Key texts of Liberalism?

Can you list me a few? For both understanding liberal thought, aswell as the history of liberal thought (so you can include texts that have been significant in the development of liberal thought even if you don't consider them to be all that useful contemporarily).

Do you mean classical liberalism?

After a quick google, I found this:

http://classicliberal.tripod.com/writings.html

and a wikipedia article that gives an overview on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

In addition to the links above, go for John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" and "Utilitarianism". Also John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration".

Smith's "Wealth of Nations," Keynes' "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money," Malthus' "Principles of Political Economy."

The Johns. John Stuart Mill, John Locke, John Maynard Keynes and one I initially forgot, John Rawls. Also, Alexis de Tocqueville.

Except this isn't the 'whole story' as such. If we are referring to Liberalism as some kind of codified theory (worthless) rather than an ideological phenomena, we would have to be inclusive of non Anglo-Saxon forms of Liberalism. The word Liberalism is rather ambiguous in this context.

It assumes that Liberalism was some kind of spontaneous idea that gained favor. Nonsense. By the time Liberalism had actually been "codified" there are two things to consider

1. There was no fundamental, or universal consensus as far as the codification of Liberal ideas. Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Spinoza, Montesquieu - whatever you want, were all very different people, yet they were all Liberals.

2. By the time Liberal thinkers had come to pass (as mentioned above) Liberal sentiments and Liberal ideas were generally already 'in the air'. Liberalism is not some kind of theory - it is a tendency, a phenomena like Communism.

That isn't to say it came from nowhere. The first real embryo of bourgeois ideology - humanism, was the natural precursor to Liberalism. To ask for "key liberal texts" assumes that Liberalism came to be as a result of the evolution of processes of pure thought, or that understanding Liberal ideology can be accomplished simply through reading what Liberals have to say about themselves.

Well, these might be important texts with regard to the development of economic discourse as we know it, but by the time these were written Liberalism had been formally alive for over a hundred years.

I don't believe Hobbes is considered a liberal in the classical sense.

Locke and Keynes are rather incompatible. There are many meanings of liberalism. The main two are European and American. European is very close to conservatism and John Locke is really valid there. But American one considers an equality as important value and there Keynes is more appropriate.


However, I think that considering an equality as important value in American meaning of liberalism originated from Proudhon's notion that freedom is impossible without equality. Thus Prouhon's "What is property?" can be considered as liberal book.

On the contrary, Hobbes was a liberal precisely and only in the classical sense.

Okay, but the OP asked for works that are considered developments in liberal thought. Those texts represent pretty major developments within liberalism.

Like Rafiq says, you cannot really research an established "liberal theory" of society, it was a current, a negation of a previous society in their own time. So it is best understood in their relational and historical context. Essentially, you can link many "liberal" thinkers to previous thinkers...and thinkers from various fields, ethics, politics, metaphysics, epistemology would reinforce each other. However there are some key currents that have supported the liberal discourse.

If we take the breaking point towards modernity to be post-Renaissance(though we cannot really separate it from renaissance and reforms and that from scholasticism of medieval Europe and that from Hellenistic philosophy and that from aristo, platon and socrates and them from pre-socratics...etc) we get multiple schools of thought in the making all leading towards liberalism or, critique of the old order more like. Thus, in its historical context, liberal discourse gets a progressive revolutionary role much like how communism is supposed to take.

Having said that, some things to familiarize yourself with should be;

In France, Descartes and the epistemological position of rationalism and Cartesian dualism. Many other French philosophers were more prominent in political philosophy and ethics such as Montaigne, Rousseau, Voltaire these people being key names in liberal revolutions and "social contract" being a key key key concept.

Another name would be Spinoza that goes along with Descartes and their relation to geometry, rationalism and Pythagoras from pre-socratic times. Spinoza is especially important in the formation of materialist though with his take on mind-body being one phenomena.

The other current of course is the British-American line and the birth of empiricism in epistemology. Names like D.Hume, G.Berkeley, J.Locke, J.Bentham, A.Smith even Isaac Newton are crucial in the formation of liberal thoughts. From epistemology, the nature of reality, to political philosophy and ethics, these people have started an important current. Into 19th century(a very important name here being J.Stuart Mill in UK and Charles Sander Peirce in US) , general schools like Pragmatism/Utilitarianism was formed which were crucial for rise of liberalism. Later into twentieth century it leads into analytical philosophy of B.Russell and Wittgenstein and marks the continental-analytical divide.

Another key tradition is that of German critical philosophy that started with I.Kant, obviously a VERY important name. You could look into Schelling, Fichte, Hegel, Feuerbach and maybe even Schopenhauer and Nietzsche :P though the last two might not be as crucial for the case of liberalism. Truely though, Kant and Hegel are must-must reads.

Then we could get into continental philosophy but then the list grows on and on. But above people are some key names and you can look into their major works. I suggest to look into them by also reading various interpretations.


Important note: You should note that liberalism is not a united theory that is complete opposite or negation of "communism" that we are at war with. Rather, you should look at this as the intellectual tradition of humanity(or maybe even Europe lel) that constantly evolves depending in its context and we constantly derive and negate from our predecessors. It is the common intellectual heritage of humanity if you will. So while our position can be a negation of their arguments in dialectical terms, theirs is not an opposite of ours. We DERIVE from them. The crucial bit with Marxism is that it taps into the revolutionary pulse in the society. Liberalism is not an evil anti-position(it makes me sick to see so called marxists using "liberal" as an insult), rather many of its crucial aspects have became obsolete if our position is right.

Other than what has already been mentioned above, you might wanna check out Bertrand Russell's "The History of Western Philosophy" (he should've added "From A Strictly Liberal Point of View" in the title.)

I disagree with you on what liberalism is kinda. I agree that there isn't "liberal theory", and that liberalism is a trend rather than an ideology, but I disagree that "It is the common intellectual heritage of humanity", rather it is the affirmation of civilization from a bourgeois standpoint. Just like many myths and fables and other stories were affirmations of civilization from this or that standpoint (although also a lot of myths were ways to explain how the world came to be).

Don't have much time to go one but yeah, that's the gist of what I wanna say.

Can't say I disagree. I did put little parenthesis that maybe you can view it as the common heritage of white European male. However, liberalism and capitalism has spread pretty much everywhere in the world, in the worst case making a synthesis with local heritages and perhaps coming to dominate all discourses at least under the concept of "modernity".

Either I don't understand what you're saying or you don't understand what I'm saying, would you MIMD clarifying for me?

I was saying you were right in this. But I was also pointing out that liberalism&bourgeouisie was not of same dynamism before it spread from western Europe to the globe. So while originally not being the common heritage, the liberal paradigms, they've became that over time under "modernization" from 19th century and onwards.
Liberal ideas did not for instance emerge in Ottoman Empire nor were part of the local heritage, as western influence grew and grew it penetrated into Ottoman intellectual heritage as well creating a synthesis. And since capitalism has spread to majority of the world, under the concept of modernization, these names have over time became a common heritage. Now, everywhere in the world, people will refer to these names.

Not saying this as a bad or a good thing. It just is.

William Beveridge's report, Social Insurance and Allied Services, 1942.

There's a lot to draw on in the Enlightenment --- Locke, Kant, Montesquieu.

The canonical Twentieth Century work is John Rawles --- "A Theory of Justice"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ra...ory_of_Justice


I don't think JSM advocated Liberalism in the modern American sense. He was much closer to right libertarianism.