History UsefulNotes / PoliticalIdeologies

[[folder/]]

Anarcho-Syndicalism: Focuses on the power of non-statist organizations like workers' associations and unions to limit the government. Related most often to Anarcho-Communism and Mutualism. This was the way it was done in [[SpanishCivilWar Anarchist Catalonia]].

Ecological or Green Anarchism: Similar to Anarcho-Communism, but with a higher emphasis on [[GreenAesop respecting nature]]. The more radical forms of this, like Anarcho-Primitivism, believe that civilization is inherently oppressivehttp://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/Freedom_and_Civilization.pdf, and wish to abolish industrial technology, agriculture, abstract thought (writing, language) etc., returning to a primitive (hence the name) existence as hunter-gatherers. Critics feel this ventures too deep in HumansAreBastards territory, noting the irony of people using abstract through (writing, speaking) to denounce it. Also, since this is an essential part of the human mind, how to they mean to end it? Lobotomies?

Egoist Anarchism: The reason why the Bomb Throwing Anarchists trope exists. Basically, they believe that anything that an individual can do, should be done. Max Stirner was the only major writer to advocate this, and in fact did not label himself an anarchist (they were among the groups he critiqued) but his rejection of the state, capitalism, and, well, all institutions basically means he has been counted with them. Also known as [[NietzscheWannabe Nihilist Anarchism]] and [[FightClub Project Mayhem]] due to this (though Fight Club has shades of Green Anarchy or Anarcho-Primitivsm as well). It's worth noting Stirner, while believing the individual's right to act was unilimited, advised that it would be best if they respected each other as individuals, to let each flourish, even saying people could voluntarily join together with a model he called the "Union of Egoists" for groups. Herehttp://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything is a classic text by Situationist International, advancing a collectivist form of egoism.

Anarcho-Capitalism: Anarcho-Capitalists (the modern Free-Market Anarchists) are essentially Individualist Anarchists but instead of advocating the Labor Theory of Economic Value, they advocate the Subjective Theory of Economic Value (which has been accepted by nearly all economists since Walras, Menger and Jevons). As such, they do not see Capitalism as inherently exploitative; rather they see an employment contract as no different to any other form of contractual relationship. Anarcho-Capitalists also reject the view that "big business" and "big government" are enemies of each other; rather they see the former as a force that benefits from having '[[friends in high places|ScrewTheRulesIHaveConnections]]' and the latter as more than willing to bestow privileges and special favors upon the former.

Ecological or Green Anarchism: Similar to Anarcho-Communism, but with a higher emphasis on [[respecting nature|GreenAesop]]. The more radical forms of this, like Anarcho-Primitivism, believe that civilization is inherently oppressivehttp://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/Freedom_and_Civilization.pdf, and wish to abolish industrial technology, agriculture, abstract thought (writing, language) etc., returning to a primitive (hence the name) existence as hunter-gatherers. Critics feel this ventures too deep in HumansAreBad territory, noting the irony of people using abstract through (writing, speaking) to denounce it. Also, since this is an essential part of the human mind, how to they mean to end it? Lobotomies?

** Answer: There entire ideology hinges upon establishing a [[post-civilization world|AfterTheEnd]], and it's held that one way or other there will be a massive population die-off, as this is unsustainable at the levels existing on the earth. Primitivists say this will happen anyway, it doesn't need to be helped on, although some make you wonder since it seems like they might want to move it along themselves...
Egoist Anarchism: The reason why the Bomb Throwing Anarchists trope exists. Basically, they believe that anything that an individual can do, should be done. Max Stirner was the only major writer to advocate this, and in fact did not label himself an anarchist (they were among the groups he critiqued) but his rejection of the state, capitalism, and, well, all institutions basically means he has been counted with them. Also known as [[Nihilist Anarchism|NietzscheWannabe]] and [[Project Mayhem|FightClub]] due to this (though Fight Club has shades of Green Anarchy or Anarcho-Primitivsm as well). It's worth noting Stirner, while believing the individual's right to act was unilimited, advised that it would be best if they respected each other as individuals, to let each flourish, even saying people could voluntarily join together with a model he called the "Union of Egoists" for groups. Herehttp://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything is a classic text by Situationist International, advancing a collectivist form of egoism.

Anarcho-Syndicalism: Focuses on the power of non-statist organizations like workers' associations and unions to limit the government. Related most often to Anarcho-Communism and Mutualism. This was the way it was done in [[Anarchist Catalonia|SpanishCivilWar]].
Philosophical Anarchism: The belief that state control and violence are related closely, so an anarchy is the most pacifist-friendly kind of society. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one of these. Also known as Anarcho-Pacifism. Definitely [[BadassPacifist|badass pacifists]] and complete [[inversion of Bomb Throwing Anarchists|BombThrowingAnarchists]].
Christian Anarchism: Related to the above, this is the belief that [[the teachings of Christ are compatible with, or even require, a non-hierarchical stateless society|JesusWasWayCool]]. They also argue that [[early Christian Communes|AncientRome]] were basically anarcho-communist in nature. Often connected with Anarcho-Pacifism, as in the work of Leo Tolstoy.

Post-Left Anarchism: A movement within anarchism that [[rejects left-right political distinctions|ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin]].

Anarcho-Capitalism: Anarcho-Capitalists (the modern Free-Market Anarchists) are essentially Individualist Anarchists but instead of advocating the Labor Theory of Economic Value, they advocate the Subjective Theory of Economic Value (which has been accepted by nearly all economists since Walras, Menger and Jevons). As such, they do not see Capitalism as inherently exploitative; rather they see an employment contract as no different to any other form of contractual relationship. Anarcho-Capitalists also reject the view that "big business" and "big government" are enemies of each other; rather they see the former as a force that benefits from having '[[ScrewTheRulesIHaveConnections|friends in high places]]' and the latter as more than willing to bestow privileges and special favors upon the former.

Ecological or Green Anarchism: Similar to Anarcho-Communism, but with a higher emphasis on [[GreenAesop|respecting nature]]. The more radical forms of this, like Anarcho-Primitivism, believe that civilization is inherently oppressivehttp://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/Freedom_and_Civilization.pdf, and wish to abolish industrial technology, agriculture, abstract thought (writing, language) etc., returning to a primitive (hence the name) existence as hunter-gatherers. Critics feel this ventures too deep in HumansAreBad territory, noting the irony of people using abstract through (writing, speaking) to denounce it. Also, since this is an essential part of the human mind, how to they mean to end it? Lobotomies?

** Answer: There entire ideology hinges upon a [[AfterTheEnd|post-civilization world]], and it's held that one way or other there will be a massive population die-off, as this is unsustainable at the levels existing on the earth. Primitivists say this will happen anyway, it doesn't need to be helped on, although some make you wonder since it seems like they might want to move it along themselves...
Egoist Anarchism: The reason why the Bomb Throwing Anarchists trope exists. Basically, they believe that anything that an individual can do, should be done. Max Stirner was the only major writer to advocate this, and in fact did not label himself an anarchist (they were among the groups he critiqued) but his rejection of the state, capitalism, and, well, all institutions basically means he has been counted with them. Also known as [[NietzscheWannabe|Nihilist Anarchism]] and [[FightClub|Project Mayhem]] due to this (though Fight Club has shades of Green Anarchy or Anarcho-Primitivsm as well). It's worth noting Stirner, while believing the individual's right to act was unilimited, advised that it would be best if they respected each other as individuals, to let each flourish, even saying people could voluntarily join together with a model he called the "Union of Egoists" for groups. Herehttp://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything is a classic text by Situationist International, advancing a collectivist form of egoism.

Anarcho-Syndicalism: Focuses on the power of non-statist organizations like workers' associations and unions to limit the government. Related most often to Anarcho-Communism and Mutualism. This was the way it was done in [[SpanishCivilWar|Anarchist Catalonia]].
Philosophical Anarchism: The belief that state control and violence are related closely, so an anarchy is the most pacifist-friendly kind of society. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one of these. Also known as Anarcho-Pacifism. Definitely [[badass pacifists|BadassPacifist]] and complete [[BombThrowingAnarchists|inversion of Bomb Throwing Anarchists]].
Christian Anarchism: Related to the above, this is the belief that [[JesusWasWayCool|the teachings of Christ are compatible with, or even require, a non-hierarchical stateless society]]. They also argue that [[AncientRome|early Christian Communes]] were basically anarcho-communist in nature. Often connected with Anarcho-Pacifism, as in the work of Leo Tolstoy.

Post-Left Anarchism: A movement within anarchism that [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin|rejects left-right political distinctions]].

•Anarcho-Communism: The most popular movement, which calls for abolition of private property, corporations, and the state. Think "Imagine" by John Lennon. People produce whatever they want to for a common pool of resources, and everyone takes what they need from it following a consensus made in a direct democratic vote. It's assumed that what you'll get will be correlative to your cooperation, unless you are a too young/old to work, or you need special care. This system was in place in some parts of Spain during the [[SpanishCivilWar]] and, believe it or not, it worked, until Franco's fascist regime took over. This is also known as Libertarian Communism.
◦Collectivist Anarchism: Like Anarcho-Communism, but products are distributed according to work performed rather than need, through direct democracy.
•Mutualism: Original anarchist movement started by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, author of What is Property? which contains the famous "property is theft" conclusion-he was also the first to call himself anarchist. Before that it was an insult; hey, come to think of it...This was the first Free-Market Anarchist movement, but unlike today's Free-Market Anarchists, it argues for the Labor Theory of Economic Value. Mutualist Anarchists believe that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility. They accept money and private property as long as it's actually being used by the owner. Mutualism, owing to its embrace of the Labor Theory of Economic Value, supports democratic cooperatives of workers who own the means of production, instead of traditional capitalist bosses.
•Individualist Anarchism: A movement (very similar to Mutualism) of US origin focusing more on a society of independent craftsmen owning their own tools and thus free of employer domination. Like Mutualism it held to the Labor Theory of Economic Value. Individualist Anarchists supported worker cooperatives if they wished, but with the provision each part of it be held separately, thus a worker could leave and support themselves if necessary. The rise of capitalism and the anarcho-communist reaction eclipsed the Individualist Anarchists, though some exist. This was what most people knew as Free Market Anarchism, along with the Mutualists, until:
•Anarcho-Capitalism: Anarcho-Capitalists (the modern Free-Market Anarchists) are essentially Individualist Anarchists but instead of advocating the Labor Theory of Economic Value, they advocate the Subjective Theory of Economic Value (which has been accepted by nearly all economists since Walras, Menger and Jevons). As such, they do not see Capitalism as inherently exploitative; rather they see an employment contract as no different to any other form of contractual relationship. Anarcho-Capitalists also reject the view that "big business" and "big government" are enemies of each other; rather they see the former as a force that benefits from having '[[ScrewTheRulesIHaveConnections|friends in high places]]' and the latter as more than willing to bestow privileges and special favors upon the former.
◦Agorism: Agorism is a movement related to Anarcho-Capitalism, but not quite. Agorists hold as a revolutionary goal the development of freely-competing, market producers of law and security through non-aggressive black market activity, which will eventually drive the state out of existence. In facthttp://agorism.info/, this is precisely what sets Agorism apart from other forms of anarchism.
•Ecological or Green Anarchism: Similar to Anarcho-Communism, but with a higher emphasis on [[GreenAesop|respecting nature]]. The more radical forms of this, like Anarcho-Primitivism, believe that civilization is inherently oppressivehttp://www.tiamatpublications.com/docs/Freedom_and_Civilization.pdf, and wish to abolish industrial technology, agriculture, abstract thought (writing, language) etc., returning to a primitive (hence the name) existence as hunter-gatherers. Critics feel this ventures too deep in HumansAreBad territory, noting the irony of people using abstract through (writing, speaking) to denounce it. Also, since this is an essential part of the human mind, how to they mean to end it? Lobotomies?
◦The little problem that the planet Earth could feed just about 5 million humans when they were at the hunter-gatherer stage is rarely if ever mentioned. What are they planning to do with the other 7 billions?
* Answer: There entire ideology hinges upon a [[AfterTheEnd|post-civilization world]], and it's held that one way or other there will be a massive population die-off, as this is unsustainable at the levels existing on the earth. Primitivists say this will happen anyway, it doesn't need to be helped on, although some make you wonder since it seems like they might want to move it along themselves...
•Egoist Anarchism: The reason why the Bomb Throwing Anarchists trope exists. Basically, they believe that anything that an individual can do, should be done. Max Stirner was the only major writer to advocate this, and in fact did not label himself an anarchist (they were among the groups he critiqued) but his rejection of the state, capitalism, and, well, all institutions basically means he has been counted with them. Also known as [[NietzscheWannabe|Nihilist Anarchism]] and [[FightClub|Project Mayhem]] due to this (though Fight Club has shades of Green Anarchy or Anarcho-Primitivsm as well). It's worth noting Stirner, while believing the individual's right to act was unilimited, advised that it would be best if they respected each other as individuals, to let each flourish, even saying people could voluntarily join together with a model he called the "Union of Egoists" for groups. Herehttp://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything is a classic text by Situationist International, advancing a collectivist form of egoism.

•Anarcho-Syndicalism: Focuses on the power of non-statist organizations like workers' associations and unions to limit the government. Related most often to Anarcho-Communism and Mutualism. This was the way it was done in [[SpanishCivilWar|Anarchist Catalonia]].
•Philosophical Anarchism: The belief that state control and violence are related closely, so an anarchy is the most pacifist-friendly kind of society. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one of these. Also known as Anarcho-Pacifism. Definitely [[badass pacifists|BadassPacifist]] and complete [[BombThrowingAnarchists|inversion of Bomb Throwing Anarchists]].
•Christian Anarchism: Related to the above, this is the belief that [[JesusWasWayCool|the teachings of Christ are compatible with, or even require, a non-hierarchical stateless society]]. They also argue that [[AncientRome|early Christian Communes]] were basically anarcho-communist in nature. Often connected with Anarcho-Pacifism, as in the work of Leo Tolstoy.
•Anarcho-Feminism: Movement for women (especially led by anarcho-communist Emma Goldman) popular in the early twentieth century, that proclaims that society is inherently male-dominated, and that anarchist societies should be egalitarian in nature.
•Queer Anarchism: Same as above, but replace "women" with "sexual minorities" and "male" with "heterosexuals".
•Post-Left Anarchism: A movement within anarchism that [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin|rejects left-right political distinctions]].
•Agorism, as mentioned above, is more of a theory of revolution than an ethical system.

•Anarcho-Communism: The most popular movement, which calls for abolition of private property, corporations, and the state. Think "Imagine" by John Lennon. People produce whatever they want to for a common pool of resources, and everyone takes what they need from it following a consensus made in a direct democratic vote. It's assumed that what you'll get will be correlative to your cooperation, unless you are a too young/old to work, or you need special care. This system was in place in some parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War and, believe it or not, it worked, until Franco's fascist regime took over. This is also known as Libertarian Communism.

•Anarcho-Capitalism: Anarcho-Capitalists (the modern Free-Market Anarchists) are essentially Individualist Anarchists but instead of advocating the Labor Theory of Economic Value, they advocate the Subjective Theory of Economic Value (which has been accepted by nearly all economists since Walras, Menger and Jevons). As such, they do not see Capitalism as inherently exploitative; rather they see an employment contract as no different to any other form of contractual relationship. Anarcho-Capitalists also reject the view that "big business" and "big government" are enemies of each other; rather they see the former as a force that benefits from having 'friends in high places' and the latter as more than willing to bestow privileges and special favors upon the former.
◦Agorism: Agorism is a movement related to Anarcho-Capitalism, but not quite. Agorists hold as a revolutionary goal the development of freely-competing, market producers of law and security through non-aggressive black market activity, which will eventually drive the state out of existence. In fact, this is precisely what sets Agorism apart from other forms of anarchism.
•Ecological or Green Anarchism: Similar to Anarcho-Communism, but with a higher emphasis on respecting nature. The more radical forms of this, like Anarcho-Primitivism, believe that civilization is inherently oppressive, and wish to abolish industrial technology, agriculture, writing etc., returning to a primitive (hence the name) existence as hunter-gatherers.
◦The little problem that the planet Earth could feed just about 5 million humans when they were at the hunter-gatherer stage is rarely if ever mentioned. What are they planning to do with the other 7 billions?
•Egoist Anarchism: The reason why the Bomb Throwing Anarchists trope exists. Basically, they believe that anything that an individual can do, should be done. Max Stirner was the only major writer to advocate this, and in fact did not label himself an anarchist (they were among the groups he critiqued) but his rejection of the state, capitalism, and, well, all institutions basically means he has been counted with them. Also known as Nihilist Anarchism and Project Mayhem due to this. It's worth noting Stirner, while believing the individual's right to act was unilimited, advised that it would be best if they respected each other as individuals, to let each flourish, even saying people could voluntarily join together with a model he called the "Union of Egoists" for groups. Here is a classic text by Situationist International, advancing a collectivist form of egoism.

•Anarcho-Syndicalism: Focuses on the power of non-statist organizations like workers' associations and unions to limit the government. Related most often to Anarcho-Communism and Mutualism. This was the way it was done in Anarchist Catalonia.
•Philosophical Anarchism: The belief that state control and violence are related closely, so an anarchy is the most pacifist-friendly kind of society. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one of these. Also known as Anarcho-Pacifism. Definitely badass pacifists and complete inversion of Bomb Throwing Anarchists.
•Christian Anarchism: Related to the above, this is the belief that the teachings of Christ are compatible with, or even require, a non-hierarchical stateless society. They also argue that early Christian Communes were basically anarcho-communist in nature.

•Post-Left Anarchism: A movement within anarchism that rejects left-right political distinctions.

* ''Red Emma Speaks'', by Emma Goldman

* ''The Conquest of Bread'', by Peter Kropotkin
* ''Anarcho-Syndicalism'', by Rudolf Rocker
* ''The Great French Revolution'', ''
* ''God and the State'', by Mikhail Bakunin
* ''Statism and Anarchy'', ''

One of the most well-known forms of socialism is Marxism-Leninism; the kind of socialism practiced in SovietRussia ([[InSovietRussiaTropeMocksYou where socialism practices you, apparently]]). This was not pure Marxism, however, but Marxism modified by Lenin's ideas (Russia at the time of the Russian Revolution had more peasants than proletarians, and Russia has a long history of political theory arguing for revolution based on the Russian peasant; in short, it wasn't the kind of society that ''Orthodox'' Marxism would argue was ready for a Communist revolution).

Marxism (''Orthodox'' Marxism, ''not'' neo-Marxism or Marx derivatives) itself is the ideology of Karl Marx. Marx argued a very specific position; that human beings and their ideas are fundamentally shaped by the economic conditions surrounding them (''economic determinism''), that people are shaped into groups based on their economic status (a form of ''methodological collectivism'') and that history itself was driven by a series of changes from one form of economic organization to another (''historical materialism''). Marx's economic determinism was, by Marx's admission, derived from the Counter-Enlightenment philosopher Hegel. Hegel argued that individuals weren't so much in possession of free will, but rather conduits for the "Zeitgeist" (the intellectual 'spirit of the age'). Marx basically replaced Hegel's Zeitgeist with the ''prevailing economic system'' of the age.

Marx alleged that each economic system was based around the exploitation of a lower class by a higher class, and this higher class derived power from control of the ''means of production'', i.e. the stuff that is used to make more stuff. During the feudal age, the means of production was land; the upper class was the land-owning aristocracy and the lower class was the land-working peasantry. Marx argued that the collapse of feudalism came from the enraged peasantry who had finally had enough and rebelled against their aristocrat masters. This replaced the feudal system with (what Marx called) Capitalism, where the primary means of production became human-created tools and machines (called "Capital"). The upper class were those that owned Capital (the Bourgeoisie), who paid wages to the lower class (the Proletariat) in order to operate the Capital. Note that many people (including most modern classical liberals/libertarians) use "Capitalism" as a synonym for "Free Market Economics," Marx's meaning was different.

Marx argued that both Feudalism and Capitalism were economically exploitative. By this, he meant that the ''work'' of both the Peasants and Proletarians was responsible for giving ''economic value'' to the goods both of them created (the ''Labor Theory of Value''). The upper classes survived by ''expropriating'' economic value from both Peasants and Proles; the former by extracting a portion of their product as rent, the latter by paying them lower wages than the economic value (i.e. market price) of their product.

This resurgence had two separate origins, the first in academic economics. The Austrian School of economic thought gained notoriety for an argument known today as the ''Economic Calculation Problem'' which began in 1920 with Ludwig von Mises' publication of ''"Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth"''. In this article, Mises argued that State Socialism (defined as an economy wherein which all means of production was owned by the State (ostensibly on behalf of the Proletariat)) [[FascistButInefficient rendered economic efficiency ''impossible'']] because without market prices for capital, there was no way to make efficiency-based decisions between various methods of production for a specific item.

This resurgence had two separate origins, the first in academic economics. The Austrian School of economic thought gained notoriety for an argument known today as the ''Economic Calculation Problem'' which began in 1920 with Ludwig von Mises' publication of ''"Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth"''. In this article, Mises argued that State Socialism (defined as an economy wherein which all means of production was owned by the State (ostensibly on behalf of the Proletariat)) rendered economic efficiency ''impossible'' because without market prices for capital, there was no way to make efficiency-based decisions between various methods of production for a specific item.

This can be both compared and contrasted with State Socialism (a form of Socialism where all the means of production are owned by and controlled by the State). Fascist economics gives the State a similar measure of control over the means of production, but foregoes the ownership element.

Ultimately, Fascism has a significant number of philosophical similarities to Socialism (indeed, BenitoMussolini was a former Marxist, and AdolfHitler referred to his ideology as National Socialism). The most obvious similarity is a strong rejection of individualism, and thus all forms of Liberalism. What distinguishes Fascism from Socialism is that the relevant class is not economic status but rather ''nationality'' and national identity.

* ''MeinKampf'', by AdolfHitler

The most infamous element of Fascism is Fascism's support for [[{{Darwinist}} Social Darwinism]] of various sorts. In Mussolini's ideology, a level of internal "creative tension" within the components of the nation was seen as beneficial in directing competitive desires towards the service of the State. Hitler's version of Fascism (National Socialism) believed in a "Master State" where all components of society obeyed the State, but instead posited an evolutionary struggle between various races. [[TheHolocaust We all know where this led]] so further elaboration is not necessary.

Note that this division is one of ''means'' rather than ends. Both classical and social liberals believe that the kinds of things that one should have positive liberty to do are good things! The division is over how they should be provided; social liberals argue that the State should provide them and classical liberals argue the State should not (there are several rationales for this position; such as the State being too incompetent to do it, or that empowering the State is inherently dangerous for further liberties, and/or that it is immoral to sacrifice negative liberties for the sake of positive ones).

To social liberals, rights are seen as ''enablers of specific actions''. For instance, if you have the right to education, this means that other people (or groups thereof) must act in order to provide you an education if you cannot provide it yourself.

So, to classical liberals, rights are things ''others cannot use force to stop you from doing'', and to social liberals, rights are things that ''others are forced to enable you to do''. Isaiah Berlin referred to the former as "negative liberty" and the latter as "positive liberty."

Social liberalism argues that negative liberty is an insufficient condition for full human freedom. Social liberals in general do accept a significant level of negative liberty is indeed a necessary component of human freedom, but they argue a certain level of ''State-provided'' positive liberty is required as well (the rationale being that non-State entities, such as private charities and businesses, won't provide enough). Whilst the proper objects of positive liberty have been debated by social liberals, they are usually justified as being necessary for "human flourishing" and "human development."

This translates into a reverence for tradition. Tradition is seen as something that has survived a very long time because it has been useful. It is also seen as vital to the maintenance of order and social stability. It is order and social stability that are the ''key values'' of British-style conservatism; this is a great contrast to liberalism's prioritization of human freedom above all else. (You'll never see anyone push these as an agenda, because few people actually ''want'' either of these things, but liberalism, taken to [[WellIntentionedExtremes ridiculous extremes]], would lead to complete anarchy, while conservatism would cause [[NineteenEightyFour Orwellian]] totalitarianism. OrderVersusChaos, meet politics.)

Edmund Burke has often been called the father of conservatism. While maintaining liberal goals, he was very concerned with maintaining social stability. Traditions and social institutions should not be summarily cast aside, according to Burke. They prevent society from descending into chaos. A society is a partnership between the living, the dead, and the unborn, and they must all be considered when dealing with national policy. It may surprise many that Burke was actually a Whig (the liberal party in Britain at the time), but he was a staunch supporter of British liberties because they were ancient national traditions, rather than universal rights of any sort.

This translates into a reverence for tradition. Tradition is seen as something that has survived a very long time because it has been useful. It is also seen as vital to the maintenance of order and social stability. It is order and social stability that are the ''key values'' of British-style conservatism; this is a great contrast to liberalism's prioritization of human freedom above all else.

So, to classical liberals, rights are things ''others cannot use force to stop you from doing'', and to social liberals, rights are things that ''others are compelled to enable you to do''. Isaiah Berlin referred to the former as "negative liberty" and the latter as "positive liberty."

* ''What is Property?'', by Pierre Joseph Proudhon

Of course, this conviction does not arise in a vacuum; it often arises from philosophical outlooks that prize community above individuality, and/or a belief that social groupings shape human beings moreso than human beings shape said groups. Arguably, these attitudes are products of the Continental Counter-Enlightenment (see "context" above). Of course, these are very board tendencies with many different variations, depending on what subgroup of socialism one is talking about.

Regardless of this difference, both camps agreed on the broad points stated above. Humans as rational beings with free will capable of progress and advancing their condition. As such, the dominant ideology of the time was Liberalism (see below). Both Empiricists (like John Locke, John Stuart Mill) and Rationalists (like Kant, Bastiat, Descartes) generally agreed with liberalism (albiet for different reasons, see the section on liberalism for more).

* ''From Class Society to Communism: [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin An Introduction to Marxism']]', by Ernest Mandel

* ''From Class Society to Communism: [[EExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin An Introduction to Marxism']]', by Ernest Mandel