Follow TV Tropes

Following

History UsefulNotes / PoliticalIdeologies

Go To



[[folder: Inevitability, and 'Why Is That Called An Ideology'?]]

to:

[[folder: Inevitability, [[folder:Inevitability, and 'Why Is That Called An Ideology'?]]
an Ideology'?]]






[[folder: Context]]

to:

[[folder: Context]]
[[folder:Context]]



Western Animation:



See also [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists Wikipedia’s list of liberal theorists]].

to:

See also [[http://en.[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists Wikipedia’s list of liberal theorists]].


* Music/AgainstMe

to:

* Music/AgainstMeMusic/AgainstMe They even have a song called "Baby, I'm an Anarchist."


%%[[folder:Nationalism — For the Nation!]]

%% Nations and the nation-state are and should be the bedrock of the political order! But more importantly for you and me, doesn't it feel awesome to share in the greatness of such a uniquely exceptional and great nation as ours?

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


%% The idea of the nation was originally a radical and bold one. It was fashioned during UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution. The Revolutionaries were set on building a Republic that could govern a large area %% of land, and be representative of the same, nullifying and usurping the claims of the kingdom and TheChurch in the %% minds of the people. To make it clear, while a country used to depend on the personal territory of a King, nationalism implied that a country was unified by its people. In the context of Empires, Nationalism means that a submitted people wants a government that comes from itself, not from a foreign people, democratically or not, and as %% such rises of Nationalism often meant the death of Empires. Nations insisted that people are citizens, equally important in creating the whole state by means of certain commonalities, which they claimed had existed but had been %% invisible, hidden and suppressed in the past. Nationalism sought to make this visible by means of symbols and institutions and thus was born during the French Revolution, both by deliberate design and spontaneous improvisation, %% such things as National Flags, National Anthems, National Museums, National Schools, National Banks and a bunch of %% official propaganda saluting patriots and heroes of the Nation. This idea persisted even when they converted into %% an Empire, when Emperor Bonaparte introduced further ideas namely the award for the highest citizen, the Legion d'Honneur (subsequently copied by other nations, such as the US Presidential Medal of Freedom) which he awarded to both military and civilian professionals.

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

%% Nationalism is so unquestioned and all-pervasive today that it is more a belief than an ideology and that proves its success as an ideology in replacing its older structures. As it has nothing to say about individual people and their well-being, it has no set opinion on the political economy and its social structures. Hence its paradox of being both particular and to a degree universal. Nationalism has two basic tenets: First, everyone on earth belongs to a 'nation', an imagined community which exists [[ClapYourHandsIfYouBelieve because people who identify with it believe it does]]. The second tenet of nationalism is that every 'nation' on earth should have a state that governs an amount of territory, and that all the people of that 'nation' should live within that territory. Given the power of this abstract concept and its vital importance, it became quite important to people of different interests to be, ''selective'' of what represents the nation and what is considered to be representative of its citizens. It could be common language and common religion, common culture, but languages can be learnt and what if people share the same religion and different language, and vice versa and what about outsiders (who share neither language nor religion, or one of both) who develop a ForeignCultureFetish? Obviously, people needed to be more specific and eventually other filters had to be added, and eventually race and ethnicity was decided in the course of the 19th and early 20th Century. Thus was born ethno-nationalism a strain of nationalism that is remarkable for its global reach, spreading from Central and Eastern Europe to the Middle East to the Indian Subcontinent, to Africa and beyond. Other strains include nativism, a concept which insists that particular citizens, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrenvolk_democracy a herrenvolk]], have aristocratic claims and entitlements to the nation, its rights and its services, over other groups of citizens, even if the latter are officially citizens, residents and speakers of the same language as the former, and over time via %% [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_succession_theory ethnic succession]], the concept of natives can change, the %% herrenvolk expands to former marginal groups so as to better combat more newcomers.
%%
%% You can see how these beliefs [[UsefulNotes/MisplacedNationalism are trouble]] especially when taken to their extreme %% conclusions. By valuing nations above people, virtually any sacrifice of a nation's people (short of sacrificing %% absolutely everyone of that nation) in the name of that nation is acceptable...let alone the sacrifice of people of a %% different nation. A true, pure nationalist, free from the influence of all other political ideologies, would regard %% the genocide of absolutely everybody on earth save 10,000 people of one’s own nation[[note]]That's the minimum number %% required to perpetuate humanity with enough genetic variation to stave off inbreeding.[[/note]] as the only %% acceptable solution to the problem of the existence of other nations. As we said at the outset, though, nationalism %% doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Most nation-states save [[UsefulNotes/NorthKorea the Democratic People's Republic of %% Korea]] would be severely criticized for making such a trade-off as the one just outlined. While most nationalists %% value their own nation and members of it more than they do foreign nations and foreign people, they probably wouldn't %% believe that their nation is such an important cause that all those people should die in its name.

%% In many respects this attitude is a return to the nineteenth century, back when the word 'nation' was redefined from %% a vague word denoting 'group of peoples who spoke the same language'[[note]]Much has been written of how the myriad %% forms of the word and concept of 'nation' far predate the modern nation-state and nationalism as it's known today, of %% course.[[/note]] to a unified 'racial'[[note]]With the exception of Russian Nationalism, which was avowedly non-%% hereditary but was defined exclusively by acceptance of the Orthodox Christian Faith.[[/note]] group that should have %% its own state [[SocialDarwinism and must dominate the earth or surely go extinct, for only one nation can ultimately %% survive]]. While nationalism in this sense remains a strong force in the world today, there can be no doubt that it %% is far weaker than it was in the 20th century due to the events of the World Wars as well as the power of liberalism, %%which opposes nationalism on the grounds that real individual people are not worth sacrificing for any kind of %%'imagined' community, no matter how strongly people may feel about it. On the other hand, the myriad forms of %%nationalism and resurging influence in more recent times mean that [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment the %%devil really is in the details]].
%%
%%Nationalism is often distinguished from ''patriotism'', a [[http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-%%between-nationalism-and-patriotism/ personal affinity or loyalty to one's country]] without a specific feeling that %%it is better than others. Creator/GeorgeOrwell preferred to define Patriotism as a love for one's homeland that has %%no intention of imposing upon others. Creator/SamuelJohnson on the other hand saw patriotism as "the last resort of %%scoundrels" while Creator/AmbroseBierce differed from Dr. Johnson [[DistinctionWithoutADifference by insisting that %%it's the first]]. Regardless, nationalism and patriotism can be in line with liberalism, and left-wing socialism %[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/30.htm and even internationalist communism]]. But %%[[PatrioticFervor more jingoistic fervor]], when combined with anti-liberal politics, social darwinism (where only %%the fittest nations can survive and dominate) race-based ideas, and militarism, the result tends to become %%''Fascism'' or ''National Socialism''.
%%
%%[[/folder]]

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

to:

%%[[folder:Nationalism — For the Nation!]]

%% Nations and the nation-state are and should be the bedrock of the political order! But more importantly for you and me, doesn't it feel awesome to share in the greatness of such a uniquely exceptional and great nation as ours?

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


%% The idea of the nation was originally a radical and bold one. It was fashioned during UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution. The Revolutionaries were set on building a Republic that could govern a large area %% of land, and be representative of the same, nullifying and usurping the claims of the kingdom and TheChurch in the %% minds of the people. To make it clear, while a country used to depend on the personal territory of a King, nationalism implied that a country was unified by its people. In the context of Empires, Nationalism means that a submitted people wants a government that comes from itself, not from a foreign people, democratically or not, and as %% such rises of Nationalism often meant the death of Empires. Nations insisted that people are citizens, equally important in creating the whole state by means of certain commonalities, which they claimed had existed but had been %% invisible, hidden and suppressed in the past. Nationalism sought to make this visible by means of symbols and institutions and thus was born during the French Revolution, both by deliberate design and spontaneous improvisation, %% such things as National Flags, National Anthems, National Museums, National Schools, National Banks and a bunch of %% official propaganda saluting patriots and heroes of the Nation. This idea persisted even when they converted into %% an Empire, when Emperor Bonaparte introduced further ideas namely the award for the highest citizen, the Legion d'Honneur (subsequently copied by other nations, such as the US Presidential Medal of Freedom) which he awarded to both military and civilian professionals.

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

%% Nationalism is so unquestioned and all-pervasive today that it is more a belief than an ideology and that proves its success as an ideology in replacing its older structures. As it has nothing to say about individual people and their well-being, it has no set opinion on the political economy and its social structures. Hence its paradox of being both particular and to a degree universal. Nationalism has two basic tenets: First, everyone on earth belongs to a 'nation', an imagined community which exists [[ClapYourHandsIfYouBelieve because people who identify with it believe it does]]. The second tenet of nationalism is that every 'nation' on earth should have a state that governs an amount of territory, and that all the people of that 'nation' should live within that territory. Given the power of this abstract concept and its vital importance, it became quite important to people of different interests to be, ''selective'' of what represents the nation and what is considered to be representative of its citizens. It could be common language and common religion, common culture, but languages can be learnt and what if people share the same religion and different language, and vice versa and what about outsiders (who share neither language nor religion, or one of both) who develop a ForeignCultureFetish? Obviously, people needed to be more specific and eventually other filters had to be added, and eventually race and ethnicity was decided in the course of the 19th and early 20th Century. Thus was born ethno-nationalism a strain of nationalism that is remarkable for its global reach, spreading from Central and Eastern Europe to the Middle East to the Indian Subcontinent, to Africa and beyond. Other strains include nativism, a concept which insists that particular citizens, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrenvolk_democracy a herrenvolk]], have aristocratic claims and entitlements to the nation, its rights and its services, over other groups of citizens, even if the latter are officially citizens, residents and speakers of the same language as the former, and over time via %% [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_succession_theory ethnic succession]], the concept of natives can change, the %% herrenvolk expands to former marginal groups so as to better combat more newcomers.
%%
%% You can see how these beliefs [[UsefulNotes/MisplacedNationalism are trouble]] especially when taken to their extreme %% conclusions. By valuing nations above people, virtually any sacrifice of a nation's people (short of sacrificing %% absolutely everyone of that nation) in the name of that nation is acceptable...let alone the sacrifice of people of a %% different nation. A true, pure nationalist, free from the influence of all other political ideologies, would regard %% the genocide of absolutely everybody on earth save 10,000 people of one’s own nation[[note]]That's the minimum number %% required to perpetuate humanity with enough genetic variation to stave off inbreeding.[[/note]] as the only %% acceptable solution to the problem of the existence of other nations. As we said at the outset, though, nationalism %% doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Most nation-states save [[UsefulNotes/NorthKorea the Democratic People's Republic of %% Korea]] would be severely criticized for making such a trade-off as the one just outlined. While most nationalists %% value their own nation and members of it more than they do foreign nations and foreign people, they probably wouldn't %% believe that their nation is such an important cause that all those people should die in its name.

%% In many respects this attitude is a return to the nineteenth century, back when the word 'nation' was redefined from %% a vague word denoting 'group of peoples who spoke the same language'[[note]]Much has been written of how the myriad %% forms of the word and concept of 'nation' far predate the modern nation-state and nationalism as it's known today, of %% course.[[/note]] to a unified 'racial'[[note]]With the exception of Russian Nationalism, which was avowedly non-%% hereditary but was defined exclusively by acceptance of the Orthodox Christian Faith.[[/note]] group that should have %% its own state [[SocialDarwinism and must dominate the earth or surely go extinct, for only one nation can ultimately %% survive]]. While nationalism in this sense remains a strong force in the world today, there can be no doubt that it %% is far weaker than it was in the 20th century due to the events of the World Wars as well as the power of liberalism, %%which opposes nationalism on the grounds that real individual people are not worth sacrificing for any kind of %%'imagined' community, no matter how strongly people may feel about it. On the other hand, the myriad forms of %%nationalism and resurging influence in more recent times mean that [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment the %%devil really is in the details]].
%%
%%Nationalism is often distinguished from ''patriotism'', a [[http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-%%between-nationalism-and-patriotism/ personal affinity or loyalty to one's country]] without a specific feeling that %%it is better than others. Creator/GeorgeOrwell preferred to define Patriotism as a love for one's homeland that has %%no intention of imposing upon others. Creator/SamuelJohnson on the other hand saw patriotism as "the last resort of %%scoundrels" while Creator/AmbroseBierce differed from Dr. Johnson [[DistinctionWithoutADifference by insisting that %%it's the first]]. Regardless, nationalism and patriotism can be in line with liberalism, and left-wing socialism %[[https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/30.htm and even internationalist communism]]. But %%[[PatrioticFervor more jingoistic fervor]], when combined with anti-liberal politics, social darwinism (where only %%the fittest nations can survive and dominate) race-based ideas, and militarism, the result tends to become %%''Fascism'' or ''National Socialism''.
%%
%%[[/folder]]

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



Liberals see themselves as working for reforms within institutions and believe that institutions safeguard liberties and allow ordinary people to live as they please. In practice, critics argue, this leads liberals to be devoted to maintaining the existing power structures of society, and working with the interests of power holders rather than the powerless. Historically there were a number of splits in liberalism over the last two hundred years. There is the split 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 UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution. 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 was John Stuart Mill, who was also a major influence on what is now called Liberalism, despite not being generally considered as a Liberal himself.


to:

Liberals see themselves as working for reforms within institutions and believe that institutions safeguard liberties and allow ordinary people to live as they please. In practice, critics argue, this leads liberals to be devoted to maintaining the existing power structures of society, and working with the interests of power holders rather than the powerless. Historically there were a number of splits in liberalism over the last two hundred years. There is the split 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 UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution. 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 was John Stuart Mill, who was also a major influence on what is now called Liberalism, despite not being generally considered as a Liberal himself.

himself.




Liberalism in Continental Europe and in Britain in the classical strain was more or less finished during the time of TheGreatDepression, and the Fascist and Stalinist eras. J. M. Keynes who called himself a member of the liberal party, transformed the economic theory of laissez-faire capitalism by arguing that the idea of the free market during the 19th Century was exceptional and not true in a macro-economic sense for a globalized international economy of the 20th Century. He advocated for free trade to persist only with regulation by the government and called for taxes on the rich. Old Liberals who opposed this became conservatives or they became irrelevant. Social Democracy gained consensus among the mainstream Left while the American Democrat Party, historically a party with populist-classical-Liberal sentiments, turned towards Liberalism and social democracy. The result was the post-war consensus that remained in place until TheEighties. But in brief, it worth pointing out that while Even Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek conceded some ground to Socialism in their proposals to replace contemporary welfare programs and minimum wages with 'negative income taxes' that would provide living wages to all citizens (and Hayek actually went even further in [[https://sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/hayek-on-health-care-social-safety-nets-and-public-housing unambiguously endorsing universal healthcare and other safety nets]] to care for those subject to misfortunes beyond their control).

to:

\nLiberalism in Continental Europe and in Britain in the classical strain was more or less finished during the time of TheGreatDepression, and the Fascist and Stalinist eras. J. M. Keynes who called himself a member of the liberal party, transformed the economic theory of laissez-faire capitalism by arguing that the idea of the free market during the 19th Century was exceptional and not true in a macro-economic sense for a globalized international economy of the 20th Century. He advocated for free trade to persist only with regulation by the government and called for taxes on the rich. Old Liberals who opposed this became conservatives or they became irrelevant. Social Democracy gained consensus among the mainstream Left while the American Democrat Party, historically a party with populist-classical-Liberal sentiments, turned towards Liberalism and social democracy. The result was the post-war consensus that remained in place until TheEighties. But in brief, it worth pointing out that while Even Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek conceded some ground to Socialism in their proposals to replace contemporary welfare programs and minimum wages with 'negative income taxes' that would provide living wages to all citizens (and Hayek actually went even further in [[https://sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/hayek-on-health-care-social-safety-nets-and-public-housing unambiguously endorsing universal healthcare and other safety nets]] to care for those subject to misfortunes beyond their control).



[[folder:Socialism — For The Equality Of The Rich And Poor!]]

to:

[[folder:Socialism — For The Equality Of The Rich And Poor!]]
Economic Equality!]]



The chief objective of socialism is for everyone to have the same rights and opportunities to do what they want in life. Socialism holds that a society which only values freedom inevitably results in some being much, ''much'' freer than others. Therefore, society must value justice and equality as well. Socialism seeks to replace rule by the upper class and organised crime with the rule of law, with society instead being run by a just, efficient, and charitable government that governs 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 [[FullCircleRevolution start serving the upper classes again]].



The chief objective of socialism is for everyone to have the same rights and opportunities to do what they want in life. Socialism holds that a society which only values freedom inevitably results in some being much, ''much'' freer than others. Therefore, society must value justice and equality as well. Socialism seeks to replace rule by the upper class and organised crime with the rule of law, with society instead being run by a just, efficient, and charitable government that governs 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 [[FullCircleRevolution start serving the upper classes again]].



* Democratic: Keynesian, Behavioural
* Dictatorial: Keynesian, Behavioural, Marxism

to:

* Democratic: Keynesian, Behavioural
Behavioral
* Dictatorial: Keynesian, Behavioural, Behavioral, Marxism



''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.

to:

''State socialism'', the most commonly-known variation of socialism, takes the approach that industry, services etc. should be nationalised, nationalized, 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.



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 antiauthoritarian 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.

to:

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 antiauthoritarian 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.



Social democracy is [[TakeAThirdOption 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.

to:

Social democracy is [[TakeAThirdOption 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 nationalizing 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 nationalized services). Essentially, it's democratic socialism within a capitalistic framework.


Added DiffLines:



Christian Democracy, in its Catholic strain, emphasizes compassion: caring for the poor and disadvantaged in society (this being where it overlaps with Socialism) and the family as a God-given bastion of social order and building-block of society (where it overlaps with conservatism). As a result they agree upon a number of policies which strengthen these such as universal education and healthcare, orphanages, marriage counseling, etc and have generally, albeit not consistently, opposed the Neoliberal agenda. The 'Prosperity Theology' of some US 'churches', generally Protestant, draws their special ire as a corruption of Christian teachings, since it uses Christian teachings to justify the materialistic Neoliberal pursuit of greed (by claiming that wealth directly reflects God's love). Yet differences of interpretation mean that a number of their policy priorities are at odds with one another. Things that some oppose depending upon their specific religious denomination and cultural and national traditions include 'frivolous' marriages (most), the use of contraceptives (Catholics), same-sex marriage (Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians), 'frivolous' abortions (...we don't have all day). There're also fierce debates about whether the treatment of criminals should be relatively harsh (to deter crimes against the innocent) or lenient (to help repentant sinners change their ways, as Christ taught). Catholics in particular often toe the official line of asserting 'human dignity from conception to natural death'. This is generally understood to mean opposition to contraception, abortion, suicide (including assisted suicide) and euthanasia.

to:

Christian Democracy, in its Catholic strain, emphasizes compassion: caring for the poor and disadvantaged in society (this being where it overlaps with Socialism) and the family as a God-given bastion of social order and building-block of society (where it overlaps with conservatism). As a result they agree upon a number of policies which strengthen these such as universal education and healthcare, orphanages, marriage counseling, etc and have generally, albeit not consistently, opposed the Neoliberal Liberal agenda. The 'Prosperity Theology' of some US 'churches', generally Protestant, draws their special ire as a corruption of Christian teachings, since it uses Christian teachings to justify the materialistic Neoliberal Liberal/Libertarian pursuit of greed (by claiming that wealth directly reflects God's love). Yet differences of interpretation mean that a number of their policy priorities are at odds with one another. Things that some oppose depending upon their specific religious denomination and cultural and national traditions include 'frivolous' marriages (most), the use of contraceptives (Catholics), same-sex marriage (Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians), 'frivolous' abortions (...we don't have all day). There're also fierce debates about whether the treatment of criminals should be relatively harsh (to deter crimes against the innocent) or lenient (to help repentant sinners change their ways, as Christ taught). Catholics in particular often toe the official line of asserting 'human dignity from conception to natural death'. This is generally understood to mean opposition to contraception, abortion, suicide (including assisted suicide) and euthanasia.



* Objectivism: unlike regular Libertarians, they believe that altruism is bad and that the poor should die out.



* Neoliberal - Laissez-faire Fair, Austrian

to:

* Neoliberal - Laissez-faire Fair, Austrian



Novelists such as Creator/RobertAHeinlein and (most infamously) Creator/AynRand , popularized UsefulNotes/{{Objectivism}} by producing novels explicitly rejecting altruism and championing being fully independent.



to:

Novelists such as Creator/RobertAHeinlein and (most infamously) Creator/AynRand , popularized UsefulNotes/{{Objectivism}} by producing novels explicitly rejecting altruism and championing being fully independent.


independent from society.




* Anarcho-Capitalism: the wealth-concentration dynamic of Capitalism can be managed if political power is used to prevent the accumulation of economic power sufficient to create ''de facto'' rulership. Markets, private capital, and corporations can be instruments for good. Adherents consider this the logical conclusion of the idealistic and optimistic views of socioeconomic activity that they share with Neoliberals.

to:

* Anarcho-Capitalism: the wealth-concentration dynamic of Capitalism can be managed if political power is used to prevent the accumulation of economic power sufficient to create ''de facto'' rulership. Markets, private capital, and corporations can be instruments for good. Adherents consider this the logical conclusion of the idealistic and optimistic views of socioeconomic activity that they share with Neoliberals.Liberals.



* ''Film/{{Bulworth}}'' by Creator/WarrenBeatty was an angry satire of the American Democratic Party's 90's neoliberalism, where they more or less left little room for agency in the new political spectrum to the poor and marginalized, with politicians courting minority votes despite not doing anything to ameliorate their problems, by blackmailing them by noting they have no other real alternatives:

to:

* ''Film/{{Bulworth}}'' by Creator/WarrenBeatty was an angry satire of the American Democratic Party's 90's neoliberalism, Liberalism, where they more or less left little room for agency in the new political spectrum to the poor and marginalized, with politicians courting minority votes despite not doing anything to ameliorate their problems, by blackmailing them by noting they have no other real alternatives:


Christian Democrats' exact policy positions are highly dependent upon local context and political alliances. They usually consider the cultural Christian heritage of their country important and acknowledge a need for 'solidarity' with many social causes, but often find themselves at odds with Communism and Anarchism because of their atheist leanings and in league with Socialists and Liberals because of their views on democracy and social mobility and religious freedom. Historically, in the 1880s-1970s most Christian Democrats were in fact ''in league with Socialists''. This is because the origins of Christian Democracy lie in Christians' responses to workers' misery in the late 19th century, wherein caring for the needy took priority over ensuring the Christian heterodoxy of society. Their proclaimed social/egalitarian values generally drove them to criticize wealth inequalities and push for state intervention to flatten out the 'boom and bust' cycle, thereby distinguishing them from the less interventionist classical liberals.

to:

Christian Democrats' exact policy positions are highly dependent upon local context and political alliances. They usually consider the cultural Christian heritage of their country important and acknowledge a need for 'solidarity' with many social causes, but often find themselves at odds with Communism and Anarchism because of their atheist leanings and in league with Socialists and Liberals because of their views on democracy and social mobility and religious freedom. Historically, in the 1880s-1970s most Christian Democrats were in fact ''in league with Socialists''. This is because the origins of Christian Democracy lie in Christians' responses to workers' misery in the late 19th century, wherein caring for the needy took priority over ensuring the Christian heterodoxy of society. Their proclaimed social/egalitarian values generally drove them to criticize wealth inequalities and push for state intervention to flatten out the 'boom and bust' cycle, thereby distinguishing them from the less interventionist classical liberals.
Libertarians.



* ''The Social Contract'', ''Discourse on Inequality'', and ''Émile'', by Creator/JeanJacquesRousseau (Classical)
* ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy'', by Joseph Schumpeter (Macroeconomics/economic)
* ''Globalization and Its Discontents'', by Joseph Stiglitz (New Keynesian)

to:

* ''The Social Contract'', ''Discourse on Inequality'', and ''Émile'', by Creator/JeanJacquesRousseau (Classical)
* ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy'', by Joseph Schumpeter (Macroeconomics/economic)
* ''Globalization and Its Discontents'', by Joseph Stiglitz (New Keynesian)
Creator/JeanJacquesRousseau



* Creator/DougStanhope (classical)



* Music/{{Loudness}} (classical liberalism, especially during the Music/MasakiYamada era, though liberalism seems to be the hat of Music/MinoruNiihara)



* Music/{{Rush}} (classical early on, somewhere in between classical and liberalism now)
* Music/FrankZappa (somewhere in between classical and liberalism, but leaning more towards classical)

to:

* Music/{{Rush}} (classical early on, somewhere in between classical and liberalism now)
* Music/FrankZappa (somewhere in between classical and liberalism, but leaning more towards classical)



WebAnimations:
* WebAnimation/FreedomToons

WebVideos:

to:

WebAnimations:
Web Videos:
* WebAnimation/FreedomToons

WebVideos:
WebAnimation/FreedomToons has videos criticizing the minimum wage and gun control, while also lampooning general politics



* And the Weak Suffer What They Must?: Europe's Crisis and America's Economic Future (Marxism with elements of classical liberalism)

to:

* And the Weak Suffer What They Must?: Europe's Crisis and America's Economic Future (Marxism with elements of classical liberalism)(Marxism)


* ''Literature/HarryPotter'' has been noted by some [[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/harry-potter-market-wiz.html as having views sympathetic to Libertarianism]].

to:

* ''Literature/HarryPotter'' has been noted by some [[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/harry-potter-market-wiz.html [[https://youtu.be/g4TEtalsISY as having views sympathetic to Libertarianism]].



* ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'' is the best known example, as Creator/TreyParkerAndMattStone are libertarians, and the show often carries an anti-authoritarian message, and often makes {{Take That}}s against [[EqualOpportunityOffender both social conservatives and fiscal left-wingers]].

WebVideo:

to:

* ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'' is the best known example, as Creator/TreyParkerAndMattStone are libertarians, Libertarians, and the show often carries an anti-authoritarian message, and often makes {{Take That}}s against [[EqualOpportunityOffender both social conservatives and fiscal left-wingers]].

WebVideo:
WebAnimations:
* WebAnimation/FreedomToons

WebVideos:



* A lot of Creator/PhilipKDick's work fits here. It also comes ''close'' to qualifying as anarchist, though Dick wasn't quite an anarchist in real life (almost certainly a libertarian socialist, though).


Please note, the following categories are ''ideological''. Several groups running in RealLife elections often use these terms, but to refer to their political bloc rather than as an indicator of their actual ideological leanings. For instance, in the contemporary US 'liberalism' is an umbrella which encompasses everything between Socialism and Lite Anarchism, whereas 'conservationism' is another umbrella covering everything from Tea Party Republicanism to Christian Zealots to Hardline-Conservatism.

to:

Please note, the following categories are ''ideological''. Several groups running in RealLife elections often use these terms, but to refer to their political bloc rather than as an indicator of their actual ideological leanings. For instance, in the contemporary US 'liberalism' is an umbrella which encompasses everything between Socialism and Lite Anarchism, whereas 'conservationism' is another umbrella covering everything from Tea Party Republicanism to Christian Zealots to Hardline-Conservatism.


* [[Music/HidetoMatsumoto hide]]



* Music/XJapan (1987–92) due to the presence of [[Music/HidetoMatsumoto hide]] and Music/TaijiSawada, both of whom had strong punk sensibilities. None of their songs had ''outright'' anarchist themes, but the general thrust of the band’s ideals seemed to be very much toward the ‘break stuff and create chaos for its own sake’ variant of anarchism. They would lose this over time.

to:

* Music/XJapan (1987–92) due to the presence of [[Music/HidetoMatsumoto hide]] and Music/TaijiSawada, both of whom had strong punk sensibilities. None of their songs had ''outright'' anarchist themes, but the general thrust of the band’s ideals seemed to be very much toward the ‘break stuff and create chaos for its own sake’ variant of anarchism. They would lose this over time.


* Music/JohnCage



* Music/{{Chumbawamba}}



* Music/DeathGrips



* Music/EmceeeLynx



* Music/TheKLF



* Music/MiseryIndex



* Music/NapalmDeath
* Music/JoannaNewsom, believe it or not, can be read as having anarchist themes underneath the {{Fractured Fairy Tale}}s she tells in her music, even though she's usually considered an apolitical artist. Her lyrics often use the ocean as a metaphor for the anarchic, pre-civilised state of humanity (it's also used as a metaphor for women's sexuality), and when the narrator of "Colleen" [[spoiler:returns to the ocean]], we're clearly intended to consider this a good thing, [[spoiler:not least because she's clearly a [[SelkiesAndWereseals selkie]] and was, almost literally, a FishOutOfWater in human civilisation. The song ends with the narrator explicitly inviting the listener to join her in the ocean, where "never in your life have you felt so free."]] Her page here goes into further details about other political themes in her work.

to:

* Music/NapalmDeath
* Music/JoannaNewsom, believe it or not, can be read as having anarchist themes underneath the {{Fractured Fairy Tale}}s she tells in her music, even though she's usually considered an apolitical artist. Her lyrics often use the ocean as a metaphor for the anarchic, pre-civilised pre-civilized state of humanity (it's also used as a metaphor for women's sexuality), and when the narrator of "Colleen" [[spoiler:returns to the ocean]], we're clearly intended to consider this a good thing, [[spoiler:not least because she's clearly a [[SelkiesAndWereseals selkie]] and was, almost literally, a FishOutOfWater in human civilisation. The song ends with the narrator explicitly inviting the listener to join her in the ocean, where "never in your life have you felt so free."]] Her page here goes into further details about other political themes in her work.



* Music/{{Panopticon}}
* Music/UtahPhillips
* Music/{{Propaghandi}}
* Music/RageAgainstTheMachine

to:

* Music/{{Panopticon}}
* Music/UtahPhillips
* Music/{{Propaghandi}}
* Music/RageAgainstTheMachine
Music/RageAgainstTheMachine The band is (in)famous for their extremely left-wing politics (identifying most closely with anarcho-syndicalism) and the politically-charged lyrics in their songs, and the liner notes usually include contact information to various organizations the band supports.



* ''VideoGame/AssassinsCreedIVBlackFlag'' is highly sympathetic and admiring of the Pirate Republic's proto-egalitarian defiance of the slaveowning colonialist empires.



[[http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html An Anarchist FAQ]] will prove to be an invaluable resource to those interested in the social anarchist perspective. A more general FAQ (the author is anarcho-capitalist, but does a reasonably good job presenting leftist anarchist perspectives as well; unfortunately, many of the links presented are now out of date) is [[http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm this one.]]


Novelists such as Creator/RobertAHeinlein and (most infamously) Creator/AynRand , popularized UsefulNotes/{{Objectivism}} by produced novels explicitly rejecting altruism and championing being fully independent, in Rand's case on economic grounds rooted in the Austrian school. Rand's work propagated her belief system of UsefulNotes/{{Objectivism}}, which is an inescapable element of the Neoliberal movement in the USA. Rand's novels and general ideas did have a major impact in the right-wing. Anti-welfare terminology such as "welfare queen", "handout", "entitlement" which is used Democrats and Republicans to describe social welfare policies and those who depend on them, can be traced to Rand's own division of society into individuals and "looters". The idea that wealthy corporations are "job creators" (which is shared even by the non-Randian reformist Third Way Liberal faction) is also rooted via PopCulturalOsmosis [[https://newrepublic.com/article/69239/wealthcare-0 in Rand's attempts to lend entrepreneurial capitalism an intellectual dimension]] and her attempts to elevate the acquisition of wealth into a civic virtue in-and-of-itself. Of course, Rand’s rejection of altruism was too explicit for the comfort of many co-philosophers and opponents. In particular, her ambivalence towards love of family and explicit atheism, because of its nature as a collective identity and the notion of God limiting human individuality, led to her rejection by ideological fellow travelers on the grounds that it would make them un-electable. In her teenage years in the Soviet Union, she benefited from free university education open to girls, and she was critical of some of America's aggressive foreign policy (she opposed the Vietnam War).


to:

Novelists such as Creator/RobertAHeinlein and (most infamously) Creator/AynRand , popularized UsefulNotes/{{Objectivism}} by produced producing novels explicitly rejecting altruism and championing being fully independent, in Rand's case on economic grounds rooted in the Austrian school. Rand's work propagated her belief system of UsefulNotes/{{Objectivism}}, which is an inescapable element of the Neoliberal movement in the USA. Rand's novels and general ideas did have a major impact in the right-wing. Anti-welfare terminology such as "welfare queen", "handout", "entitlement" which is used Democrats and Republicans to describe social welfare policies and those who depend on them, can be traced to Rand's own division of society into individuals and "looters". The idea that wealthy corporations are "job creators" (which is shared even by the non-Randian reformist Third Way Liberal faction) is also rooted via PopCulturalOsmosis [[https://newrepublic.com/article/69239/wealthcare-0 in Rand's attempts to lend entrepreneurial capitalism an intellectual dimension]] and her attempts to elevate the acquisition of wealth into a civic virtue in-and-of-itself. Of course, Rand’s rejection of altruism was too explicit for the comfort of many co-philosophers and opponents. In particular, her ambivalence towards love of family and explicit atheism, because of its nature as a collective identity and the notion of God limiting human individuality, led to her rejection by ideological fellow travelers on the grounds that it would make them un-electable. In her teenage years in the Soviet Union, she benefited from free university education open to girls, and she was critical of some of America's aggressive foreign policy (she opposed the Vietnam War).

independent.





[[folder:Environmentalism — For the Environment!]]

Environmentalism is an ideology and social movement that is centered on the defense of the natural environment against pollution, deforestation, biodiversity decline and other threats, to foster better health and well-being for everyone. Today, it mainly involves fighting global warming, opposing nuclear power, refusing [=GMOs=], pushing for renewable energies such as wind, water and solar power, and other issues considered as being of importance within the movement.

While some ideas associated with the movement are OlderThanTheyThink, its ultimate origins are debatable. While there are parallels between Environmentalism and ideas found in Romanticism, many ideas found in early socialist and classical liberal authors from the Enlightenment period to the mid-19th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Henry David Thoreau in particular, could be considered proto-environmentalist. Some socialist authors' (including Marx's, arguably) reactions to the Industrial Revolution also spawned the same kind of early environmentalist ideas. Creator/WilliamMorris in particular presented an ecological form of socialism in his utopian novel ''Literature/NewsFromNowhere''.

Regardless of its origins, environmentalism truly emerged as a distinct ideology, and gained momentum in the Western world, during the 1960s and 1970s, as part of the larger counterculture of the time, and thanks to concerns related to DDT and other chemicals; in particular, ''Silent Spring'' by Rachel Carson is said to be very influential, as well as the founding of Greenpeace.

There is also a large connection between environmentalism and peace movements (and pacifist/nonviolent ideals more generally). In particular the push for disarmament and the worldwide banning of dangerous weapons are mainstream proposals within the environmental movement. Lately, environmentalism has also developed a close relationship with indigenous peoples' movements, especially in Latin America and Asia, as many of their ancestral homes and means of subsistence are being ravaged by state and corporate desire for the natural resources on or underneath their land.

That said, environmentalism consists of various factions and groups covering other ideologies along the political spectrum. The relationship of the movement with actual science is ambiguous and often decried as selective by its opponents and even other environmentalists. While they tend to be the most active political current when it comes to push the fight against global warming, their positions about [=GMOs=] and nuclear power tend to be less rigorous in science. On the fringes, there are various New Age-y outshouts with more or less weird beliefs as well as so-called "Hard Green" cliques who believe that the likes of Greenpeace don't go far enough; there are even those further in the fringe who see humanity as a plague that needs to be purged to save the planet. There are also disagreements over the issue of technology, with so-called Deep Ecologists having a mostly negative view of it as inherently degrading and exploitative towards nature, while Social Ecologists view technology as potentially liberating for both humanity and the environment if only it were used for ends that promoted ecological stewardship rather than treating the natural world in a dominative and extractivist manner. Others still, like the Ecomodernists, view technology as not just beneficial, but can potentially let mankind decouple itself from the environment, allowing for nature to take its course without sacrificing economic growth, industrial development or human nature.

Some environmentalists also tend to be critical of modern Western societies and the values associated with them, especially the "Growth Imperative" that associates progress with increased GDP and the increased size of industrial output, which may explain why such groups tend to be very socially liberal and economically left-leaning in many countries. Eco-socialists and Social Ecologists go even further in seeing capitalism itself as innately anti-ecological, and hold that only by dismantling it can we have any hope of curing the ills of the planet.

[[/folder]]



to:

[[folder:Environmentalism — For the Environment!]]

Environmentalism is an ideology and social movement that is centered on the defense of the natural environment against pollution, deforestation, biodiversity decline and other threats, to foster better health and well-being for everyone. Today, it mainly involves fighting global warming, opposing nuclear power, refusing [=GMOs=], pushing for renewable energies such as wind, water and solar power, and other issues considered as being of importance within the movement.

While some ideas associated with the movement are OlderThanTheyThink, its ultimate origins are debatable. While there are parallels between Environmentalism and ideas found in Romanticism, many ideas found in early socialist and classical liberal authors from the Enlightenment period to the mid-19th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Henry David Thoreau in particular, could be considered proto-environmentalist. Some socialist authors' (including Marx's, arguably) reactions to the Industrial Revolution also spawned the same kind of early environmentalist ideas. Creator/WilliamMorris in particular presented an ecological form of socialism in his utopian novel ''Literature/NewsFromNowhere''.

Regardless of its origins, environmentalism truly emerged as a distinct ideology, and gained momentum in the Western world, during the 1960s and 1970s, as part of the larger counterculture of the time, and thanks to concerns related to DDT and other chemicals; in particular, ''Silent Spring'' by Rachel Carson is said to be very influential, as well as the founding of Greenpeace.

There is also a large connection between environmentalism and peace movements (and pacifist/nonviolent ideals more generally). In particular the push for disarmament and the worldwide banning of dangerous weapons are mainstream proposals within the environmental movement. Lately, environmentalism has also developed a close relationship with indigenous peoples' movements, especially in Latin America and Asia, as many of their ancestral homes and means of subsistence are being ravaged by state and corporate desire for the natural resources on or underneath their land.

That said, environmentalism consists of various factions and groups covering other ideologies along the political spectrum. The relationship of the movement with actual science is ambiguous and often decried as selective by its opponents and even other environmentalists. While they tend to be the most active political current when it comes to push the fight against global warming, their positions about [=GMOs=] and nuclear power tend to be less rigorous in science. On the fringes, there are various New Age-y outshouts with more or less weird beliefs as well as so-called "Hard Green" cliques who believe that the likes of Greenpeace don't go far enough; there are even those further in the fringe who see humanity as a plague that needs to be purged to save the planet. There are also disagreements over the issue of technology, with so-called Deep Ecologists having a mostly negative view of it as inherently degrading and exploitative towards nature, while Social Ecologists view technology as potentially liberating for both humanity and the environment if only it were used for ends that promoted ecological stewardship rather than treating the natural world in a dominative and extractivist manner. Others still, like the Ecomodernists, view technology as not just beneficial, but can potentially let mankind decouple itself from the environment, allowing for nature to take its course without sacrificing economic growth, industrial development or human nature.

Some environmentalists also tend to be critical of modern Western societies and the values associated with them, especially the "Growth Imperative" that associates progress with increased GDP and the increased size of industrial output, which may explain why such groups tend to be very socially liberal and economically left-leaning in many countries. Eco-socialists and Social Ecologists go even further in seeing capitalism itself as innately anti-ecological, and hold that only by dismantling it can we have any hope of curing the ills of the planet.

[[/folder]]




Liberals see themselves as working for reforms within institutions and believe that institutions safeguard liberties and allow ordinary people to live as they please. In practice, critics argue, this leads liberals to be devoted to maintaining the existing power structures of society, and working with the interests of power holders rather than the powerless. Historically there were a number of splits in liberalism over the last two hundred years. There is the split 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 UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution. 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 was John Stuart Mill, who was also a major influence on what is now called social liberalism, despite not being generally considered as a social liberal himself.


Liberalism argues that positive liberty is absolutely necessary for universal human freedom, particularly that of the poor. For instance, a family which struggles to earn enough to feed itself will obviously be unable to provide medical care or education for its members without state intervention. As such, the state should intervene in economic affairs on behalf of the least privileged. Liberals are also in favor of enforcing agrarian reform and land grants and likewise advocate for a strong centralized state (especially the Jacobins). liberals want ''all'' people to be ''actually'' free, period and social liberals when they abolished slavery, either in Jacobin France or Radical Republican America, denied compensation to slave owners, albeit any attempts to extend support and investment to newly freed slaves provoked such a backlash and reversal, that they eventually stopped from fully committing to their program.


Liberalism in Continental Europe and in Britain in the classical strain was more or less finished during the time of TheGreatDepression, and the Fascist and Stalinist eras. J. M. Keynes who called himself a member of the liberal party, transformed the economic theory of laissez-faire capitalism by arguing that the idea of the free market during the 19th Century was exceptional and not true in a macro-economic sense for a globalized international economy of the 20th Century. He advocated for free trade to persist only with regulation by the government and called for taxes on the rich. Old Liberals who opposed this became conservatives or they became irrelevant. Social Democracy gained consensus among the mainstream Left while the American Democrat Party, historically a party with populist-classical-social liberal sentiments, turned towards social liberalism and social democracy. The result was the post-war consensus that remained in place until TheEighties. But in brief, it worth pointing out that while Even Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek conceded some ground to Socialism in their proposals to replace contemporary welfare programs and minimum wages with 'negative income taxes' that would provide living wages to all citizens (and Hayek actually went even further in [[https://sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/hayek-on-health-care-social-safety-nets-and-public-housing unambiguously endorsing universal healthcare and other safety nets]] to care for those subject to misfortunes beyond their control).

to:

Liberals see themselves as working for reforms within institutions and believe that institutions safeguard liberties and allow ordinary people to live as they please. In practice, critics argue, this leads liberals to be devoted to maintaining the existing power structures of society, and working with the interests of power holders rather than the powerless. Historically there were a number of splits in liberalism over the last two hundred years. There is the split 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 UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution. 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 was John Stuart Mill, who was also a major influence on what is now called social liberalism, Liberalism, despite not being generally considered as a social liberal Liberal himself.


Liberalism argues that positive liberty is absolutely necessary for universal human freedom, particularly that of the poor. For instance, a family which struggles to earn enough to feed itself will obviously be unable to provide medical care or education for its members without state intervention. As such, the state should intervene in economic affairs on behalf of the least privileged. Liberals are also in favor of enforcing agrarian reform and land grants and likewise advocate for a strong centralized state (especially the Jacobins). liberals want ''all'' people to be ''actually'' free, period and social liberals Liberals when they abolished slavery, either in Jacobin France or Radical Republican America, denied compensation to slave owners, albeit any attempts to extend support and investment to newly freed slaves provoked such a backlash and reversal, that they eventually stopped from fully committing to their program.


Liberalism in Continental Europe and in Britain in the classical strain was more or less finished during the time of TheGreatDepression, and the Fascist and Stalinist eras. J. M. Keynes who called himself a member of the liberal party, transformed the economic theory of laissez-faire capitalism by arguing that the idea of the free market during the 19th Century was exceptional and not true in a macro-economic sense for a globalized international economy of the 20th Century. He advocated for free trade to persist only with regulation by the government and called for taxes on the rich. Old Liberals who opposed this became conservatives or they became irrelevant. Social Democracy gained consensus among the mainstream Left while the American Democrat Party, historically a party with populist-classical-social liberal populist-classical-Liberal sentiments, turned towards social liberalism Liberalism and social democracy. The result was the post-war consensus that remained in place until TheEighties. But in brief, it worth pointing out that while Even Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek conceded some ground to Socialism in their proposals to replace contemporary welfare programs and minimum wages with 'negative income taxes' that would provide living wages to all citizens (and Hayek actually went even further in [[https://sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/hayek-on-health-care-social-safety-nets-and-public-housing unambiguously endorsing universal healthcare and other safety nets]] to care for those subject to misfortunes beyond their control).



As a Whig, Burke supported those revolutions -- The 1688 Glorious Revolution of England and the American Revolution -- that, in his view, were led by representative elites and derived from pre-existing institutions. Burke was a staunch supporter of British liberties because, in his view, they were ancient national traditions, and represented an "ordered liberty" which promoted reforms without rocking the boat. This tentative openness to reform has allowed British Conservatism to be more flexible than other strains. Prime Minister UsefulNotes/BenjaminDisraeli for instance, promoted "one-nation conservatism" which allowed Tories to support forms of social liberalism and expand suffrage; stopping short of full equality but [[TheMoralSubstitute allowing them to steal the thunder of liberal]] and socialist advocates.[[note]]Disraeli's Liberal-Labour peer Alexander Macdonald remarked that Disraeli had done more for the working classes in five years as prime minister than Macdonald's party had done in fifty. While largely unknown in the United States, one-nation conservatism has been a lasting influence on the British Conservative Party (how much can be debated, but erstwhile British prime minister David Cameron, for example, named Disraeli as an influence on his political thought).[[/note]] An important 20th Century British theorist of conservatism is Michael Oakeshott, who is arguably the TropeCodifier for Anglosphere conservatism: 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.

to:

As a Whig, Burke supported those revolutions -- The 1688 Glorious Revolution of England and the American Revolution -- that, in his view, were led by representative elites and derived from pre-existing institutions. Burke was a staunch supporter of British liberties because, in his view, they were ancient national traditions, and represented an "ordered liberty" which promoted reforms without rocking the boat. This tentative openness to reform has allowed British Conservatism to be more flexible than other strains. Prime Minister UsefulNotes/BenjaminDisraeli for instance, promoted "one-nation conservatism" which allowed Tories to support forms of social liberalism Liberalism and expand suffrage; stopping short of full equality but [[TheMoralSubstitute allowing them to steal the thunder of liberal]] and socialist advocates.[[note]]Disraeli's Liberal-Labour peer Alexander Macdonald remarked that Disraeli had done more for the working classes in five years as prime minister than Macdonald's party had done in fifty. While largely unknown in the United States, one-nation conservatism has been a lasting influence on the British Conservative Party (how much can be debated, but erstwhile British prime minister David Cameron, for example, named Disraeli as an influence on his political thought).[[/note]] An important 20th Century British theorist of conservatism is Michael Oakeshott, who is arguably the TropeCodifier for Anglosphere conservatism: 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.



Conservatism, because of its anti-ideological nature, has paradoxically been "a forward movement of restless and relentless change" as Corey Robin argues. Where socialist and liberal views have some groundings and roots over the years in the promotion of suffrage, equality and civil liberties, conservatism has had to update what it is conserving or reacting against while co-opting and absorbing whatever it can in the face of liberal and socialist tides. It can be elitist and skeptical of knowledge, it can be enlightened and dismissive of vulgar populism and it can be anti-intellectual and populist at other times, open to traditional elites and upstarts, and flexible in co-opting former outsiders into its party. Outwardly, conservatives have a [[GoodOldWays reverence for tradition]] but in practice they update to non-traditional means to defend those tradition that have survived because, they believe, it has been useful. It sees the maintenance of order and the status quo as vital, and these are the ''key values'' underpinning Anglosphere-style conservatism in contrast to liberalism’s favoring of freedom and reform above all else.

to:

Conservatism, because of its anti-ideological nature, has paradoxically been "a forward movement of restless and relentless change" as Corey Robin argues. Where socialist and liberal views have some groundings and roots over the years in the promotion of suffrage, equality and civil liberties, conservatism has had to update what it is conserving or reacting against while co-opting and absorbing whatever it can in the face of liberal and socialist tides. It can be elitist and skeptical of knowledge, it can be enlightened and dismissive of vulgar populism and it can be anti-intellectual and populist at other times, open to traditional elites and upstarts, and flexible in co-opting former outsiders into its party. Outwardly, conservatives have a [[GoodOldWays reverence for tradition]] but in practice they update to non-traditional means to defend those tradition that have survived because, they believe, it has been useful. It sees the maintenance of order and the status quo as vital, and these are the ''key values'' underpinning Anglosphere-style conservatism in contrast to liberalism’s favoring of freedom and reform above all else.



%%[[folder:Centrism - For bipartisanship, and compromise!]]
%%
%%Subtypes:
%%* Various: Since Centrism is a compromise between Left and Right wing ideologies, and what is standard Left and Right depends on the country, Centrism varies greatly region to region.
%%* Radical Centrism: Although, its [[MemeticMutation memetic]] in certain circles, such as Website/{{Reddit}}, Radical Centrism refers to Centrism in an incredibly polarized environment. If a Centrist exists when Left and Right have reached two radically opposing extremes, they are a Radical Centrist
%%
%%
%%Centrism is a [[TakeAThirdOption compromise]] between Left wing, Right wing, Statist, and Anarchic positions. A Centrist could be fiscally conservative like a Conservative or a Libertarian, and support social programs like a Social Liberal or Social Democrat. Or they could simply take specific policies they agree with the other side on, like, for example, a pro-gun pro-life U.S. Democrat.
%%
%%Because of [[ValuesDissonance very different ideas of what policies are traditionally left and what is right internationally]], Centrism can vary greatly.
%%
%% Good examples of relatively recent Centrists are Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Clinton had fiscally conservative opinions, wanting a balanced budget, and serious cuts to public spending in order to pay off the national debt, but also supported Social programs, such as Affirmative action, etc. Blair on the other hand believed in many Social Services, alongside counter-terrorism efforts and an interventionist foreign policy.
%%
%%
%%[[/folder]]

to:

%%[[folder:Centrism - For bipartisanship, and compromise!]]
%%
%%Subtypes:
%%* Various: Since Centrism is a compromise between Left and Right wing ideologies, and what is standard Left and Right depends on the country, Centrism varies greatly region to region.
%%* Radical Centrism: Although, its [[MemeticMutation memetic]] in certain circles, such as Website/{{Reddit}}, Radical Centrism refers to Centrism in an incredibly polarized environment. If a Centrist exists when Left and Right have reached two radically opposing extremes, they are a Radical Centrist
%%
%%
%%Centrism is a [[TakeAThirdOption compromise]] between Left wing, Right wing, Statist, and Anarchic positions. A Centrist could be fiscally conservative like a Conservative or a Libertarian, and support social programs like a Social Liberal or Social Democrat. Or they could simply take specific policies they agree with the other side on, like, for example, a pro-gun pro-life U.S. Democrat.
%%
%%Because of [[ValuesDissonance very different ideas of what policies are traditionally left and what is right internationally]], Centrism can vary greatly.
%%
%% Good examples of relatively recent Centrists are Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Clinton had fiscally conservative opinions, wanting a balanced budget, and serious cuts to public spending in order to pay off the national debt, but also supported Social programs, such as Affirmative action, etc. Blair on the other hand believed in many Social Services, alongside counter-terrorism efforts and an interventionist foreign policy.
%%
%%
%%[[/folder]]



Christian Democrats' exact policy positions are highly dependent upon local context and political alliances. They usually consider the cultural Christian heritage of their country important and acknowledge a need for 'solidarity' with many social causes, but often find themselves at odds with Communism and Anarchism because of their atheist leanings and in league with Socialists and Social Liberals because of their views on democracy and social mobility and religious freedom. Historically, in the 1880s-1970s most Christian Democrats were in fact ''in league with Socialists''. This is because the origins of Christian Democracy lie in Christians' responses to workers' misery in the late 19th century, wherein caring for the needy took priority over ensuring the Christian heterodoxy of society. Their proclaimed social/egalitarian values generally drove them to criticize wealth inequalities and push for state intervention to flatten out the 'boom and bust' cycle, thereby distinguishing them from the less interventionist classical liberals.

to:

Christian Democrats' exact policy positions are highly dependent upon local context and political alliances. They usually consider the cultural Christian heritage of their country important and acknowledge a need for 'solidarity' with many social causes, but often find themselves at odds with Communism and Anarchism because of their atheist leanings and in league with Socialists and Social Liberals because of their views on democracy and social mobility and religious freedom. Historically, in the 1880s-1970s most Christian Democrats were in fact ''in league with Socialists''. This is because the origins of Christian Democracy lie in Christians' responses to workers' misery in the late 19th century, wherein caring for the needy took priority over ensuring the Christian heterodoxy of society. Their proclaimed social/egalitarian values generally drove them to criticize wealth inequalities and push for state intervention to flatten out the 'boom and bust' cycle, thereby distinguishing them from the less interventionist classical liberals.



Libertarianism was and is fiercely anti-socialist, and it regarded social democracy and social liberalism as setting a precedent for a tyrannical state and sees programs such as the welfare state, high minimum wages, social security and other measures as unwarranted infringes of economic liberty.

to:

Libertarianism was and is fiercely anti-socialist, and it regarded social democracy and social liberalism as setting a precedent for a tyrannical state and sees programs such as the welfare state, high minimum wages, social security and other measures as unwarranted infringes of economic liberty.



----



[[folder: Populism -- For the People!]]

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

Sub-types:
* Guided/Demagogic: 'Foreign' elites are oppressing us, but [[TheGoodChancellor we can trust]] [[TheGoodKing 'our' elites to defend us]] from the foreigners and rule in our best interests!
* Genuine/Democratic: Elites are oppressing us, and [[FullCircleRevolution replacing them with different elites]] [[InherentInTheSystem can't change anything]]. We need more democracy!


Associated UsefulNotes/EconomicTheories (if any)
* Democratic: Keynesian, Behavioural
* Demagogic: Neoclassical, Austrian

Populism became part of the global political lexicon in TheNewTens to characterize views and policies that don't quite fit in the above folders and are not really seen as part of it. The word "populist" has negative connotations dating back to the Enlightenment, as an insult used by feudal/aristocratic Conservatives deriding (Classical) Liberals' and Nationalists' beliefs that peasants should be involved in politics. For the purposes of this page, the ambit is limited to the ideology of today's populist parties.

Populism in the modern sense is applied to movements that came into being after the end of the UsefulNotes/ColdWar. It is characterized by strong use of mass media (TV, advertising, social media) and unlike other political systems, it is geographicaly diverse. Populism exists in Europe (Italy's Movimento 5 Stelle - The Five-Star Movement, Netherlands Party for Freedom, England's UKIP, France's National Front, Germany's [=AfD=], Poland's Law and Justice) but also in Asia (India's AAP, Philippines' PDP-Laban) and in the United States (Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders). Most populists present themselves a third option and they propose policies that combine aspects of the extreme right and the extreme left, they waver between dictatorial strongman such as Rodrigo Duterte to a more organized party like [=M5S=]. Some populist movements are nativist and anti-immigrant while others are anti-racist, some are pro-capitalist while others advocate herrenvolk socialism (i.e. welfare for the few privileged citizens, either by race or class).

The populist parties of the 21st Century are united in their opposition to Neoliberalism. European populist movements are Eurosceptic and want to leave the European Union, with UKIP playing a major part in the Brexit campaign which was heralded by other populists as an inspiration to FollowTheLeader. Italy's [=M5S=] is more immigrant friendly and more on the left than Marie Le Pen's National Front, but they have a common disenchantment with the European Union.

The word in practice is used to describe politicians and platforms whose appeals are not exactly consistently ideological beyond strong emotional appeals and stylish presentations. Their platforms at times combines bits and pieces from both the Left and the Right, from Liberals and Conservatives, from Fascists and Socialists. It is characterized by charismatic leadership, by powerful use of symbols and rhetoric, and by an advocacy for "the people" against "the system". Critics argue that populists are often demagogues whose arguments against government problems regardless of its factual merit, are undermined by the extreme and incompetent solutions and approaches they propose, their lack of intellectual merit and poor planning and implementation. Supporters argue that populists speak in the non-ideological and non-partisan voice that exists outside organized political parties, and that its a valid response against representatives who grow decadent because of institutional and societal inertia. Among the Left, both social-democratic and communist, the accusations are that populists are disorganized, possess weak ideology and force consensus by [[SillyRabbitIdealismIsForKids pretending that conflicts and problems can go away if everyone simply agreed]]. Perry Anderson, the Marxist writer of New Labour, also [[https://www.thenation.com/article/too-frightened-to-change-a-hated-order/ noted that in general right-wing populism has had]] a bigger effect than left-wing ones.
[[/folder]]


to:

[[folder: Populism -- For the People!]]

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

Sub-types:
* Guided/Demagogic: 'Foreign' elites are oppressing us, but [[TheGoodChancellor we can trust]] [[TheGoodKing 'our' elites to defend us]] from the foreigners and rule in our best interests!
* Genuine/Democratic: Elites are oppressing us, and [[FullCircleRevolution replacing them with different elites]] [[InherentInTheSystem can't change anything]]. We need more democracy!


Associated UsefulNotes/EconomicTheories (if any)
* Democratic: Keynesian, Behavioural
* Demagogic: Neoclassical, Austrian

Populism became part of the global political lexicon in TheNewTens to characterize views and policies that don't quite fit in the above folders and are not really seen as part of it. The word "populist" has negative connotations dating back to the Enlightenment, as an insult used by feudal/aristocratic Conservatives deriding (Classical) Liberals' and Nationalists' beliefs that peasants should be involved in politics. For the purposes of this page, the ambit is limited to the ideology of today's populist parties.

Populism in the modern sense is applied to movements that came into being after the end of the UsefulNotes/ColdWar. It is characterized by strong use of mass media (TV, advertising, social media) and unlike other political systems, it is geographicaly diverse. Populism exists in Europe (Italy's Movimento 5 Stelle - The Five-Star Movement, Netherlands Party for Freedom, England's UKIP, France's National Front, Germany's [=AfD=], Poland's Law and Justice) but also in Asia (India's AAP, Philippines' PDP-Laban) and in the United States (Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders). Most populists present themselves a third option and they propose policies that combine aspects of the extreme right and the extreme left, they waver between dictatorial strongman such as Rodrigo Duterte to a more organized party like [=M5S=]. Some populist movements are nativist and anti-immigrant while others are anti-racist, some are pro-capitalist while others advocate herrenvolk socialism (i.e. welfare for the few privileged citizens, either by race or class).

The populist parties of the 21st Century are united in their opposition to Neoliberalism. European populist movements are Eurosceptic and want to leave the European Union, with UKIP playing a major part in the Brexit campaign which was heralded by other populists as an inspiration to FollowTheLeader. Italy's [=M5S=] is more immigrant friendly and more on the left than Marie Le Pen's National Front, but they have a common disenchantment with the European Union.

The word in practice is used to describe politicians and platforms whose appeals are not exactly consistently ideological beyond strong emotional appeals and stylish presentations. Their platforms at times combines bits and pieces from both the Left and the Right, from Liberals and Conservatives, from Fascists and Socialists. It is characterized by charismatic leadership, by powerful use of symbols and rhetoric, and by an advocacy for "the people" against "the system". Critics argue that populists are often demagogues whose arguments against government problems regardless of its factual merit, are undermined by the extreme and incompetent solutions and approaches they propose, their lack of intellectual merit and poor planning and implementation. Supporters argue that populists speak in the non-ideological and non-partisan voice that exists outside organized political parties, and that its a valid response against representatives who grow decadent because of institutional and societal inertia. Among the Left, both social-democratic and communist, the accusations are that populists are disorganized, possess weak ideology and force consensus by [[SillyRabbitIdealismIsForKids pretending that conflicts and problems can go away if everyone simply agreed]]. Perry Anderson, the Marxist writer of New Labour, also [[https://www.thenation.com/article/too-frightened-to-change-a-hated-order/ noted that in general right-wing populism has had]] a bigger effect than left-wing ones.
[[/folder]]









to:

\n\n\n\n%%






%%Entries have been alphabetised, by creator's name if applicable and by name of the work/genre if not. Please add new entries accordingly.

to:

%%Entries have been alphabetised, alphabetized, by creator's name if applicable and by name of the work/genre if not. Please add new entries accordingly.
accordingly.






* ''The Law'' and ''Economic Sophisms'', by Frédéric Bastiat (Classical/Economic/Austrian School)



* ''Series/ParksAndRecreation'' gets to have it both ways about being a 'liberal' show: Leslie Knope is the main social liberal character, Ron Swanson the kinda Libertarian. Though Ron is [[EnsembleDarkhorse the more popular character]], Leslie is shown clearly to be TheHero.

to:

* ''Series/ParksAndRecreation'' gets to have it both ways about being a 'liberal' show: Leslie Knope is the main social liberal character, Ron Swanson the kinda Libertarian. Though Ron is [[EnsembleDarkhorse the more popular character]], Leslie is shown clearly to be TheHero.



* Music/{{Loudness}} (classical liberalism, especially during the Music/MasakiYamada era, though social liberalism seems to be the hat of Music/MinoruNiihara)
* Music/NineInchNails could be filed under social liberalism, socialism, or perhaps anarchism with the anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian themes of works like "Head Like a Hole" and, later on, pretty much the entire ''Music/YearZero'' album.
* Music/{{Rush}} (classical early on, somewhere in between classical and social liberalism now)
* Music/FrankZappa (somewhere in between classical and social liberalism, but leaning more towards classical)

to:

* Music/{{Loudness}} (classical liberalism, especially during the Music/MasakiYamada era, though social liberalism seems to be the hat of Music/MinoruNiihara)
* Music/NineInchNails could be filed under social liberalism, socialism, or perhaps anarchism with the anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian themes of works like "Head Like a Hole" and, later on, pretty much the entire ''Music/YearZero'' album.
* Music/{{Rush}} (classical early on, somewhere in between classical and social liberalism now)
* Music/FrankZappa (somewhere in between classical and social liberalism, but leaning more towards classical)



* ''Literature/TheGrapesOfWrath'' by Creator/JohnSteinbeck[[note]]Steinbeck actually expressed a bit of ambivalence about socialism and may be considered a social liberal by some, but this work is certainly quite sympathetic to socialism.[[/note]]
* ''Literature/{{Daemon}}'' by Daniel Suarez[[note]]Unlike many of the other authors on this list, Suarez has not explicitly self-identified as socialist, but his critique of capitalism and endorsement of several socialist authors means he probably fits here better than anywhere else, although a case could be made for his work fitting under either social liberalism or anarchism.[[/note]]

to:

* ''Literature/TheGrapesOfWrath'' by Creator/JohnSteinbeck[[note]]Steinbeck actually expressed a bit of ambivalence about socialism and may be considered a social liberal by some, but this work is certainly quite sympathetic to socialism.[[/note]]
* ''Literature/{{Daemon}}'' by Daniel Suarez[[note]]Unlike many of the other authors on this list, Suarez has not explicitly self-identified as socialist, but his critique of capitalism and endorsement of several socialist authors means he probably fits here better than anywhere else, although a case could be made for his work fitting under either social liberalism or anarchism.[[/note]]



* Music/ToddRundgren probably fits either here, under social liberalism, or under anarchism. His work, especially since TheNineties, has been extremely critical of established social institutions and especially of economic power. It also has strong feminist themes in many cases; he is a strong critic of traditional gender roles.

to:

* Music/ToddRundgren probably fits either here, under social liberalism, or under anarchism. His work, especially since TheNineties, has been extremely critical of established social institutions and especially of economic power. It also has strong feminist themes in many cases; he is a strong critic of traditional gender roles.



* Lawrence O’Donnell, host of ''The Last Word'' on Creator/{{MSNBC}}, is probably the only unapologetic socialist to have a TV show on a major news network in the United States. (O’Donnell also served as a producer on ''Series/TheWestWing'' and wrote or cowrote dozens of episodes, though the show as a whole tends to fall under middlebrow American liberalism and is listed here under Libertarianism.)

to:

* Lawrence O’Donnell, host of ''The Last Word'' on Creator/{{MSNBC}}, is probably the only unapologetic socialist to have a TV show on a major news network in the United States. (O’Donnell also served as a producer on ''Series/TheWestWing'' and wrote or cowrote dozens of episodes, though the show as a whole tends to fall under middlebrow American liberalism and is listed here under Libertarianism.liberalism.)


* ''Literature/FallRevolution'' series by Creator/KenMacLeod describes four different anarchisms, i.e. polis-cities in place of the state (first book), anarchoindividualism (second book), anarchocommunism (third book) and green anarchism (fourth book).

to:

* ''Literature/FallRevolution'' series by Creator/KenMacLeod describes four different anarchisms, anarch-isms, i.e. polis-cities in place of the state (first book), anarchoindividualism anarcho-individualism (second book), anarchocommunism anarcho-communism (third book) and green anarchism (fourth book).



* ''Film/TheGreatDictator'' by Creator/CharlieChaplin closes with a CharacterFilibuster that could be considered an appeal for anarchism, or at least libertarian socialism, in addition to the film's obvious anti-fascist and -Nazi themes



* ''Film/{{Moonlight|2016}}'' arguably fits either here or under Socialism due to its heavily unsympathetic treatment of existing social institutions (education, the prison system, etc.) and its heavily sympathetic (if flawed) portrayals of criminals and the poor. It's also heavily pro-LGBT (naturally, given its subject matter) and can be read as having feminist themes given its ambivalent portrayal of violence and its deconstruction of various social attitudes about masculinity. As with ''Blade Runner'', however, the film does not actually editorialise about any of its subjects, completely inverting AuthorTract, and thus different viewers may come away with wildly differing interpretations.
* ''Film/PansLabyrinth'', a depiction of the aftermath of the UsefulNotes/SpanishCivilWar which is heavily sympathetic to the surviving anarchists and ''brutally'' critical of the Francoists. His earlier film ''Film/TheDevilsBackbone'', set during the war and considered the first part of a loose trilogy with ''Pan's Labyrinth'' and an as-yet-unproduced third film, may also be considered to fit here.

to:

* ''Film/{{Moonlight|2016}}'' arguably fits either here or under Socialism due to its heavily unsympathetic treatment of existing social institutions (education, the prison system, etc.) and its heavily sympathetic (if flawed) portrayals of criminals and the poor. It's also heavily pro-LGBT (naturally, given its subject matter) and can be read as having feminist themes given its ambivalent portrayal of violence and its deconstruction of various social attitudes about masculinity. As with ''Blade Runner'', however, the film does not actually editorialise editorialize about any of its subjects, completely inverting AuthorTract, and thus different viewers may come away with wildly differing interpretations.
* ''Film/PansLabyrinth'', a depiction of the aftermath of the UsefulNotes/SpanishCivilWar which is heavily sympathetic to the surviving anarchists and ''brutally'' critical of the Francoists.anarchists. His earlier film ''Film/TheDevilsBackbone'', set during the war and considered the first part of a loose trilogy with ''Pan's Labyrinth'' and an as-yet-unproduced third film, may also be considered to fit here.



* This is the ultimate stance of the ''VideoGame/{{Marathon}} Eternal'' GameMod, whose story is explicitly modelled on the WarOnTerror. [[spoiler:The game's depiction of the W'rkncacnter is largely based on al-Qaeda, and the game's depiction of the Jjaro government is largely based on the actions of the Bush 43 administration. The Jjaro respond to the W'rkncacnter's violence with their own, along with extensive checks on civil liberties that turn them into an authoritarian society. The game's final level explicitly states that the Jjaro's response to the W'rkncacnter makes them morally indistinguishable, and that both approaches are borderline suicidal;]] moreover, despite being a first-person shooter, the game concludes that imposing one's will upon others through force is indefensible, making its political stance ultimately anarchist. (This is confirmed by WordOfGod as intentional.) The game mod ''Marathon Rubicon'' can also be read as having either an anarchist or a socialist political stance, and while its stance may not be ''entirely'' pacifist, its tagline is "Truth Is the First Casualty of War", which is a perfect one-sentence encapsulation of its themes.



* One of ''WesternAnimation/TheLegendOfKorra'''s antangonistic groups are [[RenegadeSplinterFaction the Red Lotus]] and their important ideology are is taken down all Human governments and killing Avatar to achive peace and harmony in post-Harmonic Convergence world.

to:

* One of ''WesternAnimation/TheLegendOfKorra'''s antangonistic groups are [[RenegadeSplinterFaction the Red Lotus]] and their important ideology are is taken down all Human governments and killing Avatar to achive achieve peace and harmony in post-Harmonic Convergence world.


Marxist critiques of fascism, conversely, [[CapitalismIsBad 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 were historical 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 counter-revolutionary violent thugs controlled by the capitalist class brought in as enforcers to defend the old order against the threat of the RedScare. Consumerist capitalism are visible aspects of fascist civic society, as in liberal and social democratic states, and Frankfurt School Critical Theory Marxists (Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse) insist that consumerism, advertising and mass media are essential vehicles for the spread of fascism in its use of AntiIntellectualism and attacks on modernism and high culture in favor of popular culture (ironically, some modern American conservatives believe that Marxists use these same mechanisms to further their agenda of remaking Western society).

Furthermore, the representative fascist societies, UsefulNotes/FascistItaly and UsefulNotes/NaziGermany came into power in developed industrialized economies where liberal institutions and traditions preexisted the rise to fascism, whereas the historical communist nations and Marxist states came to power in backwards, feudal, agrarian and/or semi-industrialized states. Fascist groups succeeded by the use of fantastic lies to deceive the public, including conspiracy theories, ScareCampaign, and propaganda, [[ArgumentumAdNauseam which were so numerous and all-encompassing in its media presence]] as to subvert the liberal norms in Italy and Germany. Contemporary fascist groups have likewise resorted to similar means. They benefit from the prevalence of legitimate schools such as {{Postmodernism}} and historical revisionism to try and downplay fascism by equivocation, emphasizing and exaggerating similarities between fascism and liberal and radical groups by means of half-truth and distortion, and by claiming a manufactured "third way" or a fantasized "victim" identity by painting the enforcers of liberal and social norms as agents of "political correctness". Most often, the latter comes down to conspiracies blaming, via dog-whistling, some sinister [[GreedyJew cabal]] of ceding their nation's sovereignty to the UN by destroying national identity through immigration and cultural degeneracy, which is incredibly poor logic at its finest, but in essence indistinguishable from the original fascism which also depended on heterodox and discredited ideas such as phrenology, eugenics, Social Darwinism and UsefulNotes/ConspiracyTheories.



* ''Literature/ATaleOfTwoCities''. Most of Dickens' novels fall within liberal (or even socialist) sentiments, but this book about the Revolution largely draws from the English counter-revolutionary historiography of Thomas Carlyle and Edmund Burke.



* Arguably ''Literature/BraveNewWorld'', by Aldous Huxley, though like ''VideoGame/BioShock'' below, it's mainly by default. The novel can be seen as highly critical of many concepts, including socialistic utopianism, social liberal/individualist hedonism, hierarchical eugenicism, Fordian productivism, psychological conditioning and authoritarianism. The focus on sexuality means the book may be seen as Christian Democratic, though it was written before the emergence of modern Christian Democracy (and the author himself definitely ''wasn't'' a Christian Democrat nor a conservative).
* ''ComicBook/JudgeDredd'': Not always sympathetically. Overlaps with Fascism and to a certain extent Socialism.



* ''Film/DirtyHarry''



[[folder:Socialism & Communism]]

to:

[[folder:Socialism & Communism]][[folder:Libertarianism]]



* ''Capitalism and Freedom'', by Milton Friedman [[note]]In contrast to many modern Libertarians, however, Friedman advocates a certain amount of government intervention in the economy in terms of a negative income tax. While he stopped short of advocating the alleviation of income inequality, he regarded poverty as a serious problem and his negative income tax proposal was intended to address it.[[/note]]
* ''Free to Choose'', by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman
* ''On Liberty'', by John Stuart Mill

Comedy:
* Creator/PennAndTeller (Libertarian [=/=] Objectivist)

Comic Books:
* Creator/AlanMoore's ''ComicBook/TheLeagueOfExtraordinaryGentlemen: Century 2009'' is a DeconstructiveParody of 21st Century England which has characters from an earlier era noting that it's Victorian, filled with malaise and thinly contained despair, and the fact that characters from this era's fictions tend to have youth who are spoiled narcissists without any sense of political and social awareness.

Film:
* ''Film/{{Bulworth}}'' by Creator/WarrenBeatty was an angry satire of the American Democratic Party's 90's neoliberalism, where they more or less left little room for agency in the new political spectrum to the poor and marginalized, with politicians courting minority votes despite not doing anything to ameliorate their problems, by blackmailing them by noting they have no other real alternatives:
--> '''Angry black woman''': ''Are you sayin' the Democratic Party don't care about the African-American community?''\\
'''Bulworth''': ''Isn't that obvious? You got half your kids are out of work and the other half are in jail. Do you see ''any'' Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me! So what're you gonna do, vote Republican? Come on! Come on, you're not gonna vote Republican! Let's call a spade a spade!''
* ''Film/ForrestGump'' by Creator/RobertZemeckis [[https://endofcapitalism.com/2014/06/25/obscuring-the-promise-of-democracy-mass-media-reacts-to-the-1960s/ can be seen]] as having a apolitical historical view, depoliticizing the characters, caricaturing the civil-rights era and the protest movement (with Jenny, the embodiment of that era presented as a "cautionary tale") while associating TheEighties with prosperity and stability (since that's where the main character becomes rich after investing in Apple).

Literary Fiction:
* ''Literature/HarryPotter'' has been noted by some [[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/harry-potter-market-wiz.html as having views sympathetic to Libertarianism]].

Live-Action TV:
* John Stossel's news/talk shows generally examine current issues from a libertarian perspective.

Video Games:
* The ''VideoGame/BioShock'' games at various times portrays a series of political views and ideas, in general advocating moderation and castigating extremes or taking things too far. Curious is that unlike other critiques of Creator/AynRand, the first game argues that it's main flaw is that it's ''utopian'' and that human error will betray it (which can be seen to imply that Rand has a serious ideology to begin with, which most critics do not believe she does). The second game shows an equally flawed collectivist society, featuring a state-run cult. The third game ''VideoGame/BioShockInfinite'' then skewered both fascism and left-wing anti-racist agitation, having its protagonist arguing against revolutions, and having characters say that a violent slave owner and a violent abolitionist revolutionary are equivalent, which was so highly criticized that a {{Retcon}} appeared in the game's DLC.

Western Animation:
* ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'' is the best known example, as Creator/TreyParkerAndMattStone are libertarians, and the show often carries an anti-authoritarian message, and often makes {{Take That}}s against [[EqualOpportunityOffender both social conservatives and fiscal left-wingers]].

WebVideo:

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Socialism & Communism]]
Nonfiction:



Film:
* ''Film/DirtyHarry'' It has caused many to accuse the film of carrying a fascist, or at least authoritarian, undertone. As a result of the controversy surrounding the first film, the sequels tried to balance out the ideology, having Harry's bad guys span the length of the political morality spectrum.



[[folder:Libertarianism]]

to:

[[folder:Libertarianism]]

[[folder:Anarchism]]



* ''Capitalism and Freedom'', by Milton Friedman [[note]]In contrast to many modern Libertarians, however, Friedman advocates a certain amount of government intervention in the economy in terms of a negative income tax. While he stopped short of advocating the alleviation of income inequality, he regarded poverty as a serious problem and his negative income tax proposal was intended to address it.[[/note]]
* ''Free to Choose'', by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman
* ''On Liberty'', by John Stuart Mill

Comedy:
* Creator/PennAndTeller (Libertarian [=/=] Objectivist)

Comic Books:
* Creator/AlanMoore's ''ComicBook/TheLeagueOfExtraordinaryGentlemen: Century 2009'' is a DeconstructiveParody of 21st Century England which has characters from an earlier era noting that it's Victorian, filled with malaise and thinly contained despair, and the fact that characters from this era's fictions tend to have youth who are spoiled narcissists without any sense of political and social awareness.

Film:
* ''Film/{{Bulworth}}'' by Creator/WarrenBeatty was an angry satire of the American Democratic Party's 90's neoliberalism, where they more or less left little room for agency in the new political spectrum to the poor and marginalized, with politicians courting minority votes despite not doing anything to ameliorate their problems, by blackmailing them by noting they have no other real alternatives:
--> '''Angry black woman''': ''Are you sayin' the Democratic Party don't care about the African-American community?''\\
'''Bulworth''': ''Isn't that obvious? You got half your kids are out of work and the other half are in jail. Do you see ''any'' Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me! So what're you gonna do, vote Republican? Come on! Come on, you're not gonna vote Republican! Let's call a spade a spade!''
* ''Film/ForrestGump'' by Creator/RobertZemeckis [[https://endofcapitalism.com/2014/06/25/obscuring-the-promise-of-democracy-mass-media-reacts-to-the-1960s/ can be seen]] as having a apolitical historical view, depoliticizing the characters, caricaturing the civil-rights era and the protest movement (with Jenny, the embodiment of that era presented as a "cautionary tale") while associating TheEighties with prosperity and stability (since that's where the main character becomes rich after investing in Apple).

Literary Fiction:
* ''Literature/HarryPotter'' has been noted by some [[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/harry-potter-market-wiz.html as having views sympathetic to Libertarianism]].

Live-Action TV:
* John Stossel's news/talk shows generally examine current issues from a libertarian perspective.

Video Games:
* The ''VideoGame/BioShock'' games at various times portrays a series of political views and ideas, in general advocating moderation and castigating extremes or taking things too far. Curious is that unlike other critiques of Creator/AynRand, the first game argues that it's main flaw is that it's ''utopian'' and that human error will betray it (which can be seen to imply that Rand has a serious ideology to begin with, which most critics do not believe she does). The second game shows an equally flawed collectivist society, featuring a state-run cult. The third game ''VideoGame/BioShockInfinite'' then skewered both fascism and left-wing anti-racist agitation, having its protagonist arguing against revolutions, and having characters say that a violent slave owner and a violent abolitionist revolutionary are equivalent, which was so highly criticized that a {{Retcon}} appeared in the game's DLC.

Western Animation:
* ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'' is the best known example, as Creator/TreyParkerAndMattStone are libertarians, and the show often carries an anti-authoritarian message, and often makes {{Take That}}s against [[EqualOpportunityOffender both social conservatives and fiscal left-wingers]].

WebVideo:

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Anarchism]]
Nonfiction:


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, et cetera; ''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-UsefulNotes/WorldWarI 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 [[UsefulNotes/VladimirLenin 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 [[FullCircleRevolution 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 plenty of fracturing among the proponents of revolution (thus the splintering into Stalinism and Trotskyism, and, later, Maoism, Hoxhaism, et cetera).

to:

Other forms of socialism such as ''libertarian ''anarcho-commons 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 favor of implementing socialism through peaceful reform. Socialist ideologies which have their root in ''Marxism-Leninism'' (e.g. Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, et cetera; ''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-UsefulNotes/WorldWarI 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 [[UsefulNotes/VladimirLenin 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 [[FullCircleRevolution 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 plenty of fracturing among the proponents of revolution (thus the splintering into Stalinism and Trotskyism, and, later, Maoism, Hoxhaism, et cetera).



Anarchistic ideas and notions have arguably existed throughout most of human history, with traditions such as Taoism, Buddhism, and Ancient Greek Cynicism containing many notions with anarchist characteristics. Many tribal societies from pre-history to the present, such as the Nigerian Nuer or Iroquois Confederacy, also had or have methods of non-hierarchical organisation which mirror the anarchist ideal of a society without rulership or centralized political authority. However, while ''philosophical'' anarchism can be identified in many places and in almost every time period, ''political'' anarchism did not emerge as a self-aware school of thought until the 19th century in Europe. According to German anarchist Rudolf Rocker, anarchism could be seen as the confluence of two earlier social and political philosophies: liberalism and socialism, or more accurately, classical liberalism and democratic socialism. Thus, the alternative term for anarchism, libertarian socialism.

to:

Anarchistic ideas and notions have arguably existed throughout most of human history, with traditions such as Taoism, Buddhism, and Ancient Greek Cynicism containing many notions with anarchist characteristics. Many tribal societies from pre-history to the present, such as the Nigerian Nuer or Iroquois Confederacy, also had or have methods of non-hierarchical organisation which mirror the anarchist ideal of a society without rulership or centralized political authority. However, while ''philosophical'' anarchism can be identified in many places and in almost every time period, ''political'' anarchism did not emerge as a self-aware school of thought until the 19th century in Europe. According to German anarchist Rudolf Rocker, anarchism could be seen as the confluence of two earlier social and political philosophies: liberalism and socialism, or more accurately, classical liberalism and democratic socialism. Thus, the alternative term for anarchism, libertarian anarcho-commons socialism.



* ''Communism'': Peter Kropotkin, a Russian prince who, like Bakunin, [[DefectorFromDecadence 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''. Many on first impression may find the idea of communist anarchism odd given the modern day associations of the word 'Communism' with the statist, centrally planned economies of the former Soviet Union. In the 19th century, though, the word 'communist' simply referred to any economic system that lacked both a state and money, where goods were distributed according to need. It is this original sense of the word that anarchists refer to when talking about communism.

to:

* ''Communism'': Peter Kropotkin, a Russian prince who, like Bakunin, [[DefectorFromDecadence gave it all up for radicalism]], advocated full libertarian anarcho-commons 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''. ''Anarcho-Communism''. Many on first impression may find the idea of communist anarchism odd given the modern day associations of the word 'Communism' with the statist, Statist, centrally planned economies of the former Soviet Union. In the 19th century, though, the word 'communist' 'Communist' simply referred to any economic system that lacked both a state and money, where goods were distributed according to need. It is this original sense of the word that anarchists refer to when talking about communism.



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 [[InNameOnly this meant something completely different, as fascist 'syndicates' were government-created trade associations which ran industry]]. It’s like a Venn diagram, in that there are non-anarchist syndicalists and non-syndicalist anarchists who favor other tactics for achieving libertarian socialism.

to:

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 [[InNameOnly this meant something completely different, as fascist 'syndicates' were government-created trade associations which ran industry]]. It’s like a Venn diagram, in that there are non-anarchist syndicalists and non-syndicalist anarchists who favor other tactics for achieving libertarian anarcho-commons socialism.



The school of "anarcho-capitalism emerged in 1950s–'60s America with the writer, economics professor and Libertarian Party activist Murray Rothbard, expanded upon by later thinkers like David D. Friedman (son of Milton, although going much further 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 the view that wage-labour is exploitative (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). This view on ethics differed even more from the social anarchists, who tended towards consequentialist and virtue ethics rather than Rothbard's particular form of deontology. 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 provision of government services, such as police, militaries, courts, roads, et cetera, could be far 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.[[/note]]

to:

The school of "anarcho-capitalism emerged in 1950s–'60s America with the writer, economics professor and Libertarian Party activist Murray Rothbard, expanded upon by later thinkers like David D. Friedman (son of Milton, although going much further 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 the view that wage-labour wage-labor is exploitative (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). This view on ethics differed even more from the social anarchists, who tended towards consequentialist and virtue ethics rather than Rothbard's particular form of deontology. 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 provision of government services, such as police, militaries, courts, roads, et cetera, could be far 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.[[/note]]



* ''Morals by Agreement'', by David Gauthier (Classical)
* ''Economics in One Lesson'', by Henry Hazlitt (Austrian School/Utilitarian/libertarian)



* ''Second Treatise on Civil Government'', by John Locke (Classical)



* ''Series/RedEyeWithGregGutfeld'' on Creator/FoxNewsChannel—unlike the socially conservative fare that composes the rest of Fox's lineup—is pretty libertarian. Greg, the host, once noted "Hanging out with leftists made me become conservative. Hanging out with conservatives made me become libertarian."
* ''Series/ParksAndRecreation'' gets to have it both ways about being a 'liberal' show: Leslie Knope is the main social liberal character, Ron Swanson the principal classical liberal. Though Ron is [[EnsembleDarkhorse the more popular character]], Leslie is shown clearly to be TheHero.
* John Stossel's news/talk shows generally examine current issues from a libertarian perspective.

to:

* ''Series/RedEyeWithGregGutfeld'' on Creator/FoxNewsChannel—unlike the socially conservative fare that composes the rest of Fox's lineup—is pretty libertarian. Greg, the host, once noted "Hanging out with leftists made me become conservative. Hanging out with conservatives made me become libertarian."
* ''Series/ParksAndRecreation'' gets to have it both ways about being a 'liberal' show: Leslie Knope is the main social liberal character, Ron Swanson the principal classical liberal.kinda Libertarian. Though Ron is [[EnsembleDarkhorse the more popular character]], Leslie is shown clearly to be TheHero.
* John Stossel's news/talk shows generally examine current issues from a libertarian perspective.



* ''Series/{{Friends}}'' was a popular TV sitcom in TheNineties but came under renewed focus in many WebVideo in TheNewTens (especially on Website/{{Cracked}}) for its internalization of the casual homophobia typical among liberal yuppies of the era, for its denial of [[FriendsRentControl issues of gentrification]], its MonochromeCasting in a very diverse, multicultural city, as well for the way the [[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/the-terrible-legacy-of-friends characters seem to reside in a bubble]] unconnected with changes in the decades.
* ''Series/MadMen'' [[http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=gmrc_gc is noted]], as in the case of ''Forrest Gump'' for depicting TheSixties in a manner that acknowledges the political tumult of that era but at the same depoliticizing the characters and their relation to society.
* Creator/AaronSorkin is a forthrightly liberal viewer often writing shows and characters that reflect his views and politics.
** ''Series/TheWestWing'' is noted for its support of bipartisanship, albeit through its very sanitized view of actual Washington politics and generally having a critical and dismissive view of those on the margins of its own party. Sorkin left after the fourth season and there is a noticeable shift in tone after this point, though it still tended to take a mainstream American liberal view of issues. Democratic presidential candidate [[spoiler:and ultimate victor of the election]] Matthew Santos was explicitly modeled on UsefulNotes/BarackObama, and several critics have written about the parallels between ''The West Wing''[='=]s fictional 2006 election and the actual 2008 election, whether intentional or not.[[note]]''The West Wing''[='=]s election cycle occurred two years out of sync from the real American election cycle, presumably so as to avoid having the show's elections read as real-time commentary on American politics.[[/note]] See also Lawrence O'Donnell, listed above under socialism, who may have had some influence on the show's direction in later seasons (though it should not be overstated; he was one of several producers and writers for the show).
** ''Series/TheNewsroom'' got into a controversy for its attempts to take a middle view on the issue of rape, favoring constitutional and liberal defense of laws and rights over social and cultural sentiments.
* Creator/RobertAltman's famous mockumentary ''Tanner '88'' and the 2004 sequel ''Tanner on Tanner'' was a critical view of the rise of mass media image politics, and like ''Bulworth'' is critical of the narrowing of the political spectrum, and the way liberal parties are forced to tilt to the center or otherwise support center candidates just to survive.

to:

* ''Series/{{Friends}}'' was a popular TV sitcom in TheNineties but came under renewed focus in many WebVideo in TheNewTens (especially on Website/{{Cracked}}) for its internalization of the casual homophobia typical among liberal yuppies of the era, for its denial of [[FriendsRentControl John Stossel's news/talk shows generally examine current issues of gentrification]], its MonochromeCasting in from a very diverse, multicultural city, as well for the way the [[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/the-terrible-legacy-of-friends characters seem to reside in a bubble]] unconnected with changes in the decades.
* ''Series/MadMen'' [[http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=gmrc_gc is noted]], as in the case of ''Forrest Gump'' for depicting TheSixties in a manner that acknowledges the political tumult of that era but at the same depoliticizing the characters and their relation to society.
* Creator/AaronSorkin is a forthrightly liberal viewer often writing shows and characters that reflect his views and politics.
libertarian perspective.
** ''Series/TheWestWing'' is noted for its support of bipartisanship, albeit through its very sanitized view of actual Washington politics and generally having a critical and dismissive view of those on the margins of its own party. Sorkin left after the fourth season and there is a noticeable shift in tone after this point, though it still tended to take a mainstream American liberal view of issues. Democratic presidential candidate [[spoiler:and ultimate victor of the election]] Matthew Santos was explicitly modeled on UsefulNotes/BarackObama, and several critics have written about the parallels between ''The West Wing''[='=]s fictional 2006 election and the actual 2008 election, whether intentional or not.[[note]]''The West Wing''[='=]s election cycle occurred two years out of sync from the real American election cycle, presumably so as to avoid having the show's elections read as real-time commentary on American politics.[[/note]] See also Lawrence O'Donnell, listed above under socialism, who may have had some influence on the show's direction in later seasons (though it should not be overstated; he was one of several producers and writers for the show).
** ''Series/TheNewsroom'' got into a controversy for its attempts to take a middle view on the issue of rape, favoring constitutional and liberal defense of laws and rights over social and cultural sentiments.
* Creator/RobertAltman's famous mockumentary ''Tanner '88'' and the 2004 sequel ''Tanner on Tanner'' was a critical view of the rise of mass media image politics, and like ''Bulworth'' is critical of the narrowing of the political spectrum, and the way liberal parties are forced to tilt to the center or otherwise support center candidates just to survive.


* ''Anime/CodeGeass'' also has an authoritarian aristocratic monarchy. It shows many of the flaws of conservative societies.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 1000

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report