>>2549169an issue is that "liberalism" is defined ipso facto (i.e. "liberalism" is a 19th century signifier). the earliest text i could find which references "liberalism" directly is andré vieusseux's "essay on liberalism" (1823), which i provide citation of here:
>>2526253his claim is that these "innovators" lack a cohesive theory of their own movement. they are not guided by a positive belief in liberty, but a negative belief against "stability". i then attempt to provide german idealist sources of a positive freedom, which appears linked to moral law and thus the liberal precedence of the supremacy of the legislative branch, as we see in england (i.e. "the rule of law", which evolves from habeas corpus to universal human rights). yet, kant still sees that for one to be free is not to be merely subject to law (e.g. dictatorship) but to submit oneself to the moral law as their own reason intuits it. thus, kant attempts to combine freedom and necessity, in what is later approximated by hegel. the earliest liberal ideas stress liberty and this seems to be its own end. yet there is the capitalist turn as smith identifies it (1776) between the class interest of the worker and the capitalist, where profits and wages compete against each other. the rise of socialism comes from.the french radicals, with pierre leroux first defining "socialism" twofold; saint-simonism and republicanism (i.e. liberty, fraternity, equality). proudhon had personal antagonism with leroux yet appears consistent in this republican idea (proudhon in 1849 revealing that his 3 intellectual "masters" were adam smith, hegel and the bible). marx on the other hand seems to have favoured saint-simonism (e.g. "the administration of things") and so came against the french republicans, with his theory of freedom (e.g. 1844 manuscripts) being the positive concept of humanism (communism) where contradictions end.