergence of a civilized right that no longer believes that the solution to problems is to knock on the door of the military headquarters but rather to accept the vote and democratic institutions and to make them work.
http://aei.org/publications/pubID.22053,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Although the term "liberal" continues to be a dirty word that every politically correct Latin American has the obligation to detest, essentially liberal ideas and attitudes have begun to infect both the right and the left on the continent of lost illusions for some time now. This explains why, in recent years, Latin American democracies have not collapsed or been replaced by military dictatorships, despite the economic crises, corruption and failure of so many governments to realize their potential. Of course they are still there: Cuba has that authoritarian fossil Fidel Castro, who with 46 years of enslaving his country, is the longest-living dictator in Latin American history. And the ill-fated Venezuela now suffers at the hand of Commander Hugo Chavez, an inadequate contender to become a lowercase Fidel Castro. But they are two exceptions on a continent which, and this should be stressed, has never had so many civil governments engendered from relatively free elections. And there are interesting and encouraging cases such as that of Lula in Brazil who, before becoming president, espoused a populist doctrine, an economic nationalism and the traditional hostility of the left towards the market, but who is now a practitioner of fiscal discipline and a promoter of foreign investment, private business and globalization, although he wrongly opposes the Free Trade Area of the Americas. With more fiery rhetoric infused with bravado, Argentine President Kirchner is following his example, although unfortunately he seems to do so unwillingly and somewhat erringly at times. In addition, there are indications that the recently inaugurated government in Uruguay, led by Tabaré Vázquez, is willing to follow Lula’s economic policy example rather than repeat the stale state-controlled, centralist recipe that has caused so much devastation on our continent. Even the left has been reluctant to renege on the privatization of pensions--which has occurred in eleven Latin American countries to date--whereas the more backward left in the United States opposes the privatization of Social Security. These are positive signs of a certain modernization of the left, which, without recognizing it, is admitting that the road to economic progress and social justice passes through democracy and the market, which we liberals have long preached into the void. If in fact the Latin American left has accepted liberal politics, albeit cloaked in a rhetoric that denies it, all the better. It is a step forward suggesting that Latin America may finally shed the ballast of underdevelopment and dictatorships. It is an advance, as is the emergence of a civilized right that no longer believes that the solution to problems is to knock on the door of the military headquarters but rather to accept the vote and democratic institutions and to make them work.
http://aei.org/publications/pubID.22053,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-16 02:44 pm (UTC)Ваша точка зрения понятна. Другое дело, что требование занятия духовной работой, имеет значение не во всех этических системах.
Если говорить об общественной жизни, то, на мой взгляд, вполне достаточно, если человек "некритически" исполняет основные правила общежития. В его поведении нет ничего, что заслуживало бы порицания: что плохого, если некто пашет там себе поля и не задумывается над тем, почему плохо воровать и убивать?
Однако есть и те требования, какие человек может наложить на себя сам в поисках нравственного совершенства или истины об этике. Эти люди обязаны (в логическом смысле) задумываться над смыслом своих поступков, смыслом тех или иных уложений и последовательности в своих мыслях. Занятие этой работой не более обязательно, чем занятия музыкой, поэзией или кулинарией.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-16 08:07 pm (UTC)Тут есть несколько обстоятельств. Во-первых, если человек "пашет там себе поля" и не берётся судить меня, то его мораль действительно не моё дело. Но в Вашем примере этот человек с твердыми взглядами ещё и "догматически проповедует" свою мораль, предположительно мне - и тем самым даёт мне право на суждение о нём. Продолжая Ваше сравнение, мне не очень интересно, занимается ли мой сосед музыкой профессионально, - до тех пор, пока он не начинает дудеть в тромбон под моими окнами.
Во-вторых, общество, которое поощряет отказ от нравственного поиска, на мой взгляд, занимается духовной кастрацией своих граждан. Это не может не вызывать порицание.
И наконец, насчет разницы в этических системах Вы правы. Понимаете, хоть я и нерелигиозен, мне лично трудно отстроиться от традиций иудаизма, которые размышление предписывают (см. замечательные слова Маймонида).
no subject
Date: 2005-03-17 07:45 am (UTC)2. Как Вы понимаете, я не призывал отказаться от нравственного поиска. Если кто-то и призывал, то не я. А так, Вы правы.
3. Не совсем соглашусь насчет иудаизма.
Во-первых, размышление приветствуется, но предпочтение отдается именно поступкам.
Так, фараон поплатился за прелюбодеяние с Сарой, несмотря на то, что он не мог знать о том, что совершает грех и никакое конкретное размышление тут бы ему не помогло.
Во-вторых, "история про дорогу длинную, но короткую" и "короткую, но длинную". Думаю, Вы ее знаете. Но на всякий случай привожу мораль: познание Б-га возможно путем изучения Торы и размышления о ней - это дорого короткая, но длинная. И не каждому дана.
Большинство же людей больше приблизятся к духовности изучая "Тору жизни", например, сосредоточенно постигая мудрость химии или парикмахерского искусства.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-18 07:08 am (UTC)Извините. Пропущена частица "бы".
Т.е. "фараон поплатился бы..."