History UsefulNotes / PoliticalIdeologies

13th Jan '17 9:55:26 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->-- UsefulNotes/Jesus, [[Literature/TheBible The Gospel of Mark,]] [[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12&version=KJV 12:29-31]]

to:

-->-- UsefulNotes/Jesus, '''UsefulNotes/{{Jesus}}''', [[Literature/TheBible The Gospel of Mark,]] [[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12&version=KJV 12:29-31]]
13th Jan '17 9:51:40 PM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The Nation is and always been has an abstract concept. And so, nationalism is more or less governed by ideas, images and symbols, rather than empirical and rationally consistent ideas. The ideas, images and symbols which are chosen (either from above or from below, and often by both) are intend ''to represent'' the nation to its citizens and also ''be representative'' of the citizens themselves. Before nationalism, citizens were product of their environments, their families, their religions and social classes. After nationalism, citizens are products of all that ''and'' the nation which is inculcated to them by education, by professional service and by the given PopculturalOsmosis of the national entity. In the life-cycle of nation states, first the citizens form the nation (either by revolution or general consent) but then the Nation starts forming its citizens, starts defining, categorizing and labeling them and by the second or third generation, what was originally abstract, improvised and theoretical comes to seem [[NewerThanTheyThink authentic, traditional and material]].

to:

The Nation is and always has been has an abstract concept. And so, nationalism is more or less governed by ideas, images and symbols, rather than empirical and rationally consistent ideas. The ideas, images and symbols which are chosen (either from above or from below, and often by both) are intend ''to represent'' the nation to its citizens and also ''be representative'' of the citizens themselves. Before nationalism, citizens were product of their environments, their families, their religions and social classes. After nationalism, citizens are products of all that ''and'' the nation which is inculcated to them by education, by professional service and by the given PopculturalOsmosis of the national entity. In the life-cycle of nation states, first the citizens form the nation (either by revolution or general consent) but then the Nation starts forming its citizens, starts defining, categorizing and labeling them and by the second or third generation, what was originally abstract, improvised and theoretical comes to seem [[NewerThanTheyThink authentic, traditional and material]].
13th Jan '17 9:48:28 PM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The idea of the nation was originally a radical and bold one. It was fashioned during UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution. The Revolutionaries were set on building a Republic that could govern a large area of land, and one which represented the whole nation. To do this, to claim this ambition, they were more or less writing off a justification for TheKingdom and TheChurch, i.e. they were the only institutions and organizations that can effectively rule and govern a large diverse region where subjects in one region had nothing in common with other. Nations insisted that people are citizens, equally important in creating the whole state by means of certain commonalities. In order to represent this ideology, Nationalism had to be made visible by means of symbols and institutions and thus was born during the French Revolution, both by deliberate design and spontaneous improvisation, such things as National Flags, National Anthems, National Museums, National Schools, National Banks and a bunch of official propaganda saluting patriots and heroes of the Nation. This idea persisted even when they converted into an Empire, when Emperor Bonaparte introduced further ideas namely the award for the highest citizen, the Legion d'Honneur (subsequently copied by other nations, such as the US Presidential Medal of Freedom) which he awarded to both military and civilian professionals.

to:

The idea of the nation was originally a radical and bold one. It was fashioned during UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution. The Revolutionaries were set on building a Republic that could govern a large area of land, and one which represented be representative of the whole nation. To do this, to claim this ambition, they were more or less writing off a justification for same, nullifying and usurping the claims of TheKingdom and TheChurch, i.e. they were TheChurch in the only institutions and organizations that can effectively rule and govern a large diverse region where subjects in one region had nothing in common with other. minds of the people. Nations insisted that people are citizens, equally important in creating the whole state by means of certain commonalities. In order to represent this ideology, commonalities, which they claimed had existed but had been invisible, hidden and suppressed in the past. Nationalism had sought to be made make this visible by means of symbols and institutions and thus was born during the French Revolution, both by deliberate design and spontaneous improvisation, such things as National Flags, National Anthems, National Museums, National Schools, National Banks and a bunch of official propaganda saluting patriots and heroes of the Nation. This idea persisted even when they converted into an Empire, when Emperor Bonaparte introduced further ideas namely the award for the highest citizen, the Legion d'Honneur (subsequently copied by other nations, such as the US Presidential Medal of Freedom) which he awarded to both military and civilian professionals.
13th Jan '17 9:43:36 PM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message


When the Counter-Enlightenment rolled around in the wake of UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution, things changed. On the British side, Empiricism had been pushed so far that many began to embrace Skepticism (in the philosophical sense — the belief we cannot reach knowledge). Arguably, they were following on in the wake of David Hume (although also arguably they were going much further than he did). On the Continental side, Rationalism had been pushed to extremes that argued reason has a nature which shapes its user. This is arguably derivative from Kant, but many additions were made by Kant's intellectual successors (known as the German Idealists). For instance, Fichte argued that one's nationality shapes one's consciousness. Hegel took this even further, arguably diminishing the role of human beings as free agents in favor of making them voices of larger forces.

to:

When the Counter-Enlightenment rolled around in the wake of UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution, things changed. On the British side, Empiricism had been pushed so far that many began to embrace Skepticism (in the philosophical sense — the belief we cannot reach knowledge). Arguably, they were following on in the wake of David Hume (although also arguably (arguably, they were going much further than he did). On the Continental side, Rationalism had been pushed to extremes that argued reason has a nature which shapes its user. This is arguably derivative from Kant, but many additions were made by Kant's intellectual successors (known as the German Idealists). For instance, Fichte argued that one's nationality shapes one's consciousness. Hegel took this even further, arguably diminishing the role of human beings as free agents in favor of making them voices of larger forces.



Nationalism is so unquestioned and all-pervasive today that it is more a belief than an ideology. As it has nothing to say about individual people and their well-being, it has no set opinion on the political economy and its social structures. Hence its paradox of being both particular and to a degree universal. Nationalism has two basic tenets: First, everyone on earth belongs to a 'nation', an imagined community which exists [[ClapYourHandsIfYouBelieve because people who identify with it believe it does]]. The second tenet of nationalism is that every 'nation' on earth should have a state that governs an amount of territory, and that all the people of that 'nation' should live within that territory.

You can see how these beliefs [[MisplacedNationalism are trouble]] especially when taken to their extreme conclusions. By valuing nations above people, virtually any sacrifice of a nation's people (short of sacrificing absolutely everyone of that nation) in the name of that nation is acceptable … let alone the sacrifice of people of a different nation. A true, pure nationalist, free from the influence of all other political ideologies, would regard the genocide of absolutely everybody on earth save 10,000 people of one’s own nation[[note]]That's the minimum number required to perpetuate humanity with enough genetic variation to stave off inbreeding.[[/note]] as the only acceptable solution to the problem of the existence of other nations.

As we said at the outset, though, nationalism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Most nation-states save [[UsefulNotes/NorthKorea the Democratic People's Republic of Korea]] would be severely criticized for making such a trade-off as the one just outlined. While most nationalists value their own nation and members of it more than they do foreign nations and foreign people, they probably wouldn't believe that their nation is such an important cause that all those people should die in its name. In many respects this attitude is a return to the nineteenth century, back when the word 'nation' was redefined from a vague word denoting 'group of peoples who spoke the same language'[[note]]Much has been written of how the myriad forms of the word and concept of 'nation' far predate the modern nation-state and nationalism as it's known today, of course.[[/note]] to a unified 'racial'[[note]]With the exception of Russian Nationalism, which was avowedly non-hereditary but was defined exclusively by acceptance of the Orthodox Christian Faith.[[/note]] group that should have its own state [[SocialDarwinism and must dominate the earth or surely go extinct, for only one nation can ultimately survive]]. While nationalism in this sense remains a strong force in the world today, there can be no doubt that it is far weaker than it was in the 20th century due to the events of the World Wars as well as the power of liberalism, which opposes nationalism on the grounds that real individual people are not worth sacrificing for any kind of 'imagined' community, no matter how strongly people may feel about it. On the other hand, the myriad forms of nationalism and resurging influence in more recent times mean that [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement the devil really is in the details]].

Nationalism is often distinguished from ''patriotism'', a [[http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/ personal affinity or loyalty to one's country]] without a specific feeling that it is better than others. Or, to paraphrase Creator/GeorgeOrwell, Patriotism is a love for one's homeland that has no intention of imposing upon others. But though patriotism is more in line with liberalism, [[PatrioticFervor more jingoistic fervor]] nonetheless overlaps with nationalism in a classical sense. When combined with anti-liberal and -socialist politics as well as militarism, the result tends to become ''Fascism''.

to:

The idea of the nation was originally a radical and bold one. It was fashioned during UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution. The Revolutionaries were set on building a Republic that could govern a large area of land, and one which represented the whole nation. To do this, to claim this ambition, they were more or less writing off a justification for TheKingdom and TheChurch, i.e. they were the only institutions and organizations that can effectively rule and govern a large diverse region where subjects in one region had nothing in common with other. Nations insisted that people are citizens, equally important in creating the whole state by means of certain commonalities. In order to represent this ideology, Nationalism had to be made visible by means of symbols and institutions and thus was born during the French Revolution, both by deliberate design and spontaneous improvisation, such things as National Flags, National Anthems, National Museums, National Schools, National Banks and a bunch of official propaganda saluting patriots and heroes of the Nation. This idea persisted even when they converted into an Empire, when Emperor Bonaparte introduced further ideas namely the award for the highest citizen, the Legion d'Honneur (subsequently copied by other nations, such as the US Presidential Medal of Freedom) which he awarded to both military and civilian professionals.

The Nation is and always been has an abstract concept. And so, nationalism is more or less governed by ideas, images and symbols, rather than empirical and rationally consistent ideas. The ideas, images and symbols which are chosen (either from above or from below, and often by both) are intend ''to represent'' the nation to its citizens and also ''be representative'' of the citizens themselves. Before nationalism, citizens were product of their environments, their families, their religions and social classes. After nationalism, citizens are products of all that ''and'' the nation which is inculcated to them by education, by professional service and by the given PopculturalOsmosis of the national entity. In the life-cycle of nation states, first the citizens form the nation (either by revolution or general consent) but then the Nation starts forming its citizens, starts defining, categorizing and labeling them and by the second or third generation, what was originally abstract, improvised and theoretical comes to seem [[NewerThanTheyThink authentic, traditional and material]].

Nationalism is so unquestioned and all-pervasive today that it is more a belief than an ideology.ideology and that proves its success as an ideology in replacing its older stuctures. As it has nothing to say about individual people and their well-being, it has no set opinion on the political economy and its social structures. Hence its paradox of being both particular and to a degree universal. Nationalism has two basic tenets: First, everyone on earth belongs to a 'nation', an imagined community which exists [[ClapYourHandsIfYouBelieve because people who identify with it believe it does]]. The second tenet of nationalism is that every 'nation' on earth should have a state that governs an amount of territory, and that all the people of that 'nation' should live within that territory.

territory. Given the power of this abstract concept and its vital importance, it became quite important to people of different interests to be, ''selective'' of what represents the nation and what is considered to be representative of its citizens. It could be common language and common religion, common culture, but languages can be learnt and what if people share the same religion and different language, and vice versa and what about outsiders (who share neither language nor religion, or one of both) who develop a ForeignCultureFetish? Obviously, people needed to be more specific and eventually other filters had to be added, and eventually race and ethnicity was decided in the course of the 19th and early 20th Century. Thus was born ethno-nationalism a strain of nationalism that is remarkable for its global reach, spreading from Central and Eastern Europe to the Middle East to the Indian Subcontinent, to Africa and beyond. Other strains include nativism, a concept which insists that particular citizens, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrenvolk_democracy a herrenvolk]], have aristocratic claims and entitlements to the nation, its rights and its services, over other groups of citizens, even if the latter are officially citizens, residents and speakers of the same language as the former, and over time via [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_succession_theory ethnic succession]], the concept of natives can change, the herrenvolk expands to former marginal groups so as to better combat more newcomers.

You can see how these beliefs [[MisplacedNationalism are trouble]] especially when taken to their extreme conclusions. By valuing nations above people, virtually any sacrifice of a nation's people (short of sacrificing absolutely everyone of that nation) in the name of that nation is acceptable … acceptable...let alone the sacrifice of people of a different nation. A true, pure nationalist, free from the influence of all other political ideologies, would regard the genocide of absolutely everybody on earth save 10,000 people of one’s own nation[[note]]That's the minimum number required to perpetuate humanity with enough genetic variation to stave off inbreeding.[[/note]] as the only acceptable solution to the problem of the existence of other nations.

nations. As we said at the outset, though, nationalism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Most nation-states save [[UsefulNotes/NorthKorea the Democratic People's Republic of Korea]] would be severely criticized for making such a trade-off as the one just outlined. While most nationalists value their own nation and members of it more than they do foreign nations and foreign people, they probably wouldn't believe that their nation is such an important cause that all those people should die in its name.

In many respects this attitude is a return to the nineteenth century, back when the word 'nation' was redefined from a vague word denoting 'group of peoples who spoke the same language'[[note]]Much has been written of how the myriad forms of the word and concept of 'nation' far predate the modern nation-state and nationalism as it's known today, of course.[[/note]] to a unified 'racial'[[note]]With the exception of Russian Nationalism, which was avowedly non-hereditary but was defined exclusively by acceptance of the Orthodox Christian Faith.[[/note]] group that should have its own state [[SocialDarwinism and must dominate the earth or surely go extinct, for only one nation can ultimately survive]]. While nationalism in this sense remains a strong force in the world today, there can be no doubt that it is far weaker than it was in the 20th century due to the events of the World Wars as well as the power of liberalism, which opposes nationalism on the grounds that real individual people are not worth sacrificing for any kind of 'imagined' community, no matter how strongly people may feel about it. On the other hand, the myriad forms of nationalism and resurging influence in more recent times mean that [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement the devil really is in the details]].

Nationalism is often distinguished from ''patriotism'', a [[http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/ personal affinity or loyalty to one's country]] without a specific feeling that it is better than others. Or, Creator/GeorgeOrwell preferred to paraphrase Creator/GeorgeOrwell, define Patriotism is as a love for one's homeland that has no intention of imposing upon others. But though patriotism others but for others love for one's country involves dreams of superiority, and if one is more particularly taken with fidelity, it excludes love for other nations and peoples, and at times licenses hatred for the latter to justify and reinforce the former. Nationalism and Patriotism can be in line with liberalism, and left-wing socialism [[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/30.htm and even internationalist communism]]. But [[PatrioticFervor more jingoistic fervor]] nonetheless overlaps with nationalism in a classical sense. When fervor]], when combined with anti-liberal politics, social darwinism (where only the fittest nations can survive and -socialist politics as well as dominate) race-based ideas, and militarism, the result tends to become ''Fascism''.''Fascism'' or ''National Socialism''.
13th Jan '17 12:14:04 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Subtypes:
* Primordialism: nations have always existed as semi-mystical, semi-spiritual entities with eternal moral/mental essences.
* Modernism: nations are modern constructions created to inspire pride in modern states. Nationality is not a meaningful form of identity.
* Ethnosymbolism: nations have a long pedigree, but mass-belief in nations is a modern invention. Nationality is as meaningful to us we feel it is.

Nationalism is so unquestioned and all-pervasive today that it is more a belief than an ideology. As it has nothing to say about individual people and their well-being, it has no set opinion on the political economy and its social structures. Hence its paradox of being both particular and to a degree universal.

Over the years, [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nationalism#Schools_of_thought several theories and schools have emerged]], such as Primordialism,[[note]]An early strain of nationalism as a coherent academic thought. Its followers argued that nations are timeless, biological phenomena. Largely discredited in the 20th century.[[/note]] Modernism,[[note]]A rebuttal to Primordialism, arguing that nationalism is an entirely modern construct of relatively recent vintage. The idea of nations as 'imagined communities' also largely stems from here.[[/note]] and Ethnosymbolism.[[note]]A more recent response to Modernism, stressing culture, values and traditions. In this view, nations are both ancient and modern, invented even as they’re rooted in history.[[/note]] The argument below makes use of the Modernist view.

Nationalism in this light provides two basic tenets: First, everyone on earth belongs to a 'nation', an imagined community which exists [[ClapYourHandsIfYouBelieve because people who identify with it believe it does]]. The second tenet of nationalism is that every 'nation' on earth should have a state that governs an amount of territory, and that all the people of that 'nation' should live within that territory.

to:

Subtypes:
[[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nationalism#Schools_of_thought Subtypes:]]
* Primordialism: nations have always existed as semi-mystical, semi-spiritual entities with eternal moral/mental essences. \n[[note]]An early strain of nationalism as a coherent academic thought. Its followers argued that nations are timeless, biological phenomena. Largely discredited in the 20th century[[/note]]
* Modernism: nations are modern constructions created to inspire pride in modern states. Nationality is not a meaningful form of identity.
identity.[[note]]A rebuttal to Primordialism, arguing that nationalism is an entirely modern construct of relatively recent vintage. The idea of nations as 'imagined communities' also largely stems from here[[/note]]
* Ethnosymbolism: nations have a long pedigree, but mass-belief in nations is a modern invention. Nationality is as meaningful to us we feel it is. \n\n[[note]]A more recent response to Modernism, stressing culture, values and traditions. In this view, nations are both ancient and modern, invented even as they’re rooted in history.[[/note]]

Nationalism is so unquestioned and all-pervasive today that it is more a belief than an ideology. As it has nothing to say about individual people and their well-being, it has no set opinion on the political economy and its social structures. Hence its paradox of being both particular and to a degree universal.

Over the years, [[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nationalism#Schools_of_thought several theories and schools have emerged]], such as Primordialism,[[note]]An early strain of nationalism as a coherent academic thought. Its followers argued that nations are timeless, biological phenomena. Largely discredited in the 20th century.[[/note]] Modernism,[[note]]A rebuttal to Primordialism, arguing that nationalism is an entirely modern construct of relatively recent vintage. The idea of nations as 'imagined communities' also largely stems from here.[[/note]] and Ethnosymbolism.[[note]]A more recent response to Modernism, stressing culture, values and traditions. In this view, nations are both ancient and modern, invented even as they’re rooted in history.[[/note]] The argument below makes use of the Modernist view.

universal. Nationalism in this light provides has two basic tenets: First, everyone on earth belongs to a 'nation', an imagined community which exists [[ClapYourHandsIfYouBelieve because people who identify with it believe it does]]. The second tenet of nationalism is that every 'nation' on earth should have a state that governs an amount of territory, and that all the people of that 'nation' should live within that territory.
13th Jan '17 12:08:34 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Note that most of these authors are generally considered Classical Liberals and Neoliberalism rather than Social Liberals. Despite superficial similarities there is a great deal of difference between the classical liberalism of Adam Smith (who reserved rather strong barbs for the upper class and, as mentioned above, supported government policies which favoured the lower classes) versus the Neoliberalism of Ayn Rand, who virtually worshipped the supposed perfection of the 'Invisible Hand of the Free Market' [[TheSocialDarwinist and its perfect ability to ensure that the upper and lower classes were solely composed of people who deserved to be within their ranks]] (and was much more controversial in her proposal of a moral system based upon materialistic selfishness).

to:

Note that most of these authors are generally considered Classical Liberals and Neoliberalism Neoliberals rather than Social Liberals. Despite superficial similarities there is a great deal of difference between the classical liberalism of Adam Smith (who reserved rather strong barbs for the upper class and, as mentioned above, supported government policies which favoured the lower classes) versus the Neoliberalism of Ayn Rand, who virtually worshipped the supposed perfection of the 'Invisible Hand of the Free Market' [[TheSocialDarwinist and its perfect ability to ensure that the upper and lower classes were solely composed of people who deserved to be within their ranks]] (and was much more controversial in her proposal of a moral system based upon materialistic selfishness).
13th Jan '17 12:07:52 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Note that most of these authors are generally considered classical liberals rather than social liberals, although confusingly, there is a great deal of difference between e.g. the classical liberalism of Adam Smith (who actually reserved some rather strong barbs for the upper class and, as mentioned above, supported some government intervention in the economy) versus the classical liberalism of Ayn Rand, who was much more right-wing (and therefore much more controversial). Among the writers of nonfiction on this list, Isaiah Berlin, (sometimes) John Stuart Mill, Creator/ThomasPaine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Maynard Keynes, Karl Popper, Paul Krugman, John Rawls, Joseph Stiglitz (probably the only person on this list who could be considered a social democrat, although Rousseau is arguable), and to a lesser extent Benjamin Constant are generally the exceptions; they are usually considered social liberals. Amongst the fiction authors, Heinlein is an interesting case because he actually drifted from social liberalism (''Literature/ForUsTheLivingAComedyOfCustoms'' and ''Literature/BeyondThisHorizon'', for example, although these actually border on socialism, advocating an economy called Social Credit which is effectively a mixture of socialism and capitalism) to classical liberalism (much of his later writing with the arguable exception of ''Literature/StrangerInAStrangeLand'', which generally doesn’t discuss economics) throughout his writing career; ''Literature/TheMoonIsAHarshMistress'' could actually be considered to advocate a form of individualist anarchism.

to:

Note that most of these authors are generally considered classical liberals Classical Liberals and Neoliberalism rather than social liberals, although confusingly, Social Liberals. Despite superficial similarities there is a great deal of difference between e.g. the classical liberalism of Adam Smith (who actually reserved some rather strong barbs for the upper class and, as mentioned above, supported some government intervention in policies which favoured the economy) lower classes) versus the classical liberalism Neoliberalism of Ayn Rand, who virtually worshipped the supposed perfection of the 'Invisible Hand of the Free Market' [[TheSocialDarwinist and its perfect ability to ensure that the upper and lower classes were solely composed of people who deserved to be within their ranks]] (and was much more right-wing (and therefore much more controversial). controversial in her proposal of a moral system based upon materialistic selfishness).

Among the writers of nonfiction on this list, Isaiah Berlin, (sometimes) John Stuart Mill, Creator/ThomasPaine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Maynard Keynes, Karl Popper, Paul Krugman, John Rawls, Joseph Stiglitz (probably the only person on this list who could be considered a social democrat, although Rousseau is arguable), and to a lesser extent Benjamin Constant are generally the exceptions; they are usually considered social liberals. Amongst the fiction authors, Heinlein is an interesting case because he actually drifted from social liberalism (''Literature/ForUsTheLivingAComedyOfCustoms'' and ''Literature/BeyondThisHorizon'', for example, although these actually border on socialism, advocating an economy called Social Credit which is effectively a mixture of socialism and capitalism) to classical liberalism (much of his later writing with the arguable exception of ''Literature/StrangerInAStrangeLand'', which generally doesn’t discuss economics) throughout his writing career; ''Literature/TheMoonIsAHarshMistress'' could actually be considered to advocate a form of individualist anarchism.
13th Jan '17 12:02:54 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Democratic: The People can only check the power of Elites using the power of democratic institutions, because Dictatorship would only replace economic elites with political ones.
Dictatorial: The People can only check the power of Elites using the power of the totalitarian state, because Democracy would be corrupted and subverted by the residual economic power of elites.

to:

* Democratic: The People can only check the power of Elites using the power of democratic institutions, because Dictatorship would only replace economic elites with political ones.
* Dictatorial: The People can only check the power of Elites using the power of the totalitarian state, because Democracy would be corrupted and subverted by the residual economic power of elites.
13th Jan '17 12:01:54 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The following political ideologies arose from one long period in human history with four stages: UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment, UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution, UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution, and then the Counter-Enlightenment (the trope RomanticismVersusEnlightenment is basically Counter-Enlightenment versus Enlightenment).

to:

The following political ideologies Nationalism, Liberalism, Socialism, and Conservatism arose from one long period in human history with four stages: UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment, UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution, UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution, three stages:

* UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment (16th-C18th centuries), when they were first conceived.
* The UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution
and then UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution (1770s-1810s), when the new anti-status-quo ideologies were implemented.
* The
Counter-Enlightenment (1790s-), when Conservatism was re-articulated as a response to ideology (the trope RomanticismVersusEnlightenment is basically Counter-Enlightenment versus Enlightenment).



* Neoliberal(/"Libertarian"): Government allows people to be as free or unfree as their hereditary wealth makes them. 'The Free Market' then perfectly allocates wealth in proportion to each individual's objective skills and hard work. Objectively valuable people are freer than others, and Worthless people have little or no freedom.

to:

* Neoliberal(/"Libertarian"): Government allows people to be as free or unfree as their hereditary wealth makes them. 'The Free Market' then perfectly allocates wealth in proportion to each individual's objective skills and hard work. Objectively valuable Valuable people are freer than others, and Worthless people have little or no freedom.



Conservatism is understood as an approach to politics based on compromise and the maintenance of institutions, and good governance using tried-and-tested methods. Where change is a good idea, [[KnowWhenToFoldEm or inevitable, conservatism seeks to steer change down the safest course]] so as to better preserved old traditions within the new framework. Defining conservatism as an ideology or characterizing it as such runs into problems because many conservatives in the present, and historically, see it as inherently anti-ideological. Nevertheless, seen historically, a number of features exist which can define conservatism. The core of conservatism politically is "conserving" (preserving, defending and promoting) the established state of society, politics, economics, and institutions of high regard. This would embody moderate conservatism.

to:

Conservatism is understood as an approach to politics based on compromise and the maintenance of institutions, and good governance using tried-and-tested methods. Where change is a good idea, [[KnowWhenToFoldEm or inevitable, conservatism seeks to steer change down the safest course]] so as to better preserved old traditions within the new framework. Defining conservatism as an ideology or characterizing it as such runs into problems because many conservatives in the present, and historically, see it as inherently anti-ideological. Nevertheless, seen historically, a number of features exist which can define conservatism.

The core of both types of conservatism politically is "conserving" (preserving, defending and promoting) the established state of society, politics, economics, and institutions of high regard. This would embody moderate conservatism.Where change is a good idea, necessary to avoid conflict, [[KnowWhenToFoldEm or inevitable, Reformist conservatism seeks to steer change down the safest course]] so as to better preserve old traditions within the new framework. On the other hand Hardline Conservatives are unwilling to compromise the existing political order, and are willing to fight to maintain it or restore a previous one.



The common threads running through all socialist ideologies are the overarching goals of improving outcomes for the poor and bringing about ''equality of opportunity'' for everyone. To that end, socialism is broadly against the capitalist system, in which industry is operated and services provided by private entities (corporations, etc.) for the purpose of profit-making. Socialists argue that this arrangement is inherently exploitative, as the few owners of those entities (the upper class) can use their control over essential services to make themselves ever richer at the expense of the people who depend on said services with no other recourse (the working class). Instead, socialism is in favor of a system in which production of goods, providing of services etc. are in ''public'' hands instead of private hands. One of the main causes of ideological division within socialism is exactly in what ''capacity'' these things are put “into public hands.”

to:

The common threads running through all socialist ideologies are the overarching goals of improving outcomes for the poor and bringing about ''equality of opportunity'' for everyone. To that end, socialism is broadly against the capitalist system, in which industry is operated and services provided by private entities (corporations, etc.) for the purpose of profit-making.to enrich their owners. Socialists argue that this arrangement is inherently exploitative, as the few owners of those entities (the upper class) can use their control over essential services to make themselves ever richer at the expense of the people who depend on said services with no other recourse (the working class). Instead, socialism is in favor of a system in which production of goods, providing of services etc. are in ''public'' hands instead of private hands. One of the main causes of ideological division within socialism is exactly in what ''capacity'' these things are put “into public hands.”



Populism holds that society should be run for the benefit of the majority of its citizens. Its primary ideological opponent is so-called ''Neoliberalism'', [[UsefulNotes/EconomicTheories the Reagan-Thatcher-era rebranding of Classical Liberalism]]. ''Neoliberalism'' not only promised that promoting wealth inequality would enrich the majority, but claimed that wealth inequality would not affect politics. Neither was the case: elites used their growing wealth to buy political influence, which they used to grow their wealth even further by legalising the extraction of wealth from the majority (such as the "privatisation" of essential services such as healthcare, utilities, communications, transportation, etc). Populists fear that this feedback loop will end social mobility and democracy, and produce a ''de facto'' return to aristocratic/feudal dictatorship.

to:

Populism holds that society should be run for the benefit of the majority of its citizens. Its primary ideological opponent is so-called ''Neoliberalism'', [[UsefulNotes/EconomicTheories the Reagan-Thatcher-era rebranding of Classical Liberalism]]. ''Neoliberalism'' not only promised that promoting wealth inequality would enrich the majority, but claimed that wealth inequality would not affect politics. Neither was the case: elites used their growing wealth to buy political influence, which they used to grow their wealth even further by legalising the extraction of wealth from the majority (such as the "privatisation" of - through "privatising" essential services such as healthcare, utilities, communications, transportation, etc).etc. Populists fear that this feedback loop will end social mobility and democracy, and produce a ''de facto'' return to aristocratic/feudal dictatorship.
12th Jan '17 11:51:56 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Subtypes:
* Primordialism: nations have always existed as semi-mystical, semi-spiritual entities with eternal moral/mental essences.
* Modernism: nations are modern constructions created to inspire pride in modern states. Nationality is not a meaningful form of identity.
* Ethnosymbolism: nations have a long pedigree, but mass-belief in nations is a modern invention. Nationality is as meaningful to us we feel it is.



[[folder:Liberalism — For Freedom, and Reform!]]

to:

[[folder:Liberalism — For Freedom, The Freedom Of The Individual!]]

Subtypes:
* Classical: Government allows people to be free or unfree as their hereditary wealth makes them. Ancestral Elites are freer than others,
and Reform!]]
poverty means The People have little or no freedom.
* Social(-Democratic): Government sets people free by preventing wealth and ill-fortune from being barriers to acquiring wealth. Elites and The People are both relatively free.
* Neoliberal(/"Libertarian"): Government allows people to be as free or unfree as their hereditary wealth makes them. 'The Free Market' then perfectly allocates wealth in proportion to each individual's objective skills and hard work. Objectively valuable people are freer than others, and Worthless people have little or no freedom.



Subtypes:
* Reformist: ''StatusQuoIsGod'', but if refusal to compromise means armed conflict then KnowWhenToFoldEm.
* Hardline: ''[[GloryDays Status Quo Ante]]'', and if refusal to compromise means armed conflict then ViolenceIsTheOnlyOption.



->- "''The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ''"
-->-- UsefulNotes/Jesus, [[Literature/TheBible The Gospel of Mark,]] [[12:29-31]]

to:

->- "''The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ''"
-->-- UsefulNotes/Jesus, [[Literature/TheBible The Gospel of Mark,]] [[12:29-31]]
[[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12&version=KJV 12:29-31]]



[[folder:Socialism — For Equality!]]

to:

[[folder:Socialism — For Equality!]]
The People!]]



People are naturally greedy, so the rich don't feel that with their power ComesGreatResponsibility. We must make them help the needy, [[ActualPacifist but violence is not the answer]]!

to:

People are naturally greedy, so the rich elites don't feel that with their power ComesGreatResponsibility. We must make them help the needy, [[ActualPacifist but violence is not the answer]]!
answer]]!

Subtypes:

Democratic: The People can only check the power of Elites using the power of democratic institutions, because Dictatorship would only replace economic elites with political ones.
Dictatorial: The People can only check the power of Elites using the power of the totalitarian state, because Democracy would be corrupted and subverted by the residual economic power of elites.



The rich have a culture of greed which keeps them from feeling that with their power ComesGreatResponsibility. We must take their power to help the needy, and ViolenceIsTheOnlyOption!

to:

The rich Elites have a culture of self-serving greed which keeps them from feeling that with their power ComesGreatResponsibility. We must take their power to help the needy, and ViolenceIsTheOnlyOption!
ViolenceIsTheOnlyOption!

Subtypes:
* ....[[LongList We Don't Have All Day]]


Added DiffLines:

[[NoManShouldHaveThisPower No person or organisation can exercise power]] [[DrunkWithPower and not be corrupted by it.]] The only solution is to ''eliminate rulership itself!''

Subtypes:
* Anarcho-Capitalist: Capitalism can be managed if political power is used to prevent the accumulation of economic power sufficient to create ''de facto'' rulership. Capitalism can be used for good.
* Anarcho-Socialist: The concentration of wealth is InherentInTheSystem of Capitalism, which will always generate ''de facto'' rulership. Capitalism is unusable by definition.
This list shows the last 10 events of 748. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.PoliticalIdeologies