The Words and Concepts of Liberalism

They are presented in the order of their historical appearance. This glossary can be read straight through to give an idea of the historical evolution from the 17th century to the present day.

Classical liberalism

It emerged in the 16th–17th centuries. John Locke (1632–1704), in the Second Treatise of Civil Government, defines man as the owner of himself, of his life, liberty, and property. Man is free by nature, and the State has legitimacy only insofar as it ensures and guarantees this original individual freedom. Montesquieu (1689–1755), in The Spirit of the Laws, brings in the idea of a necessary separation of powers to secure the legitimacy of the State. Adam Smith (1723–1790), in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, lays the foundations of the idea of the free market. Classical liberalism has both an economic dimension (deregulation and laissez-faire) and an emancipatory political dimension (the freedom of the individual set up against the potential abuses of the State). The political liberalism of the French revolutionaries is distinguished from economic liberalism insofar as it places the State at the center of the process of building individual freedoms, essentially defined as the rights of the citizen.

Ordoliberalism

A doctrine that arose in 1930s Germany, which gives the State an active role in establishing the conditions for the possibility of the free market. The State must provide the legal framework that enables free competition between businesses. Walter Eucken (1891–1950) founded a political economy centered on the idea of an economic order that is not spontaneous, but produced and instituted by a legal and constitutional apparatus. Ordoliberalism can also be combined with a social dimension: Wilhelm Röpke (1899–1966) and Alexander Rüstow (1885–1963) introduced the idea of the “social market economy”; here, capitalism is supposed to be naturally social. Rüstow and Röpke took part in the Lippmann Colloquium in 1938. In ordoliberalism, if the State intervenes, it is not to control the market, but to facilitate it.

Neoliberalism

Its birth may be dated to the Lippmann Colloquium (1938), where the word “neoliberalism” was coined: it is positioned both as a continuation of liberalism (against emerging totalitarianism and against socialist planning) and as establishing a conceptual distinction from liberalism. The aim was to differentiate it from laissez-faire liberalism, which leads most men to ruin and turns them away from liberalism, by reasserting the need for political liberalism associated with economic liberalism: production is governed by the price mechanism, but there must be a legal regime aimed at maximizing the utility of production. If democratic procedure does not bring about these ends, the liberal system requires that the choice of other ends be consciously decided. The sacrifices entailed by the system’s functioning may be charged to the community.
From the creation of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947 in Switzerland, neoliberalism hardened. This “society” brought together Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, etc. It was a think-tank, precursor of today’s ideological incubators. In this melting pot of German, English, and American cultures, doctrinal crossovers took place and a syncretic reflection emerged. Thus, in the 1980s, neoliberalism linked up with ultraliberal individualism. Neoliberal economics then spread worldwide thanks to new propaganda that enabled it to sell itself to the peoples it conquered: neoliberalism would bring not only common wealth for all humanity, but also the maximum of individual freedom. In an “open society” (an expression of K. Popper) where human rights would be respected, the individual would finally find all the conditions of his liberty united. The prerequisite for the expansion of this “free society” is that the law of economic necessity prevail over politics, and proceed to the “rationalization” of States, training them to a new task: imposing deregulation.

Ultraliberalism

A term used only in French, for its critical charge against neoliberalism. It is significant that there is no equivalent in English. It means that liberalism here is deployed beyond measure, in an excessive and unrestrained manner, to its paroxysm. One may also speak of liberal extremism or the “extreme center” ¹

The word can also be used in a much narrower and more precise sense: in this case, it is distinguished from “neoliberal” and refers to the concept of libertarianism (Silicon Valley, Musk, Javier Milei…). It then designates all doctrines of libertarian individualism, which promote the idea that the State should be weak, or that we should move toward a zero-State, so that individual freedom may emerge in a society organized only by free exchange.
In reality, however, ultraliberalism is not at all incompatible with the idea of a strong State, conceived as an instrument to impose deregulation, offering the market the legal framework necessary for “liberalization.” The State is then conceived as the necessary organ in the transition toward the “order of the market.” It may also be conceived as the transitional moment toward anarcho-capitalism — in the perspective of passing through the anarcho-capitalist moment to recompose a new “world order” of neo-feudal essence.

Minarchism

The idea that the prerogatives of the State must be restricted, its power contained within strict limits. This does not amount to anarcho-capitalism, which advocates zero State or a society developing outside the State. Minarchism defines the State as a protective authority that prevents conflict and secures property. The American Robert Nozick (1938–2002), for example, defines the minimal State as a “night watchman state”: it is the guardian of the security of men and their property; it guarantees the principle of non-aggression, property, and contracts. But it has no other legitimate power: levying taxes, for example, is considered an act of theft.

Anarcho-capitalism

A libertarian anarchism, thus an expression of individualist capitalism and the culmination of an ultraliberal tendency to deny any legitimacy to the State. Men are not defined as citizens, but as “living forces,” whose field of action is the market. There can be no legal constraint. The only “principle” is that of “non-aggression.” This capitalist and libertarian anarchism, a right-wing anarchism, is the opposite of left-libertarian anarchism, in that the central value of this doctrine is private property, the foundation and condition of possibility of individual freedom. Sometimes, however, the far-right anarcho-capitalist doctrine draws inspiration from certain leftist philosophies (Nick Land). Yet another proof that ideological syncretism — its ability to assimilate and digest doctrines and dogmas — is the strength of this new regime. Anarcho-capitalist authors: Murray Rothbard (1926–1995, inspiration for J. Milei), David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman, b. 1945), Hans Hermann Hoppe (b. 1949, calls himself anarcho-capitalist and, faute de mieux, monarchist; inspired Yarvin).

Libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism)

The libertarian advocates an individual freedom free from all State constraint, unfolding as freedom of expression, freedom to undertake, freedom of capital, free disposal of self and body (e.g. the writer Ayn Rand). The libertarian is on the right and now openly cooperates with the far right (Musk aligns with Trump in an objective alliance). At the other end of the political spectrum is the libertaire (left-libertarian), tending toward anarchism of the left.

Caesarism or neo-monarchism

Doctrine advocating the transition from democracy to monarchy, thanks to a “Caesar,” a charismatic figure leading peoples toward a neo-monarchist regime. Caesarism is linked in Curtis Yarvin to formalism.

Formalism

Doctrine according to which the State should be managed like a corporation, a large company, with a CEO accountable to shareholders. Formalism is close to libertarianism. But it needs a monarchist façade.

Pan-liberalism

This is a neologism we propose. The prefix pan means “all,” and pan-liberalism could describe this historical moment, in which we already find ourselves, where all the power of the State — its legislative power and coercive force — is subverted and put at the service of a global enterprise of deregulation, leaving market actors with free hands and peoples at the mercy of an increasingly anarchic capitalism. Pan-liberalism articulates the doctrine of libertarian individualism — which normally calls for a weak State — with a strong State, serving as a tool to impose the legal framework necessary to dismantle political bodies. This entails a moment of anarcho-capitalism. And on the basis of anarcho-capitalism, the new corporate world can recompose itself into transnational Over-corporations, of a power beyond anything previously known in history. These Over-corporations digest and assimilate States.

Autocracy

Form of government by a single ruler who centralizes all powers and exercises total control. This may refer to absolute monarchy, but today we increasingly see presidential autocracies, with autocrats elected and then seeking to amend Constitutions to remain in power.

Neo-feudalism

A term used in the analysis of pan-liberalism to denote the moment when, against the backdrop of anarcho-capitalism, Over-corporations recompose themselves on a global scale, form metapolitical regions, and divide the world: they then enslave States (considered as tools of their expansion) and peoples. One may speak of an analogy with feudalism insofar as the principle of the modern State is destroyed and a system of allegiances and vassalization is reproduced that we thought had been overcome in the West.

Excerpt from Pan-libéralisme : quand le néolibéralisme accède à la toute-puissance (“Pan-liberalism: when neoliberalism becomes all-powerful”), Caëla Gillespie, Le Bord de l’Eau, 2025.

Footnotes

1. Expression coined by historian Pierre Serna, see L’extrême centre ou le poison français, 1789-2019 (“The Extreme Center or French Poison, 1789-2019”), Ceyzerieu, ed. Champ Vallon, 2019.[↩]