These are the basic political ideologies that are prevalent in contemporary times. Of course, these are largely simplified, and most people don't purely adhere to one ideology, but adopt concepts from multiple ideologies. Still, most political works can be broadly defined as falling into one of the following categories. Please note, the following categories are ideological. Several groups running in Real Life elections often use these terms, but to refer to their political bloc rather than as an indicator of their actual ideological leanings. For instance, the contemporary United States' meaning of "liberal" does not refer to "liberalism" here, for the most part. Ditto for "conservative."
A Note On ContextA political ideology does not arise in a vacuum. A political ideology is usually the product of a series of beliefs about how human beings are, how they acquire knowledge, how they should interact with each other, and how they should be governed (if at all). For instance, one who believes Hobbes Was Right will come to very different political conclusions to one who believes Rousseau Was Right. While their theorists are almost exclusively European, the ideologies themselves are near-universally applicable and are known world-wide. None of these ideas are more than 300 years old, and their hey-day seems to have been the 19th-20th Century (when they began to supersede religion as things people believed in).
open/close all folders
The following political ideologies arose from two periods in human history; the Enlightenment and the Counter-Enlightenment (the trope Romanticism Versus Enlightenment is basically Counter-Enlightenment versus Enlightenment). During the Enlightenment, the prevailing beliefs amongst philosophers were that human beings were rational beings that could understand the environment around them, and thus learn to manipulate it to their benefit. In short, the Enlightenment was a period where most people were confident in human ability, human progress and self-determination of the individual (or free will). Enlightenment philosophers can be divided into two camps; the British or Empirical enlightenment, and the Continental or Rationalist enlightenment. These camps had different theories about how reason worked; the empiricists believed it worked on the basis of human experience. The rationalists believed it worked by making logical deductions from intuitively-known first principles. Regardless of this difference, both camps agreed on the broad points stated above: humans were 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, Spinoza, Descartes) generally agreed with liberalism (albeit for different reasons, see the section on liberalism for more). When the Counter-Enlightenment rolled around, 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 a person's consciousness is shaped by their nationality. Hegel took this even further, arguably diminishing the role of human beings as free agents in favor of making them voices of larger forces. The skeptical British Counter-Enlightenment eventually produced British Conservatism (see below). The Continental (German Idealist) Counter-Enlightenment gave us Hegel (who was a great influence on Karl Marx (see Socialism, below), although Marx arguably was inspired by the Enlightenment as well as the Counter-Enlightenment) and Fichte (who has been called the father of German Nationalism and was arguably a great influence on Fascism). The Counter-Enlightenment overall constituted a rejection of the Enlightenment view of humanity as rational beings capable of understanding the world and possessing free will. The British Counter-Enlightenment cast doubt on the efficacy of our reason. The Continental Counter-Enlightenment did so as well, by asking how much of our minds and selves were conditioned by external forces (Zeitgeists, Nationalities, Economic conditions, etc). It is in the context of the Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment that the following political theories originated.
Nationalism - For The Nation!
Nationalism is so unquestioned and all-pervasive today that 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 as to how or what political/social/economic structures should be favored. Hence its paradox of being both particular and to a degree universal. Over the years, several theories and schools have emerged, such as Primordialismnote , Modernismnote and Ethnosymbolism note . The arguement below makes use of the Modernist view. Nationalism in this light provides two basic tenets: The is that everyone on earth belongs to a 'nation', an imagined community which exists 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 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 nationnote as the only acceptable solution to the problem of the existence of other nations. As said to begin with, though, nationalism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Most nation-states save The People's Democratic Republic Of Korea would be severely criticized for making 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 19th century, back when the word 'nation' was redefined from a vague word denoting 'group of peoples who spoke the same language'note to a unified 'racial'note group that should have its own state 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 the devil really is in the details. It should also be said however that nationalism is to be distinguished from patriotism, which is more akin to a personal affinity or loyalty to one's country, or paraphrasing Orwell, a love for one's homeland that has no intention of imposing it upon others. But though patriotism is more in line with liberalism, more jingoistic fervor nonetheless overlaps with nationalism in a classical sense. When combined with anti-liberal and anti-socialist politics as well as militarism, the result tends to become Fascism.
Liberalism - For The Free Market, And Freedom!
The chief objective for liberalism is human freedom... with reasonable limits. 'Freedom' means the ability to do what one wills with one's own life and property. Liberals differ from Anarchists in that they believe that people need to be oppressed by governments in order to be free in other respects - though they value government only for the freedom it brings, and don't consider it something valuable or desirable in itself. Classic Liberals insist that government should only police the country and prevent interference from foreign governments because this allows people the maximum amout of freedom (negative freedom), whereas Modern/Social Liberals insist that government must pro-actively give freedom to its citizens by making sure they're not oppressed or disadvantaged or dying (positive freedom). Also, as far as Classic Liberals are concerned, Liberalism has nothing to do with equality. Modern Liberals disagree on the grounds that an unequal society is an un-free society for the majority of poor and disadvantaged individuals - whom their rich and privileged minority counterparts are free to oppress if the government doesn't protect them. There have been some splits in liberalism over time. The first important split is the one between natural law liberalism and utilitarian liberalism. Natural law liberalism holds that humans, due to divine or natural law, have certain rights that no government should infringe upon. These rights are due to self-ownership, meaning that you own yourself, and no other human does (though you may belong to God, according to early liberals, you do not belong to any other person). John Locke was a major proponent for this view, which was also influential in The American Revolution. Utilitarian liberalism grew in popularity in the 19th Century, and it holds that the best course of action is to pursue what would bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Since only the individual knows what would bring the greatest happiness to himself or herself, then governments should pursue a policy of personal autonomy, letting everybody pursue their own happiness. The most influential advocate for utilitarian liberalism is John Stuart Mill. The other great split is between classical liberalism and left-liberalism. The split between classical liberalism and left-liberalism (also known as social liberalism) is arguably due to different concepts of rights. To the classical liberals, rights are nullifications of the power of the State (i.e. the ability to legitimately initiate the use of force), meaning no individual or groups thereof can use force, fraud or threats thereof to stop any other individual from performing a specific action. For instance, if you have the right to free speech, this means that no individual or institution can start or threaten the use of force or fraud against you in order to stop you from speaking in a specific way (provided, of course, said speech constituted neither fraud nor coercion). To social liberals, rights are seen as entitlements to the ability to perform 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." Classical liberalism argues that economic activities should be treated the same way that all other liberties are (or, further, that a meaningful distinction between economic and non-economic liberties cannot be made). Thus, economically speaking, any activity that does not involve force, fraud, or threats thereof (i.e. coercion) is just as much a right as free speech. As such, classical liberals are generally skeptical and/or hostile to government intervention in economic matters. This stance is also known as laissez-faire free market economics (which some people call "Capitalism," although that term has other definitions depending on who you ask). 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 positive liberty is required as well. The typical rationale that social liberals give for this position is that the proper objects of positive liberty (according to social liberalism) will not be available to everyone in the absence of positive liberties to these objects. 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." Note that this division is one of means rather than ends. Both classical and social liberals believe that the kinds of things which social liberals consider proper objects of positive liberty 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). During the middle parts of the twentieth century, the boundaries between social liberalism and social democracy (the latter being ideologically a product of socialism (see below), even if it had a centrist political platform) began to get blurry due to the popularity of socialism amongst many of the cultural elites of the time. During these decades, a resurgence of classical liberalism began to form. This resurgence is often called "libertarianism" (see also below) and occasionally seen as a separate ideology, but this is partly due to the fact that it originated as a rebuke to the intellectual hegemony of socialist ideas. Fundamentally, it was merely a modern reformulation of the classical liberal case. 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. Socialist economist Oskar Lange argued that Mises identified a genuine problem (a lack of economic accounting), which he argued could be fixed by replicating market prices. Lange's solution was disputed by Frederich von Hayek in his article "The Use Of Knowledge In Society". Hayek argued that the preference data from which market prices are ultimately generated rests within individual human minds, and that this data only gets expressed via voluntary trades in a free market. Assuming a lack of Instrumentality, there is no way to access this data and as such any attempt to replicate market prices would fail. In academic economics, Hayek (and by extension, Mises' initial argument) is generally regarded as Vindicated by History (although this has been disputed) and his works on knowledge and spontaneous, undesigned order have been influential in fields ranging from sociology to research on artificial intelligence. As such it is hard to overstate his importance (and that of the Austrian School in general) to modern classical liberals. In terms of the utilitarian-natural law liberalism split, Austrian School economics generally made its case in utilitarian terms, but is embraced by classical liberals from both sides of the division. At least one famous Austrian economist, the anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard, was a natural law libertarian in terms of personal political philosophy, and the strain of anarchism he inspired, called anarcho-capitalism (generally best seen as a fusion of Austrian economics with Lockean Individualist Anarchism) is very natural-law-oriented. The second origin of this resurgence came from a surprising source; popular novelists. As stated before, the intellectual milieu of the mid-twentieth century was generally anti-individualist and against most values that liberals (both classical and social) profess. Novelists such as Robert A. Heinlein and (most infamously) Ayn Rand produced novels explicitly defending individualistic, anti-collectivist values. In the case of Ayn Rand, her work ended up becoming the basis for the philosophy of Objectivism, which has been significantly influential on many modern classical liberals. Of course, Rand's philosophy, most specifically its moral component, is a controversial and divisive subject that quite a few classical liberals do not necessarily agree with; some even reject it outright. Whilst they often acknowledged the utilitarian case and considered it true that classical liberalism produced the greatest good for the greatest number, they did not accept that the moral justification for classical liberalism was utilitarianism. As for social liberalism, it is arguable that (in recent times) the doctrine has been replaced by or assimilated into various forms of social democracy. Some even argue that social liberalism was always a front for socialistic ideas but this is a highly controversial claim. Since the division between social liberalism and social democracy is primarily one of values rather than political program (and the division between social and classical liberalism being one of political program rather than values), the categories can get muddled. Additionally, political programs contain matters of degree; social liberals can advocate either relatively moderate amounts of government intervention (arguably, some of the more moderate libertarians fit here) or similar levels of government to a social democrat, depending on what the liberal believes is required to enable full human flourishing. It is also worth pointing out that while classical liberals are often painted as being opposed to all government intervention in the marketplace, this is not strictly true. Adam Smith, for example, actually supported subsidies to the unemployed as well as fledgeling businesses (although he was uneasy about the latter due to his fears that businesses would lobby against being removed from the subsidy rolls), as well as progressive taxation, while Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek proposed replacing the existing welfare programs and minimum wage with negative income taxes that would provide living wages to all citizens, not the complete elimination of welfare. Where Friedman and Hayek stopped short of social liberalism was in opposing redistribution of wealth for the sake of bringing living standards closer together, although they have been criticised by others further to the right economically for supporting any redistribution at all.
Conservatism - For Skepticism, And Cautious Change
Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any of the other ideologies - Conservatism is defined by pragmatism,the ability to compromise in the name of sensible policy, and good governance using tried-and-tested methods. Where change is a good idea, or inevitable, conservatism seeks to steer change down the safest - for the public's welfare - course. Problems immediately arise when attempting to define "conservatism" because the term does not refer to any specific single ideology. The word has been used by many different political groups in many different ways, usually peddling wildly-divergent and often flatly-contradictory political programs. Of course, this has to do with the fact that "conserving" the current state of society does mean a different thing in different countries and, more important, different times. Restoring society as it was in the past is a different thing altogether; that would be reactionary. Historically, in British political philosophy, conservatism does have a fixed definition, although it doesn't refer so much to a political ideology as much as it refers to a skeptical attitude towards political ideologies. Conservatism is in many ways more about knowledge than about politics. The French Revolution was philosophically motivated by very strong Rene Descartes-style rationalism (i.e. the belief that all truth can be worked out by making logical deductions from first principles). Conservatism, a product of the Counter-Enlightenment, is based on a rejection of this philosophy. Rather, conservatives tend to be very cautious about new ideas. They tend to focus on practical matters and "what has worked before" rather than what would necessarily be the "best" thing to do. Conservatism is very suspicious of ideologies that claim to have all the answers. In short, conservatism is skeptical and cautious about novelty, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies. 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. Edmund Burke has often been called the father of conservatism (although he has not always been classified as a conservative and there is still some dissension about whether he qualifies as one). 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, as 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. Another British philosopher that exhibited this attitude is Michael Oakeshott. His work is much more obviously conservative (in the British sense) than even Burke (Burke, for one, can be read as a liberal and arguably had significant influence on the very classically liberal economist Friedrich von Hayek; perhaps even more surprisingly to modern readers, he has been an influence on the proto-anarchist William Godwin and on Marxists such as Harold Laski and C. B. Macpherson). Arguably, Oakeshott is the Trope Codifier for British conservatism; he was anti-rationalist, staunchly empiricist to the point of outright skepticism, and as a result argued that our traditions were the only things we had in order to guide our social organizations. Besides British conservative thought, there was also a notable Continental trend, known as French or Latin conservatism and developed by the other father of conservatism, Joseph de Maistre. Both varieties put an emphasis on tradition and are skeptical of 18th-Century rationalism. The difference, however, is in how far they are willing to go. While Burke's conservatism can roughly be boiled down to a doctrine of political skepticism, Maistre's variety is much stronger. Originally a cautious supporter of the French Revolution, Maistre grew to despise it, and after the revolutionary French army invaded his native Savoy, he began to advocate a strictly counter-revolutionary doctrine of hierarchic order, religion (specifically, Catholicism) and monarchism. Maistre reasoned, backing himself with Biblical references, that traditional order is not just "good because it works" but it is good in itself — instead of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", he went for "if it was meant to be broken, God would do it by now". His stance on monarchy was that any attempt to derive the right to rule on rational ground leads to discussions over the legitimacy of government, and to question the government is to call for chaos. Thus, a government should be based on non-rational grounds, e.g. religion (through the Divine Right of Kings, and papal recognition — after all, you can argue what best serves the common interest, but how can you disprove "because God said so"?), which the subjects wouldn't be allowed, or even able to question. By now, it is a good time to return to Burke: because his branch of conservatism allows for change, as long as proper caution is exercised, it is known as evolutionary. Maistre's branch, on the other hand, considers even a small change too much; it is also willing to actively fight to restore the old order where it's been removed, a thing Burke's conservatism would rarely if ever advocate. For this reason, Maistre's conservatism is called reactionary. It is when we look at American conservatism that things get confusing. "Conservative" as used in the US is not an ideology, but rather a coalition of many different ideological groups. Many self-proclaimed conservatives are ideologically classical liberals! There are also self-proclaimed Oakeshottians in American conservatism as well, such as Andrew Sullivan. Religious conservatism is a strong element in American conservatism, but it differs from any of the previous subgroups of conservatism (it is probably closest to Maistre's branch). Like British-style conservatives, religious conservatives argue that specific traditions are vital for social stability and thus deserve State protection. However, unlike British-style conservatives, they argue that it is adherence to a specific set of religious traditions and moral beliefs that keep society together, and they also (very much unlike British-style conservatives) are not skeptical about the possibility of knowledge. Rather, they argue faith is a means to perfect knowledge. This attitude is neither Enlightenment nor Counter-Enlightenment; it is a pre-Enlightenment attitude. Another American phenomenon is the infamous neoconservatism. Developed during the Seventies, it has been initially described as the ideology of "socialists for Nixon" or a "[US-style] liberal mugged by reality" — former leftists who have moved to the conservative camp after becoming disillusioned with their own. As such, neoconservatism shares tenets of US-style conservatism, such as democracy and free markets, with the progressive attitude and revolutionary tendencies of the Left. Thus, neoconservatives have been known for their approval of welfare and big government. In the economy, they support capitalism but endorse state interventionism. However, neoconservatism has garnered most of its criticism from its foreign policies, where these progressive tendencies resulted in doctrine of belligerency, a disdain for diplomacy, and aggressive promotion of capitalist democracy. Altogether, this might've been forgettable, but then the USA suffered a terrorist attack in 2001, aaaaand... Of course, American conservatism is still fundamentally a coalition of varying ideological groups. Thus, there have been many attempts to bridge these philosophical differences. For instance, Frank Meyer of the conservative National Review magazine argued classical liberals (known as "libertarians" because in the US, "liberal" refers to an electoral coalition of social liberals and social democrats) should argue for the use of classical liberal policies as means to conservative goals. William F. Buckley Jr, also of the National Review, argued in a very Oakeshott-like manner that conservatism is fundamentally based on skepticism and caution about new ideas, and thus a preference for tradition and against ideology. However, he also argued for the incorporation of both religious conservatism and classical liberalism, primarily because they all faced the common enemy of Soviet-style communism. In short, British-style conservatism is characterized by an aversion to rationalistic and/or ideology-based political programs and instead a preference for proven, pragmatic policies in the pursuit of maintaining social order by protecting established traditions from radical change. Latin-style conservatism is British-style taken Up to Eleven with a strong religious and optionally monarchist element. American-style conservatism is based on an unstable coalition of British-style conservatism, religious conservatism, and classical liberalism, in varying proportions depending on numerous variables.
Socialism - For Equality!
The chief objective of socialism is equality... with provision for the way that every person is different. Socialism holds that an unequal society is an unfair and un-free one, and seeks to replace rule by the upper class and organised crime with the rule of law. Socialism wants society to be run by a just, efficient, and charitable government that will govern in the best interests of all its people instead of just the rich and powerful. The nature of this government is where classic/dictatorial and modern/democratic socialism diverge - Classic Socialism sees nothing wrong with this government being a dictatorship as this means it will be able to take decisive action to get things done, whereas Modern Socialism thinks this is a spectacularly bad idea because the transparency and accountability of democracy is required to make sure that the government doesn't start serving the upper classes again. Weirdly enough, and this is a good 'in' to the endless flavours of socialism, 'Democratic Socialism' (with capital letters) is actually about classic/dictatorial fascism. Like Fascism it believes that while a government should embody the will of its people it shouldn't be transparent or accountable to them and there shouldn't be any (meaningful/real) elections (i.e. it's a 'populist' dictatorship, a dictatorship that tries to get people to like it). On the other hand, 'Social Democracy' is about modern/democratic socialism - it's keen on transparency, accountability, and elections. Note that as far as classic socialists are concerned, though modern socialists fervently disagree, Socialism has nothing to do with freedom. 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". State socialism, the most commonly-known variation of socialism, takes the approach that industry, services etc. should be nationalised, i.e. owned and operated by the government. State socialism is internally divided into different schools of thought regarding the method of government administration: a planned economy is one where every aspect of production — what to produce, how much, how to distribute, what price to set — is planned ahead of time and implemented by a government agency; a state-directed economy is a lesser version of the same, where general goals are set by the government but most actual managing is done by workers within the industries themselves; a self-managed economy is one where the management of industries is entirely autonomous. Market socialism is different in that it involves publicly-owned enterprises operating with a for-profit objective. As a rule, proponents of market socialism are against central economic planning and promote a self-managed economy. Other forms of socialism such as libertarian socialism are against state ownership of industry, and instead promote a system wherein each industry is structured as a cooperative with every worker having equal part-ownership of the workplace and an equal say in management decisions and so on (this type of management is referred to as "workplace democracy"). These ideologies tend to be anarchist in nature (see the below section on Anarchism). Additionally, socialism as a whole is also divided regarding the structure of government in which such a system is implemented and how it should come about. Democratic socialism (also known as Fabian socialism) holds that a socialist state must have a democratic system of government, and is generally in favour of implementing socialism through peaceful reform. Socialist ideologies which have their root in Marxism-Leninism (e.g. Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc.; not necessarily Marxism in general) focus on a single vanguard party bringing about socialism through revolution and destroying the existing capitalist state. They differ on what kind of parties they advocate in order to achieve change: the former focus upon a broad left spectrum which is inclusive of the left as a whole (the classic example being the pre-World War I German Social Democratic Party, which contained reformists like Bernstein and revolutionaries like Luxemburg), whereas the latter advocate a party only for revolutionaries, without a reformist wing (the classic example being Lenin's Bolshevik party). Proponents of the latter tend to criticize the former for being ineffective in practice, and for attempting to work within a system it ought to hold as illegitimate, morally bankrupt and only worth being overthrown; proponents of the former in turn criticize the latter for inherently not representing "the will of the people" if it doesn't enjoy democratic support, and of being hypocritical in effectively creating its own new "elite class" of party heads who control everything without being democratically accountable and thus nullifying any beneficial effect their revolution may have had. Reformists also argue against the sectarianism of vanguard parties. It should be noted that there's a lot of fracturing among the proponents of revolution (thus the splintering into Stalinism and Trotskyism, and, later, Maoism, Hoxhaism, etc.) Similarly, the ideology of socialism is mainly focused on economics and can vary wildly when it comes to civil rights and social freedoms. In Western culture, socialism is generally associated with being socially liberal and anti-authoritarian on such matters; on the other hand, many nations which have implemented some form of socialist system (e.g. Stalinist Russia) have been very socially conservative and authoritarian. Economic social-democratic Communist successor parties in Eastern Europe are also far more socially conservative than their counterparts in the west even today. It's worth noting that the different ways of dividing socialism (by democratic versus non-democratic, by degree of state control over planning, etc.) all cross-cut each other. Although certain countries have obviously implemented particular combinations, they don't inherently go together and you'll find proponents of every possible combination somewhere out there. And likely as not, they all hate each other. Below are two sub-sections on notable variants or subsets of socialism:
Social-Democracy - For Freedom 'And' Equality!
Social democracy is basically a kind of compromise between capitalism and democratic socialism. While socialism proposes that all industries come under state or cooperative ownership and control, social democracy instead proposes the nationalising of only certain essential services while still allowing private enterprise for the rest. The rationale is that certain services do not operate in the interests of the public good in a for-profit environment and inevitably result in inequality, but free enterprise is still necessary for innovation and competition (and indeed, social-democratic systems can and do involve private enterprises acting in direct competition with the nationalised services). Essentially it's democratic socialism within a capitalistic framework. "Essential services" can refer to education, public transport, health insurance, welfare, water, electricity, and so on. In fact, the truth is that most government systems which self-identify as capitalist are also social-democratic in some way or another, with most services above nationalized: even the USA, which is infamously wary of socialism as a nation, has such programs as Medicare (nationalized health insurance for citizens over 65) and so on.
Marxism - For The Working Class!
Marxism is a subset of socialist ideology based upon the ideas of the nineteenth century thinkers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It has had many different variations, but is most commonly associated with Red October and the state socialism of Soviet Russia. Marx was influenced by several different schools of thought: these were fundamentally German philosophy (particularly that of Hegel), English political economy (most importantly Adam Smith and David Ricardo) and French socialism (thinkers such as Henri de Saint-Simon). There are essentially three fundamental building blocks to Marxist ideology: the theory of historical materialism, the critique of political economy (Marxist economics) and the belief in a socialist revolution. Marx’s theory of historical materialism is a derivation of Hegel’s ideas about the development of history over time. Hegel argued that history is moving towards increased human freedom through the development of the realm of ideas. He used the dialectical method in order to show the development of these ideas. Dialectics essentially argued that there is a contradiction in reality between two different poles of thought; this contradiction becomes resolved into a higher level, which maintained essential features of the earlier levels while transcending them. Marx adapted this method and applied it to the history of the material rather than the ideal. Marx argues that man is essentially a tool making animal and that this relationship between man and nature is what makes us human: the fact that we can conceive of a plan and put it into reality. Marx essentially argues that the development of the forces and relations of production and the class struggle drive history. The forces of production are the technological capacities of a particular society, and the relations of production are factors such as who owns the forces of production. The forces of production can develop to an extent that causes the relations of production to be thrown into crisis (see below). The idea of class struggle is inherently associated with Marxism; as he famously stated in The Communist Manifesto “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle”. Marx argued that societies were divided into classes and the class divisions are defining of particular societies. The feudal age can be defined by the division into peasants and landlords, the capitalist age by the division between the bourgeoisie (the owners of capital) and the proletariat (the working class). These two classes are in conflict due to them having fundamentally divergent interests: the bourgeoisie acts as the “personification of capital” and acts to ensure the accumulation of capital, whereas the proletariat’s interests are in overthrowing the system and creating a communist society. This is because the proletarian’s existence is unstable (as they are not guaranteed to be given work by the capitalist) and their work is dull and alienating, and thus they are unable to develop their full capacities as human beings. The Marxist critique of political economy is complicated, so it is impossible to give anything but the basics of the theory here. Marx believed that the capitalist system was based upon the aforementioned division between classes. He also believed that capitalism was a system based around commodity production, i.e. production for a market rather than production for personal need. Former systems such as feudalism contained elements of commodity production, but it was not the main form of production unlike under capitalism. Marx argued, like the other economists of his day, that value is based upon the labor used to produce a commodity; this is known as the labor theory of value. Marx argued that the mechanism by which capitalists make a profit is based upon a hidden form of exploitation. Workers sell their labor power to capitalists who pay them a wage for their labor power. However, they then employ that labor to create more value than the wage it is paid. This is called the Marxist theory of surplus value. Capitalists are fundamentally in competition with each other for market share. Because of this competition, each capitalist has an incentive to produce as many commodities as possible. Thus capitalists have a clear incentive to introduce more technology into the production process in order to produce more commodities with less labor time. However, this constant need to introduce technology undermines capitalism. This is because only labor creates value, technology does not; the addition of technology reduces the amount of value in the commodity and the price the commodity would fetch upon a market. This leads in the long run to the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which is a cause of crisis within the capitalist system. Mountains of ink could be spilled on the complexities of the contradictions of capitalism in Marxist theory. For a good introduction see here. Marx believed in the necessity to overthrow the capitalist system, and the necessity to establish a communist society. Marx did not describe the idea of communism in great detail, but the impressions from his work are that people would not be restricted to one trade. The productive forces of capitalism would lay the basis for socialism by greatly increasing the productivity of labor. As the means of production would be held in common they would be used to meet the needs of the community rather than capitalists. People would have more freedom for self-realisation within the community. Different forms of Marxism (bear in mind that Marxists would dispute which forms of these are actually Marxist!):
Fascism - For Our Nation, Our Leader, And Victory!
The chief objective of Fascism is strengthening the nation and increasing its prestige through warfare - i.e. Type 2# Patriotic Fervor taken to its extreme. Fascism shares Nationalism's belief that only 'nations' matter (and individual/actual people don't) but completely rejects Liberalism and so hates individuality and all other non-national senses of identity. Fascism is against equality between nations as it wants its own to either be the only one in existence or merely (the most) powerful, but has no set opinion on equality within its nation (let alone other nations). Fascism has no opinion on capitalism or economics and loves war because Fascism is about passion and national honor, not numbers and planning. Fascism may overlap with 'race' and 'racial theory' insofar as it defines who belongs to the nation, but not necessarily. That said, only one regime has ever called itself Fascist (The Kingdom Of Italy when it was ruled by Benito Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista), whereas 'Fascist' has been universally applied to at least two other regimes - NSDAP-ruled Germany under Adolf Hitler and Imperial Japan under Hirohito. Worse, since the defeat of all three 'Fascist' powers in World War II and the revelation of the Crimes Against Humanity committed by all three regimes, 'Fascism' has been considered the one irredeemable monster of all political ideologies and its name has become a term of abuse and slander,note with all other ideologies strenuously denying any similarities or overlap with it whatsoevernote . However, at its core fascism is about populist nationalist dictatorship or authoritarianism with a fondness for Technology Porn and Gun Porn. Though even these can be salad dressing to what can simply be described as the quest for naked power ala George Orwell. Philosophically, it arises from a Continental Counter-Enlightenment philosophical context, influenced by such thinkers as J. G. Fichte, Hegel, and Martin Heidegger. Its origins have some overlap with that of socialism, with Benito Mussolini (the proverbial father of fascism politically) being a former Marxist. Historically, its roots can be searched for in the ethos of storm trooper formations of late World War I; many ex-soldiers carried on this spirit of aggression and elitism as they went on to dabble in extreme politics, among them Mussolini himself. Whereas Marx replaced Hegel's "Zeitgeist" (or "spirit of the age") with the prevailing economic system, fascists replace the zeitgeist with the spirit of the nation. Fascism argues for an organic conception of a nation with the State seen as the embodiment of the national spirit: as such, fascist regimes feature strong central governments which are authoritarian in nature. Individuals are seen, fundamentally, as products of the nation (similar to how Marxian "methodological collectivism" views individuals as products of their economic class) — hence, fascism requires a strong identification with nationality and national identity on the part of the people, rejecting all individualism or identification with economic class. Fascism often claims to represent the entire nation, subservient to the State and unified behind the Leader, undivided e.g. by class struggles; in the eyes of a fascist, a popular autocrat is a better representation of the people's interests and desires than an elected parliament, which is viewed contemptuously as a den of immorality and ineffectual bickering. Given this stance, fascism is inherently undemocratic and autocratic. Strong national identification involves a veneration of not just the nation in abstract, but of practices seen as fundamental to national identity: this results in a reverence for tradition. Traditions are seen as important rituals that connect people to the national spirit. Furthermore, fascism tends to support social policy positions which are regarded as conservative or right-wing. However, these policy positions are conservative in the Oakeshottean sense of the term: they are considered the right policies because they are consistent with national traditions, rather than because of any pre-existing moral commitments. Indeed, to a fascist, a moral commitment that "pre-exists" inside an individual's mind independently of said individual's nationality is a ridiculous notion, as they believe individuals are 'socially constructed' by their nationality as was stated before. Many argue that ethical relativism (i.e. what is good for Nation X is not necessarily good for Nation Y) is thus an integral part of fascism and a logical consequence of fascism's belief in "national spirits." It should also be kept in mind however that while fascists do use reverence for tradition and national identity, those in themselves are not fascist. That does not mean that fascism doesn't have a system of ethics and values, however — instead, that system of ethics is rooted in concepts of struggle, Power and obedience. Typically this is expressed in the form of an extreme cultural militarism, with the military being an expression of the power and might of the State, and the mentality of eagerness and action for action's sake. The most infamous element of fascism is its support for Social Darwinism of various sorts. In Mussolini's and Hitler's regimes, 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. Furthermore, Hitler's version of fascism (National Socialism a.k.a Nazism) combined this Social-Darwinist ethos with an institutional belief in white supremacy to posit an evolutionary struggle between various races. We all know where this led so further elaboration is not necessary. Things get more complicated when outlining fascist economics. Since fascism is used as an epithet and it is popularly believed that if Fascists did it, then it is bad, a long intellectual battle has been waged over how to characterize the economics of Fascism. Typically, the term "corporatism" is used to describe fascist economics. It describes a situation wherein all the large privately-owned economic institutions (corporations, industry cartels and the like) are brought into collusion with the government and become part of the apparatus of the State's economic planning. Additionally, private ownership and ability to do business become contingent on service to the State. Thus, while ownership of the means of production (the stuff used to produce other stuff) remains in private hands and continues to be operated with a for-profit objective, ultimate control is exercised by the State. Fascist governments also exercise further control over the economy via methods such as price fixing. The fascist economic system is in keeping with the ideology's totalitarian nature, where no other institution can be allowed to rival the State in power and influence. This quality also leads to a hostility towards labour unions and other organised worker groups, with such institutions typically being repressed and dissolved. Mussolini's Italy did in fact see the creation of new trade unions following the dissolution of the old ones: these new unions were owned and operated by the State. This system invites comparisons with many forms of state socialism, as both ideologies involve a centrally-planned economy with the State in control of the means of production. Although ownership remains private in the fascist system, many classical-liberal critiques of fascism have argued that "ownership without control" is a senseless, inherently illogical notion, and that fascism is economically indistinguishable from state socialism and therefore is a variant of state socialism. Still, even a cursory look at the two ideologies will demonstrate the radical differences in ethos, even if comparisons in actual outcome are legitimate. Marxist critiques of fascism, conversely, argue that fascism is a form of capitalism, in the sense of Marx's initial definition of the term (see the "Marxism" subsection above). Despite being highly regimented and controlled by the State, fascist economies still have private ownership of industries by an upper-class who make profit from the labor of workers; as profit still exists, the economy is still exploitative and thus a form of capitalism. Fascism is on the whole strongly anti-Marxist and anti-socialist, and the two ideologies are usually rivals in attempts to take power during crises like economic depressions — Marxism thus considers fascism to be at best a power play coming out of the petit bourgeois, and at worst little more than a group of violent thugs controlled by the capitalist class brought in as enforcers to defend the old order (and whether or not it acknowledges this status is regarded as irrelevant, since in practice they still end up defending capitalism). However, ultimately economics in fascism is usually a secondary concern; they claim the "Third Position" on the issue between capitalist and communist. Contemporary fascist groups can only succeed by the usage of fantastic lies to deceive the public. Whether through conspiracy theories, holocaust denial or scare tactics, people aren't likely to side with a group at odds with their liberties unless they convince the public that the powers that be are going to enslave them anyway. Most often, this comes down to conspiracies blaming some sinister Greedy Jew cabal of ceding their nation's sovereignty to the UN by destroying national identity through immigration which is Insane Troll Logic at its finest.
Anarchism - For Absolute Freedom!
People are fundamentally good and don't need to be coerced into treating each other with decency. Government isn't a 'necessary' evil at all. The definition of anarchism to most people means "belief the state is bad and shouldn't exist." However, while all anarchists are anti-statists, it is not the only or in most cases even essential part of their ideology. Anarchism is the belief that rulership as a whole (not just the state) should not exist (as indicated in its Greek roots, an- [no] -arkhos [ruler]) and that people should instead organize their social relations and institutions though voluntary cooperation without hierarchies of power. Politically, most forms of anarchism support replacing the nation-state and representative democracy with a free federation of self-governing communities and direct democracy - mainly through local networks of participatory, face-to-face, neighborhood assemblies. Economically, anarchists oppose capitalism (with the exception of anarcho-capitalists) and instead advocate replacing private corporations and wage-labor as the primary forms of enterprise with self-employment, worker-run cooperatives, commons-based peer production, and other economic institutions organised on a horizontal, rather than hierarchical, basis. Though they are divided on what specific form a post-capitalist, post-statist economy should take. While the words "anarchy" and "anarchism" arose in the mid-1600s during the English Civil War as an insult hurled at fringe radical groups (some of whom were essentially anarchists or near enough) it did not become a coherent trend of thought until the turn of the 19th century. Some view the English radical William Godwin as the first philosophical anarchist, from his work Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Modern Morals and Manners (1793) in which he espoused proto-anarchist views about the state and the then-emerging economic system of capitalism in England. French writer and politician Pierre Joseph Proudhon was the first thinker to call himself an anarchist however, with the book What is Property? (1840) from which came the famous slogan: "property is theft" It's important to note that Proudhon did not mean all forms of what we could call "property" by it, only those not defined by personal possession. In other words, he supported personal property (defined by use and occupancy) but opposed "private" property (when defined by absentee ownership). The issue of capitalism might seem from the outside to be a divisive one for anarchists, although this is only due to terminology. Most anarchist literature, and most anarchists, define "capitalism" in the same way Marxists do (the system of wage-labor, which according to Marxism is exploitative). However, the term "capitalism" is also commonly defined by non-anarchists (and by most self-proclaimed capitalists as well) as "free-market economics" (i.e. when all economic activity must take place outside the realm of the state). Most anarchists consider the two meanings to be separate concepts, with "capitalism" being used in the Marxist sense and "free market" being used to refer to the second definition. For the remainder of this article, "capitalism" and "free market" will be used with these definitions. Therefore, a person can be both anti-capitalist and pro-market (i.e. arguing for a society of self-employed people interacting and exchanging on a purely voluntary basis; the mutualists and individualist anarchists share this position). This was in common with classical liberalism. Indeed, Lysander Spooner held to natural rights theory, and Benjamin Tucker considered himself a Jeffersonian and his individualist anarchism to be "consistent Manchesterism" (from the movement for free trade based in Manchester, England, during the 19th century), although later he embraced egoism, as inspired by the work of Max Stirner. On the other hand, someone can be pro-capitalist and anti-market by such definitions (arguably, Mussolini-style corporatism fits this). Hence, the anarchists from Proudhon on were opposed completely to what they called capitalism (i.e. the existence of wage labor) with only the so-called "anarcho-capitalists" supporting it. They find commonality however in opposing the coercive mechanisms of the state, though often for different reasons. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that property, except when based in personal possession (i.e. occupancy and use) was theft. His reasoning was laid out exhaustively in What is Property?, with most if not all anarchists accepting it. Opposition to "private property" (anything besides actual possession) in addition to the state has been universal to anarchism; though some have used the term in a positive way to support property that is the product of one's own labour. Along with this most opposed sexism, racism, homophobia, classism and social hierarchy generally. Proudhon did not in fact oppose the concept of a free market, supporting workers associations (cooperatives) and mutual banks (similar to modern credit unions) to compete away industrial capitalism. His school of thought is termed mutualism. Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian noble turned radical writer who was imprisoned for his politics, escaping into exile, followed Proudhon and broke with him on many issues, supporting collective work without markets and workers' self-management. Bakunin also linked opposition to religion, especially organized, hierarchical forms, to his view of anarchism, seeing God as the ultimate authority. He turned a saying of Voltaire's on its head: "If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." He was a strong rival of Marx in the First International, and the two fought a long war of words over control of the organization until Bakunin's followers were expelled from it by Marx's. Bakunin's school of thought is called anarcho-collectivism, and could be considered a sort of middle way between mutualism (markets but with cooperatives instead of corporations) and communism (in which markets and even money would be abolished). Peter Kropotkin, a Russian prince who, like Bakunin, gave it all up for radicalism, advocated full libertarian communism on the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", favoring abolition of money in favor of free access to communally-owned goods although with voluntary, direct democratic participation: anarcho-communism. Meanwhile, in the United States a very different brand of anarchism emerged. American writers such as Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, William Green and others set out an ideal very close to Proudhon's, with even more emphasis upon an "anti-capitalist free market" in which self-employed craftsmen, artisans or farmers were paid their "full wage" and land title was possession-based only. In short, individualist anarchism argued for a society where every individual was a "capitalist" (in the Marxist sense, i.e. an owner of capital). Essentially, they held to the Labor Theory of Value along with support of free markets - "cost is the limit of price" was among their key slogans. Their ideal was a stateless economy made up mostly of self-employed artisans and shopkeepers. This school of thought began slowly dying out in the late 19th century as social anarchism (collectivist or communist) took over, with immigrants from Europe such as bringing it to the forefront of US anarchism. In the late 19th century Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy (who, like Bakunin and Kropotkin, was a Russian noble who renounced his title) embraced a form of Christian, pacifist anarchism. Unique among anarchist trends for its total rejection of violence, even in self-defense or defense of others, Tolstoy advocated essentially the same ideas as Bakunin or Kropotkin, his countrymen and more famous anarchists, but with complete pacifism. His work deeply influenced Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi (who knew Indian anarchists in London early in his activism, while disagreeing with them over the issue of using violence) in addition to Civil Disobedience, by Henry David Thoreau. Critics argued his ideas were fit only for saints (though many think Gandhi was such). The turn of the 20th century saw another trend, which advocated for revolutionary unions to overthrow capitalism and the state using militant industrial organizing, sabotage, general strikes and overall working-class solidarity. This is called anarcho-syndicalism from the French word for labor union - "chambre syndical." It was less a separate school of thought than tactical view, since followers were invariable social anarchists in the collectivist or communist mold. The Spanish Revolution, often pointed to as their greatest (albeit doomed) triumph by social anarchists, utilized this in the CNT (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo- National Confederation of Labor), which organized a worker's revolt in 1936 following the military coup led by Francisco Franco against the elected Spanish Popular Front government. The CNT and FAI (Federación Anarquisto Ibérica - Iberian Anarchist Federation) ran much of southern Spain, centered in Catalonia, along anarchist lines with no small success for the next three years until the revolution was crushed by a combination of Stalinists and Francoist forces. It is important to note, however, that while syndicalism is typically associated with anarchism, this does not mean that all syndicalists are anarchists; some of them are actually very authoritarian. Mussolini in fact called his economic model National Syndicalism, as did Franco, though this meant something completely different, as fascist "syndicates" were government-created trade associations which ran industry. The school of "anarcho-capitalism" emerged in the 1950s-60s with the writer, economics professor and Libertarian Party activist Murray Rothbard, expanded upon by later thinkers like David Friedman (son of Milton, although going much farther in his advocacy of free-market economics) and Rothbard's student Walter Block. Rothbard agreed with the classical anarchists that government is oppressive and illegitimate, but disagreed with them by concluding that private property and free markets were always good. Though admiring the individualist anarchists, he followed the Austrian School of Economics, which rejects the Labor Theory of Economic Value (in favor of the Subjective Theory of Economic Value) most strenuously and, as a consequence, rejects Marxist exploitation theory (which the mutualist and individualist anarchists accepted). Along with this, Rothbard was far more devoted to classical liberalism and natural-rights theory than the individualist anarchists, who followed aspects of it (while Benjamin Tucker eventually gave it up for Egoism as well). Rothbard accepted voluntary collectivism and communism, even advocating that businesses funded by the state be expropriated or "homesteaded" as they used stolen capital, i.e. taxed income. However, he certainly accepted property more than for "occupancy and use" provided this had been homesteaded or received peacefully. He felt that government services, such as police, militaries, courts, roads, etc. could be provided much better under the auspices of common law by private institutions. (NOTE: It should be pointed out that most anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists at all due to their support for forms of "archy" (rulership) apart from the state: in particular power-hierarchies in workplaces and a society stratified on economic class lines.) Agorism is to anarcho-capitalism essentially what anarcho-syndicalism is to anarcho-communism or collectivism, namely a tactic, advocating using the black markets and grey markets to live "off the grid" and bring down the system from within through "counter-economics" in competition with the system. Mutualism called for similar methods, and is now being somewhat revived by Kevin A. Carson, who attempts a fusion of the Subjective and Labor Theory of Economic Value in his work, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, available free here. Since the late 1960s new trends in anarchism emerged which added an environmental focus to its anti-authoritarian ideas, eventually leading to a new tendency called eco-anarchism or green anarchism. These started partly with the philosophy of Social Ecology coined by Murray Bookchin, whose book Our Synthetic Environment was released six months before the more famous Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, the book widely credited with kickstarting the modern environmentalist movement. Social Ecology takes the anarchist perspective of seeing social problems as stemming from hierarchy and domination and applies it to humanity's relation to nature: seeing the negative way humans treat the environment - such as pollution, landscape spoiling, and animal cruelty - as being rooted in the negative ways humans treat each other. As a solution, Social Ecologists seek to utilize technology for ecological rather than profit-driven ends and to decentralize institutions into small-scale eco-communities operating through direct-democracy. Other green anarchist movements such as Deep Ecology or "anarcho-primitivism" came later and see ecological problems lying not in the authoritarian ways humans treat each other, but in humanity itself as a species. Primitivists want to significantly reduce the human population and for the few humans that remain to go back to a hunter-gatherer way of life, leaving behind all technology more sophisticated than those found in the neolithic era. As you might expect, Social Ecologists and Deep Ecologists hate each other. "Post-left" and "lifestyle" anarchism has become widespread in modern times, something Bookchin disapproved of. These are marked by a tendency to reject classical social anarchism's left-wing, working-class organizing and goals or at least complement them with ecological or animal rights issues. Veganism and dumpster diving (combined as "freeganism"-eating only food that is reclaimed after being discarded) have become common for such lifestyle anarchism, in addition to using the system (especially where it has an ecological impact) to the lowest degree possible. The group Crimethinc are the most prominent exponents of this brand of post-left/lifestyle anarchism. A brief description of the major anarchist schools of thought:
Feminism- For Sexual- and Gender-Freedom!
The chief objective of Feminism is the relative equality of women with men and liberation from stereotypes about gender and sexuality. All stereotypes about gender and sexuality. Feminism is actually not so much a single ideology as an umbrella-term for several different gender-focused philosophies; some of which could be seen as complementary, but also others which want nothing to do with each other due to fundamental disagreements. Though all its different tendencies would agree on a few baseline issues. Classic Feminism was very much a movement focused on securing the legal equality of women (who had lesser rights under the law) to men and reducing the incidence of the rape and abuse of women. This kind of feminism is still alive and kicking in the 60% of the world that isn't The First World and China, where Feminism taken a new form. Modern Feminism seems to be in the process of recognising that men's issues, chiefly mental health and a general attitude that men are more expendable than women, have been neglected and is seeking to correct this. Feminism is also associated with sexual freedom and a general attitude that who one loves and has sex with are nobody else's business (and especially not the government's). The history of the movement it is generally divided into three different "waves": First wave feminism in the early twentieth century focused on votes for women; Second wave feminism from the 1960 onwards focused on challenging accepted gender roles and sexual/reproductive freedom; Third wave feminism (the current wave) started in the early 1990s and tends to focus on achieving greater equality for women in political and economic institutions as well as challenging more hidden forms of sexism in the media and culture. It also tries to take into account the experiences of women who had been historically neglected by mainstream feminist theory: such as LGBT women, non-white women, and women in the Global South. In addition to the three waves, which are divided by time periods, feminism is also divided internally over which issues are of most importance and what is really at the root of gender inequality. Radical feminism: Probably the most militant form of feminism and the source of many of the negative stereotypes - mostly from conflating it with feminism as a whole. It sees the problems women face as resulting from patriarchy (social power relations being slanted to favour males over females) and sees all other struggles as subordinate to it. It opposes pornography, which it sees as inherently oppressive towards women, and other forms of sex work such as prostitution; with most radical feminists today supporting the "Scandinavian model" of crimnalizing the buyer of sex but not the seller. While once very popular, it has gotten a lot of flack in recent years for being "anti-sex", seemingly ignoring issues of class, race, and sexual orientation, and because of many radical feminists having expressed opinions seen as transphobic (anti transgender). Marxist feminism: Sees the source of women's oppression not being due to the concept of patriarchy as such, but due to the unequal structure of a capitalist economy. For this reason it sees struggles for gender justice and economic justice as inseparable. They hold that only by getting rid of capitalism can gender equality be achieved. Socialist feminism: A fusion of radical feminism with Marxist feminism. It sees capitalism and patriarchy as mutually reinforcing systems with one making possible the other. Liberal feminism: Agrees with Marxist feminism that the source of women's oppression is economic, but isn't anti-capitalist. Instead it focuses on breaking through what they call the "glass ceiling" in economic institutions that concentrates men at the top of corporate and political professions while keeping women in subordinate positions in companies. Black feminism: Shifts attention towards the experiences of women and girls of African descent. Argues that feminists need to take account of racial problems in addition to gender problems. The writer bell hooks is a prominent voice in this tendency. Lesbian feminism: Shifts attention towards gay women and incorporates elements of queer theory into feminist discourse. Anarcha-feminism: Sees the domination of women as one form of power-based social hierarchy among many along with racism, homophobia, transphobia, capitalism, and statism. It opposes all of the above and argues that a fight against any one of them is incomplete without seeing them as part of a mutually reinforcing network of different oppressions. This idea is called intersectionality and also has applications outside of gender issues. There's also a big split - going back to the so-called "feminist sex wars" of the 1980s - over attitudes towards sex and sexuality. Some feminists see things like pornography, prostitution, BDSM, and other issues related to sexuality as fundamentally against women: these are known (mainly by their opponents it should be added) as "sex-negative feminists". Others view the above not as exploitative in and of themselves but only in the context of women's lack of autonomy within them, and that forms of sexual expression could be potentially empowering and liberating for women if only there was equality of power between the men and women engaged in them. These are the sex-positive feminists. While few dispute the notion that relative equality of the sexes is a good thing, there is some debate today about whether feminism is still relevant - at least in the affluent parts of the world; with many anti-feminists claiming that the issues feminists seek to address in western Europe and North America are not "real problems". Others have complaints about feminism that range from somewhat legitimate - at least to certain forms of it - to being based on a misunderstanding of what feminism actually is; the most frequent complaint of the latter category originating from the (false) notion that feminism is about female supremacy over men. Some common complaints on the internet today are as follows: "If it's about equality between the genders, then how come it's called femin-ism and only focuses on one gender?" Because the movement originated at a time when women were clearly considered inferior to men socially and institutionally. It focused on the female sex because most men were already in positions of power in society relative to women. It was women that needed to be brought up to the level of men; who were perceived to already have power. As for the accusation of being sexist for only focusing on one gender, a counter-argument would be that this would make the black civil rights movement racist because it only focused on black people, or the gay rights movement bigoted because it didn't also focus on the problems of straight people. “If it's about equality then shouldn't it be called “equalism”?” One problem with this is that feminism is not just about equality. As many, such as Germaine Greer have pointed out, it is also concerned with women's liberation from the concept of fixed gender roles, not simply equality with men. The term equalism, if adopted, would leave out a crucial theoretical aspect of the movement. “If it's about equality then it should be called humanism". There already is a philosophy called humanism. It had it's origins in the Enlightenment era and has never had anything specifically to do with gender issues; which is what feminism has always been concerned with. One of the more legitimate complaints is that while there is an entire movement and theory dedicated to addressing the needs of women, males also have problems that deserve attention but can't be addressed by a philosophy that defines itself in its relation to females. However, most feminists would not object to the existence of a "masculist" movement provided that it saw itself as complementary to feminism rather than antagonistic to it. The majority of feminists though have little time for so-called "men's rights activists" who claim that feminism has "gone too far" and left men as subordinate to women.Works that promote or are heavily influenced by a particular ideology:
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) versus the classical liberalism of Ayn Rand, who was much more right-wing (and therefore much more controversial). Among the writers of non-fiction on this list, Isaiah Berlin, (sometimes) John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, 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 (For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs and Beyond This Horizon, 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 Stranger in a Strange Land, which generally doesn't discuss economics) throughout his writing career; The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress could actually be considered to advocate a form of individualist anarchism. Non-fiction:
Socialism & Communism