Political Ideologies

Introduction

A political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. Some parties follow a certain ideology very closely, while others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them. The popularity of an ideology is in part due to the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their own interests.

Political ideologies have two dimensions:

Goals: How society should function or be organized.
Methods: The most appropriate way to achieve this goal.

An ideology is a collection of ideas. Typically, each ideology contains certain ideas on what it considers to be the best form of government (e.g. democracy, theocracy, etc), and the best economic system (e.g. capitalism, socialism, etc). Sometimes the same word is used to identify both an ideology and one of its main ideas. For instance, "socialism" may refer to an economic system, or it may refer to an ideology which supports that economic system.

Ideologies also identify themselves by their position on the political spectrum (such as the left, the centre or the right), though this is very often controversial. Finally, ideologies can be distinguished from political strategies (e.g. populism) and from single issues that a party may be built around (e.g. opposition to European integration or the legalisation of marijuana).

The following list attempts to divide the ideologies found in practical political life into a number of groups; each group contains ideologies that are related to each other. The headers refer to names of the best-known ideologies in each group. The names of the headers do not necessarily imply some hierarchical order or that one ideology evolved out of the other. They are merely noting the fact that the ideologies in question are practically, historically and ideologically related to each other. Note that one ideology can belong to several groups, and there is sometimes considerable overlap between related ideologies. Also, keep in mind that the meaning of a political label can differ between countries and that parties often subscribe to a combination of ideologies. The list is strictly alphabetical. Thus, placing one ideology before another does not imply that the first is more important or popular than the second.

1. Forms of Government
2. Anarchism
3. Conservatism
4. Liberalism
5. Nationalism
6. Socialism

Forms of Government

Generally speaking, there are 8 general forms of government: anarchy, democracy, despotism, dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, and theocracy.

1. Anarchy

Anarchy may refer to any of the following: "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).” "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere." Note that "ruler," if used in the context of the third bullet point, has no explicit connection to the term "rules." In an anarchy, as defined by the last bullet point, it is possible to have rules (laws); however, these must be agreed upon by the participants in the system, and not imposed from above by a ruler (leader, authority). A state, free from coercive authority of any kind, is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists). The tumult of the English Civil War led the term to be taken up in political philosophy. Anarchy was one of the issues at the Putney Debates of 1647 by Thomas Rainsborough and Oliver Cromwell. As people began to theorize about the English Civil War, Anarchy came to be more sharply defined, albeit from differing political perspectives. For instance, Thomas Hobbes describes it as anarchy government as a “war of all against all, where man lives a brutish existence.” Societies that have experimented with anarchy are early Pennsylvania after William Penn's original government collapsed, the society during the French Revolution, Jamaica 1720, Spain 1936, and current day Somalia.

2. Democracy

'Democracy' is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy include. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests. Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome, Europe, and North and South America. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe. Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups. There are several flavors of democracy that can be read here:

3. Despotism

Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power. In its classical form, a despotism is a state where a single individual, the Despot, wields all the power and authority embodying the state and everyone else is a subsidiary person. This form of despotism was common in the first forms of statehood and civilization; the Pharaoh of Egypt is exemplary of the classical Despot. The term now implies tyrannical rule. Despotism can mean absolutism (dominance through threat of punishment and violence) or dictatorship (a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator, not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) However, in enlightened absolutism (also known as benevolent or enlightened despotism), which came to prominence in 18th century Europe, absolute monarchs used their authority to institute a number of reforms in the political systems and societies of their countries. This movement was probably largely triggered by the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment.

Even though the word has a pejorative meaning nowadays, it was once a legitimate title of office in the Byzantine Empire. In fact, "Despot" was an Imperial title, first used under Manuel I Komnenos (1143– 1180) who created it to his appointed heir Alexius-Béla. According to Gyula Moravcsik this title was a simple translation of Béla's Hungarian title 'úr', but other historians believe it comes from the ancient Greek, despotes (literally, 'the master'). In the Orthodox Liturgy, if celebrated in Greek, the priest is addressed by the deacon as "despot" even today. It was typically bestowed on sons-in-law and later sons of the Emperor, and beginning in the 13th century it was bestowed to foreign princes. The Despot wore an elaborate costume similar to the Emperor's and had many privileges. Despots ruled over parts of the empire called Despotates. The English government is cited to have reduced the American people under absolute despotism in the United States Declaration of Independence. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

4. Dictatorship

A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator. It has two possible meanings: Roman dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily. In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state. For some scholars, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed, while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what the government regulates). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) corresponds to liberalism (government emphasizes individual right and liberty). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.

5. Monarchy

A monarchy is a form of government in which supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in an individual (the monarch), who is the head of state, often for life or until abdication, and "is wholly set apart from all other members of the state." The person who heads a monarchy is called a monarch. There is no clear definition of monarchy. Holding unlimited political power in the state is not the defining characteristic, as many constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom and Thailand are considered monarchies. Hereditary rule is often a common characteristic, but elective monarchies are considered monarchies (the pope, sovereign of the Vatican City State, is elected by the College of Cardinals) and some states have hereditary rulers but are considered republics (such as the stadtholder of the Dutch Republic) A 1914 edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary states that "Monarchy is contradistinguished from republic," and gives this definition:

“We cannot find any better definition of monarchy than what this is: a monarchy is the government which is ruled (really or theoretically) by one man, who is wholly set apart from all other members of the state (called his subjects); while we call republic that government in which not only there exists an organism by which the opinion of the people, or of a portion of the people (as in aristocracies), passes over into public will, that is, law, but in which also the supreme power, or the executive power, returns, either periodically or at stated times (where the chief magistracy is for life), to the people, or a portion of the people, to be given anew to another person; or else, that government in which the hereditary portion (if there be any) is not the chief and leading portion of the government, as was the case in the Netherlands.”

Currently 44 nations in the world have monarchs as heads of state, 16 of which are Commonwealth realms that recognize Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as head of state.

6. Oligarchy

Oligarchy is a form of organization by “the best and the brightest”. Such states were often controlled by powerful families whose children were raised and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy. However, this power may also not be exercised openly, the oligarchs preferring to remain "the power behind the throne", exerting control through economic means. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group. Early societies may have become oligarchies as an outgrowth of an alliance between rival tribal chieftains or as the result of a caste system. Oligarchies can often become instruments of transformation, by insisting that monarchs or dictators share power, thereby opening the door to power-sharing by other elements of society (while oligarchy means "the rule of the few," monarchy means "the rule of the one"). One example of powersharing from one person to a larger group of persons occurred when English nobles banded together in 1215 to force a reluctant King John of England to sign the Magna Carta, a tacit recognition both of King John's waning political power and of the existence of an incipient oligarchy (the nobility). As English society continued to grow and develop, Magna Carta was repeatedly revised (1216, 1217, and 1225), guaranteeing greater rights to greater numbers of people, thus setting the stage for English constitutional monarchy. Oligarchies may also evolve into more autocratic or monarchist forms of government, sometimes as the result of one family gaining ascendancy over the others. Many of the European monarchies established during the late Middle Ages began in this way.

7. Plutocracy

Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems. The term plutocracy is generally used to describe two distinct concepts: one of a historical nature and one of a modern political nature. The former indicates the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such plutocracies include some city-states in Ancient Greece, the civilization of Carthage, the Italian merchant republics of Venice and Florence, and Genoa. A Plutocracy is a government controlled by a minuscule proportion of extremely wealthy individuals found in most societies. In many forms of government, those in power benefit financially, sometimes enough to belong to the aforementioned wealthy class. Classically, a plutocracy was an oligarchy, which is to say a government controlled by the wealthy few. Usually this meant that these ‘plutocrats’ controlled the executive, legislative and judicial aspects of government, the armed forces, and most of the natural resources. To a certain degree, there are still some situations in which private corporations and wealthy individuals may exert such strong influence on governments, that the effect can arguably be compared to a plutocracy. If there are no forms of control within the society, the plutocracy can easily collapse into a kleptocracy, "reign of thieves", where the powerholders attempt to confiscate as much public funds as possible as their private property. A kleptocratic state is usually thoroughly corrupt, has very little production and its economy is unstable. Many failed states represent kleptocracies.

8. Theocracy

Theocracy is a form of government in which a 'god' or 'deity' is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government. Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws. Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God". A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. Some democratic political parties and other organizations advocate reconstruction of governments as theocracies, such as the Islamic party, the Unification Party, and Christian Reconstructionism.

The term theocracy was first coined by Josephus Flavius in the 1st century to describe the characteristic government for Jews. Josephus argued that while the Greeks recognized three types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and anarchy, the Jews were unique in that they had a system of government that did not fit into those categories. Josephus understood theocracy as a fourth form of government in which only God and his law is sovereign. Josephus' definition was widely accepted until the enlightenment era, when the term started to collect more universalistic and undeniably negative connotations, especially in Hegel's hands. The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as in Biblical Israel before the rise of kings); the meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825. The word has been mostly used to label certain politically unpopular societies as somehow less rational or developed. The concept is used in sociology and other social sciences, but the term is often used inaccurately, especially in popular rhetoric. In the most common usage of the term theocracy, some civil rulers are leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the Byzantine Emperor as patron of the head of the official Church); the government claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion, and divine approval of government institutions and laws. These characteristics apply also to a Caesaropapist regime. The Byzantine empire however was not theocratic since the Patriarch answered to the Emperor, not vice versa; similarly in Tudor England the crown forced the church to break away from Rome so the royal (and, especially later, parliamentary) power could assume full control of the now Anglican hierarchy and confiscate most church property and income.

Taken literally or strictly, theocracy means rule by God or gods (but is commonly used as the generic term). The more specific term ecclesiocracy denotes rule by a church or analogous religious leadership. In a pure theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a direct personal connection with God. For example, a prophet like Moses ruled the Israelites, and the prophet Muhammad ruled the early Muslims. Law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. An ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation. For example, the princebishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. The papacy in the Papal States occupied a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, since the pope did not claim he is a prophet who receives revelation from God, but merely the (in rare cases infallible) interpreter of already-received revelation. Religiously endorsed monarchies fall between these two poles, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs. Secular governments can also coexist with a state religion or delegate some aspects of civil law to religious communities. For example, in Israel civil marriage is governed by Jewish religious institutions for Jews, by Muslim religious institutions for Muslims, and by Christian religious institutions for Christians. India similarly delegates control of marriage and some other civil matters to the religious communities, in large part as a way of accommodating its Muslim minority.

Anarchism

Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government, i.e. the state. Anarchism is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state." Specific anarchists may have additional criteria for what constitutes anarchism, and they often disagree with each other on what these criteria are. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, beyond their rejection of compulsory government, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance". There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and as such much of anarchist economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an individualist strain, including those who support capitalism (e.g. anarcho-capitalism) and other market-orientated economic structures (e.g. mutualists). As described by the 21st century anarchist Cindy Milstein, anarchism is a "political tradition that has consistently grappled with the tension between the individual and society." Others, such as panarchists and anarchists without adjectives neither advocate nor object to any particular form of organization. Anarchist schools of thought differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Some anarchists have vocally opposed all types of coercion, while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution, on the path to anarchy.

1. Individualist anarchism

Individualist anarchism comprises several traditions which hold that individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority. Individualist anarchism is supportive of property being held privately, unlike the collectivist wing which advocates common ownership. Individualist anarchism has been espoused by individuals such as William Godwin, Henry David Thoreau, Josiah Warren, and Murray Rothbard. One of the earliest and best-known proponents of individualist anarchism was Max Stirner, who wrote The Ego and Its Own (1844), a founding text of the philosophy. Stirner's philosophy was an "egoist" form of individualist anarchism according to which the only limitation on the rights of the individual is his power to obtain what he desires, taking no notice of God, state, or moral rules. To Stirner, rights were spooks in the mind, and he held that society does not exist but "the individuals are its reality" — he supported property by force of might rather than moral right. Stirner preached self-assertion and foresaw "associations of egoists" where respect for ruthlessness drew people together. A less radical form of individualist anarchism was advocated by the "Boston anarchists," American individualists who supported private property exchangeable in a free market. They advocated the protection of liberty and property by private contractors, and endorsed exchange of labor for wages. They did not have a problem that "one man employ another" or that "he direct him," in his labor but demanded that "all natural opportunities requisite to the production of wealth be accessible to all on equal terms and that monopolies arising from special privileges created by law be abolished." They believed state monopoly capitalism (defined as a state-sponsored monopoly) prevented labor from being fully rewarded. Even among the nineteenth century American individualists, there was not a monolithic doctrine, as they disagreed amongst each other on various issues including intellectual property rights and possession versus property in land. A major cleft occurred later in the 19th century when Tucker and some others abandoned natural rights and converted to an "egoism" modeled upon Stirner's philosophy. Some "Boston anarchists", like Tucker, identified themselves as "socialist" – a term which at the time denoted a broad concept – by which he meant a commitment to solving "the labor problem" by radical economic reform.) By the turn of the 20th century, the heyday of individualist anarchism had passed, although it was later revived with modifications by Murray Rothbard and the anarcho-capitalists in the mid-twentieth century, as a current of the broader libertarian movement. Anarcho-capitalism, or "free market anarchism", is "based on a belief in the freedom to own private property, a rejection of any form of governmental authority or intervention, and the upholding of the competitive free market as the main mechanism for social interaction." Because of the historically anti-capitalist nature of most anarchist thought, the status of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism is disputed, particularly by communist anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists distinguish between free market capitalism – peaceful voluntary exchange – from "state capitalism" which Murray Rothbard defined as a collusive partnership between big business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market. Whether in its natural rights-based or utilitarian formulations, anarcho-capitalism has a theory of legitimacy that supports private property as long as it was obtained by labor, trade, or gift. In an anarcho-capitalist society, its proponents hold, voluntary market processes would result in the provision of social institutions such as law enforcement, defense and infrastructure by competing for-profit firms, charities or voluntary associations rather than the state. In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, law (the non-aggression principle) is enforced by the market but not created by it, while according to David D. Friedman's utilitarian version, the law itself is produced by the market. While the term "anarcho-capitalism" was coined by Rothbard and its origin is attributed to 1960's America, some historians, including Rothbard himself, trace the school as far back as the mid-19th century to market theorists such as Gustave de Molinari. Anarcho-capitalism has drawn influence from pro-market theorists such as Molinari, Frédéric Bastiat, and Robert Nozick, as well as American individualist thinkers such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner. Considered a form of individualist anarchism, it differs from the individualism of the "Boston anarchists" of the 19th century in its rejection of the labor theory of value (and its normative implications) in favor of the neoclassical or Austrian School marginalist view.

2. Social Anarchism

Social anarchism is one of two different broad categories of anarchism, the other category being individualist anarchism. The term social anarchism is often used to identify communitarian forms of anarchism that emphasize cooperation and mutual aid. Social anarchism includes anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, Libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, social ecology and sometimes mutualism. Collectivist anarchism is a revolutionary form of anarchism commonly associated with Mikhail Bakunin and with Johann Most. Unlike mutualists, collectivist anarchists oppose all private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating that ownership be collectivized. This was to be initiated by small cohesive elite group through acts of violence, or "propaganda by the deed," which would inspire the workers as a whole to revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production. However, collectivization was not to be extended to the distribution of income, as workers would be paid according to time worked, rather than receiving goods being distributed "according to need" as in anarcho-communism. Although the collectivist anarchists advocated compensation for labor, some held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need. Collectivist anarchism arose contemporaneously with Marxism but opposed the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat, despite the stated Marxist goal of a collectivist stateless society. Anarchist communists propose that a society composed of a number of self-governing communes with collective use of the means of production and direct democracy as the political organizational form, and related to other communes through federation would be the freest form of social organization. However, some anarchist communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and favor consensus democracy. In anarchist communism, individuals would not receive direct compensation for labor (through sharing of profits or payment), but would instead have free access to the resources and surplus of the commune. According to anarchist communist Peter Kropotkin and later Murray Bookchin, the members of such a society would spontaneously perform all necessary labor because they would recognize the benefits of communal enterprise and mutual aid. Kropotkin believed that private property was one of the causes of oppression and exploitation and called for its abolition, advocating instead common ownership. In the early twentieth century anarcho-syndicalism arose as a distinct school of thought within anarchism. With greater focus on the labor movement than previous forms of anarchism, syndicalism posits radical trade unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society, democratically self-managed by the workers. Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Important principles of syndicalism include workers' solidarity, direct action (such as general strikes and workplace recuperations), and workers' self-management. Anarcho-syndicalism and other branches of anarchism are not mutually exclusive: anarcho-syndicalists often subscribe to communist or collectivist anarchist economic systems. Its advocates propose labor organization as a means to create the foundations of a non-hierarchical anarchist society within the current system and bring about social revolution.

3. Mutualism

Mutualism began in 18th century English and French labor movements before taking an anarchist form associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in France and others in the United States. Proudhon's ideas were introduced by Charles A. Dana, to individualist anarchists in the United States including Benjamin Tucker and William Batchelder Greene. Mutualist anarchism is concerned with reciprocity, free association, voluntary contract, federation, and credit and currency reform. According to Greene, in the mutualist system each worker would receive "just and exact pay for his work; services equivalent in cost being exchangeable for services equivalent in cost, without profit or discount." Mutualism has been retrospectively characterized as being ideologically situated between individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism. Proudhon first characterized his goal as a "third form of society, the synthesis of communism and property."

Conservatism

Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. It is difficult to define the term precisely because different cultures have different established values and, in consequence, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. (Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante). In a more general sense, politically, Conservatism often refers to Right-Wing politics. There are 6 general schools of thought in conservatism: liberal conservatism, conservative liberalism, libertarian conservatism, social/cultural conservatism, and neoconservatism religious conservatism.

1. Liberal Conservatism

Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism, combining conservative values and policies with liberal stances. As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings. Historically, it often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. In this way it contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres. Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments and this sense of the term "liberal conservatism" fell out of use, and "conservatism" was simply used instead. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered "conservative". In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" may become synonymous (as in Italy and in Spain). The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, for example in the writings of Russell Kirk).

2. Conservative Liberalism and Libertarian Conservatism

3. Paleoconservatism

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-authoritarian right-wing movement in the United States that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity. Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture — an identity that is both collective and personal.” Paleoconservativism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line. Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often focus on their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, U.S. funding of Israeli military actions, foreign wars, and welfare. They also criticize social democracy, which some refer to as the therapeutic managerial state, the welfare-warfare state or polite totalitarianism. They see themselves as the legitimate heir to the American conservative tradition. Paul Gottfried (and possibly A. F. Seabrook as well) is credited with coining the term in the 1980s. He says the word originally referred to various Americans, such as traditionalist Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anticommunism during the Cold War. They then began referring to the conservative opposition as neoconservatism. Paleoconservative thought incubated within the pages of the Rockford Institute's Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Patrick Buchanan was heavily influenced by its articles and helped create another paleocon publication, The American Conservative. Its concerns overlap those of the Old Right that opposed the U.S. New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s, as well as the American social conservatism of the late 20th century expressed, for example, in the book Single Issues by Joseph Sobran.

4. Social and Cultural Conservatism

Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture. The culture in question may be as large as Western culture or Chinese civilization or as small as that of Tibet. Cultural conservatives try to adapt norms handed down from the past. The norms may be romantic, like the anti-metric movement that demands the retention of avoirdupois weights and measures in Britain and opposes their replacement with the metric system. They may be institutional: in the West this has included chivalry and feudalism, as well as capitalism and the rule of law. In the subset social conservatism, the norms may also be what is viewed as a question of morality. In some cultures, practices such as homosexuality are seen as immoral. In others, it is considered immoral for a woman to reveal too much of her body. Cultural conservatives often argue that old institutions have adapted to a particular place or culture and therefore ought to be preserved. Others argue that a people have a right to their cultural norms, their own language and traditions. Some cultural conservatives are willing to extend this right to tradition to other groups. The Aryan Nation, for examples, teaches that Blacks should band together to exclude Whites, just as they teach that Whites should band together to exclude blacks. Other cultural conservatives are unwilling to extend this right to tradition to other groups. For example, Muslim fundamentalists do not believe that woman in the west should have the traditional freedoms allowed by western culture. In America, cultural conservative have similar stances in these following areas: favor the pro-life position in the abortion controversy; support restriction of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in homosexual relationships; promote public morality and traditional family values; protect key American industries like defense, certain raw materials, and agriculture from foreign competition; promote the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit; support government's involvement in values education and character development oppose secularism and privatization of religious belief; support prison reform, with greater focus on punitive measures rather than rehabilitation; oppose human cloning and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (see stem cell controversy); protect Second Amendment rights; and oppose illegal immigration and support extensive government monitoring of national borders. Religious conservatives seek to preserve the teachings of particular ideologies, sometimes by proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times seeking to have those teachings given the force of law. Religious conservatism may support, or be supported by, secular customs. In other places or at other times, religious conservatism may find itself at odds with the culture in which the believers reside. In some cultures, there is conflict between two or more different groups of religious conservatives, each strongly asserting both that their view is correct, and that opposing views are wrong. Conservative governments influenced by religious conservatives may promote broad campaigns for a return to traditional values. Modern examples include the Back to Basics campaign of British Prime Minister, John Major. In the European Union, a conservative campaign sought to constitutionally specify certain conservative values in the proposed European Constitution. Because many religions preserve a founding text, or at least a set of well-established traditions, the possibility of radical religious conservatism arises. These are radical both in the sense of abolishing the status quo and of a perceived return to the radix or root of a belief. They are ante conservative in their claim to be preserving the belief in its original or pristine form. Radical religious conservatism generally sees the status quo as corrupted by abuses, corruption, or heresy. One example of such a movement was the Radical Reformation within the Protestant Reformation and the later Restorationists of the 1800s. Similar phenomena have arisen in practically all the world's religions, in many cases triggered by the violent cultural collision between the traditional society in question and the modern Western society that has developed throughout the world over the past 500 years. Much of what is labeled as radical religious conservatism in the modern world is in fact an indigenous fusion of traditional religious ideals with modern, European revolutionary philosophy, sometimes Marxist in nature.

5. Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism was a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the transition of some liberals to the right of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being 'new' conservatives. The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right". Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy. According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about." The first major neoconservative to embrace the term was Irving Kristol, in his 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'" Kristol's ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy". Prominent neoconservative periodicals are Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and paleoconservatives, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles, even if that meant unilateral action. The movement began to focus on such foreign issues in the mid-1970s. However, it first crystallized in the late 1960s as an effort to combat the radical cultural changes taking place within the United States. Irving Kristol wrote: "If there is any one thing that neoconservatives are unanimous about, it is their dislike of the counterculture." Norman Podhoretz agreed: "Revulsion against the counterculture accounted for more converts to neoconservatism than any other single factor." Ira Chernus argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms. Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all. They also believe that the most important social value is strength, especially the strength to control natural impulses. The only alternative, they assume, is weakness that will let impulses run riot and lead to social chaos. According to Peter Steinfels, a historian of the movement, the neoconservatives' "emphasis on foreign affairs emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neoconservatism... The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological." Neoconservative foreign policy parallels their domestic policy. They insist that the U.S. military must be strong enough to control the world, or else the world will descend into chaos. Believing that America should "export democracy", that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy; adhere less to social conservatism; have a weaker dedication to the policy of minimal government; and in the past, have been more supportive of the welfare state. Aggressive support for democracies and nation building is additionally justified by a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Neoconservatives, along with many other political theorists, have argued that democratic regimes are less likely to instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of government. Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently, neoconservatives advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, notably the Arab nations of the Middle East, communist China and North Korea, and Iran. Neoconservatives believe in the ability of the United States to install democracy after a conflict, citing the denazification of Germany and installation of democratic government in Japan after World War II. This idea guided U.S. policy in Iraq after the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, when the U.S. organized elections as soon as practical. Neoconservatives also ascribe to principal of defending democracies against aggression. Joe Klein, writing in TIME magazine, suggests that today's neoconservatives are more interested in confronting enemies than in cultivating friends. He questions the sincerity of neocon interest in exporting democracy and freedom, saying, "Neoconservatism in foreign policy is best described as unilateral bellicosity cloaked in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy." For more information, read Ron Paul's speech Neo-Conned

Liberalism

Liberalism is a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment. Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property. Within liberalism there are two major streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues as they differ on their understanding of what constitutes freedom. Classical liberals believe that the only real freedom is freedom from coercion. As a result, they see state intervention in the economy as a coercive power that restricts the economic freedom of individuals and favor a laissez-faire economic policy. They oppose the welfare state. Social liberals argue that governments must take an active role in promoting the freedom of citizens. They believe that real freedom can exist only when citizens are healthy, educated, and free from dire poverty. They generally favor the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a minimum wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation.

1. Classical Liberalism and Economic Liberalism

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism and laissez-faire liberalism, market liberalism or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods. The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from changes in liberal thought during the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, which grants the state a more interventionist role in the economy, including a welfare state. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is closer in economic aspects to what today is a claimed current of "conservatism" in the U.S. Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard and other followers of the Austrian School developed even further the liberal ideas, culminating in Minarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism, which are the main flags of libertarian politics. They, together with Milton Friedman, are credited with influencing a revival of classical liberalism in the 20th century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century. In relation to economic issues, this revival is sometimes referred to, mainly by its opposers, as "neoliberalism". It must be said that the German "ordoliberalism" has a whole different meaning, since the likes of Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Röpke have advocated a more interventionist state, as opposed to laissez-faire liberals. Classical liberalism does resemble modern libertarianism in many ways.

Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism. Theories in support of economic liberalism were developed in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith which advocates minimal interference by government in the economy, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods. These theories began in the eighteenth century with the then-startling claim that if everyone is left to their own economic devices instead of being controlled by the state, then the result would be a harmonious and more equal society of ever-increasing prosperity. This underpinned the move towards a capitalist economic system in the late 18th century, and the subsequent demise of the mercantilist system. Private property and individual contracts form the basis of liberalism. The early theory was based on the assumption that the economic actions of individuals are largely based on self-interest, (invisible hand) and that allowing them to act without any restrictions will produce the best results, (spontaneous order) provided that at least minimum standards of public information and justice exist, e.g., no-one should be allowed to coerce or steal. While economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods. For instance, Adam Smith argued that the state has a role in providing roads, canals, schools and bridges that cannot be efficiently implemented by private entities. However, he preferred that these goods should be paid proportionally to their consumption (e.g. putting a toll). In addition, he advocated retaliatory tariffs to bring about free trade, and copyrights and patents to encourage innovation. Initially, the economic liberalism had to contend with the supporters of feudal privileges for the wealthy, aristocratic traditions and the rights of kings to run national economies in their own personal interests. By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, these were largely defeated. In the mid-19th century, Abraham Lincoln followed the Whig tradition of economic liberalism, which included increased state control such as the provision and regulation of railroads. The Pacific Railway Acts provided the development of the First Transcontinental Railroad.

2. Conservative Liberalism and Libertarianism

Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement. The roots of it are to be found at the beginning of the history of liberalism: until the World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy. Conservative liberalism is a more positive and less radical version of classical liberalism. The events such as World War I occuring after 1917 brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism. Conservative liberalism differs from classical liberalism because it is far less radical. Because conservative liberals are more moderate, they often get much more votes than classical liberal parties. Because they are more moderate than classical liberals, they offer increased state intervention and they often identify as law and order-parties, which are tougher on crime and support higher levels of punishment and are more committed to fighting terrorism, while social liberals tend to emphasize prevention and are more committed to civil rights. Conservative liberals differ from social liberals for some main reasons: Second, they are usually socially liberal on such social issues as same-sex marriage, abortion, secularism, stem-cell research, and euthanasia but may place less emphasis on them than do most social liberals. Third, they are mostly strong supporters of economic globalization. Most conservative liberals support the foreign policy of the United States and, in NATO-member states, support that political alliance. Fourth, conservative liberals are often in favor of stricter punishment of illegal immigrants and are usually tolerant but not enthusiastic about multiculturalism, of which social liberals are strong supporters. Conservative liberals often identify as law and order-parties, which are tougher on crime and support higher levels of punishment and are more committed to fighting terrorism, while social liberals tend to emphasize prevention and are more committed to civil rights. Fifth, historically, conservative liberals tended to be more skeptical about universal suffrage than social or classical liberals. One should not confuse conservative liberalism with liberal conservatism; indeed, the latter is a variant of conservatism. Liberal conservatives tend to be more committed to authority, tradition and established religion, while conservative liberals are supporters of the separation between church and state. However it is possible to classify some parties as both conservative-liberal and liberal-conservative. Conservative liberalism differs from libertarianism in several ways. First it is far less radical in its economic program. Second it is supportive of an active defense policy and military interventions in contrast to the libertarian non-interventionist policy. Most conservative liberals supported the American-led interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Second conservative liberals are tough on crime and are more willing to sacrifice civil liberties to fight terrorism and crime. In the United States, conservative liberalism is often called moderate libertarianism or conservative libertarianism. Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty and seek to minimize or even abolish the state. The definition of libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue and there is no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians would agree. The proper role of government is described from a number of different metaphysical, epistemological, and moral viewpoints. 'Libertarian' is an antonym of 'authoritarian'. The central tenet of libertarianism is the principle of liberty. To libertarians, an individual human being is sovereign over his body, extending to life, and liberty. Libertarians define liberty as being completely free in action, whilst not initiating force or fraud against the life, liberty or property of another human being. Thomas Jefferson stated, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Jefferson also said "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." These concepts are otherwise known as the law of equal liberty or the non-aggression principle. Libertarians favor Common Law, which they see as less arbitrary and more adaptable than statutory law. Many libertarians contrast two ethical views: consequentialist libertarianism, which is the support for liberty because it leads to favorable consequences, such as prosperity or efficiency and deontological libertarianism (also known as "rights-theorist libertarianism," "natural rights libertarianism," or "libertarian moralism") which consider moral tenets to be the basis of libertarian philosophy. Others combine a hybrid of consequentialist and deontologist thinking. Another view, contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement. Robert Nozick holds a variation on this view, as does Jan Narveson as outlined in his 1988 work The Libertarian Idea and his 2002 work Respecting Persons in Theory and Practice. Other advocates of contractarian libertarianism include the Nobel Laureate and founder of the public choice school of economics James M. Buchanan, Canadian philosopher David Gauthier and Hungarian-French philosopher Anthony de Jasay. Libertarians views differ regarding the degree of liberty and the means to achieve liberty and these views can be found here

3. Social Liberalism

Social liberalism is a branch of liberalism which emphasizes individual rights and equal opportunity for all citizens. For social liberals, the lack of education, health, or employment, is seen as as big a threat to individual freedom as state compulsion and coercion. Additionally, like other liberals, social liberals support (with qualifications) free markets, private entrepreneurship, and a small state. Social liberalism may also refer, as it usually does in the North American media, to support for educational reform, civil rights, human rights, and civil liberties, particularly in opposition to traditional values and beliefs. In this sense, one could be socially liberal and be for strong state intervention in the economy. This article deals with the first sense of Social Liberalism as a political ideology which defends both free markets and socially liberal policies. Social liberals support a mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided, guaranteed, or regulated public services. For example, some social liberals defend obligatory universal health insurance, with the state providing basic health insurance to the poorest of society. Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central concept. They expect legitimate governments to provide a basic level of health, education, and welfare or workfare. These services are expected to be supported by taxation and intended to secure economic opportunities for all, enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good. Social liberals accept some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic monopolies and regulatory bodies or minimum-wage laws. Moreover, the accumulation of wealth by a small group is seen as the consolidation of power within a small faction of society and perforce a threat to liberty. Social liberalism forms the core of the somewhat wider movement of left-liberalism, with which it is often (if not usually) conflated and has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country.

Nationalism

The term nationalism can refer to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation. While there is significant debate over the historical origins of nations, nearly all specialists accept that nationalism, at least as an ideology and social movement, is a modern phenomenon originating in Europe. Precisely where and when it emerged is difficult to determine, but its development is closely related to that of the modern state and the push for popular sovereignty that came to a head with the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century. Since that time, nationalism has become one of the most significant political and social forces in history, perhaps most notably as a cause of both the First and Second World Wars. As an ideology, nationalism holds that 'the people' in the doctrine of popular sovereignty is the nation, and that as a result only nation-states founded on the principle of national self-determination are legitimate. Since most states are multinational, or at least home to more than one group claiming national status, the pursuit of this principle has often led to conflict, and nationalism is commonly associated with war (both external and domestic), secession, and even genocide in contexts ranging from imperial conquest to struggles for national liberation. Nationalism does not always lead to violence, however, and it plays an integral role in the daily lives of most people around the world. Flags on buildings, the singing of national anthems in schools and at public events, and cheering for national sports teams are all examples of everyday, 'banal' nationalism that is often unselfconscious. Moreover, some scholars argue that nationalism as a sentiment or form of culture, sometimes described as 'nationality' to avoid the ideology's tarnished reputation, is the social foundation of modern society. Industrialization, democratization, and support for economic redistribution have all been at least partly attributed to the shared social context and solidarity that nationalism provides. Nevertheless, nationalism remains a hotly contested subject on which there is little general consensus. The clearest example of opposition to nationalism is cosmopolitanism, with adherents as diverse as liberals, Marxists, and anarchists, but even nationalism's defenders often disagree on its virtues, and it is common for nationalists of one persuasion to disparage the aspirations of others for both principled and strategic reasons. Indeed, the only fact about nationalism that is not in dispute may be that few other social phenomena have had a more enduring impact on the modern world.

Nationalism is a form of universalism when it makes universal claims about how the world should be organized, but it is particularistic with regard to individual nations. The combination of both is characteristic for the ideology, for instance in these assertions: "in a nation-state, the language of the nation should be the official language, and all citizens should speak it, and not a foreign language" "the official language of Denmark should be Danish, and all Danish citizens should speak it.” The universalistic principles bring nationalism into conflict with competing forms of universalism, the particularistic principles bring specific nationalist movements into conflict with rival nationalisms - for instance, the Danish-German tensions over their reciprocal linguistic minorities. The starting point of nationalism is the existence of nations, which it takes as a given. Nations are typically seen as entities with a long history: most nationalists do not believe a nation can be created artificially. Nationalist movements see themselves as the representative of an existing, centuries-old nation. However, some theories of nationalism imply the reverse order - that the nationalist movements created the sense of national identity, and then a political unit corresponding to it, or that an existing state promoted a 'national' identity for itself. Nationalists see nations as an inclusive categorization of human beings - assigning every individual to one specific nation. In fact, nationalism sees most human activity as national in character. Nations have national symbols, a national culture, a national music and national literature; national folklore, a national mythology and - in some cases - a national religion. Individuals share national values and a national identity, admire the national hero, eat the national dish and play the national sport. Nationalists define individual nations on the basis of certain criteria, which distinguish one nation from another; and determine who is a member of each nation. These criteria typically include a shared language, culture, and/or shared values which are predominantly represented within a specific ethnic group. National identity refers both to these defining criteria, and to the shared heritage of each group. Membership in a nation is usually involuntary and determined by birth. Individual nationalisms vary in their degree of internal uniformity: some are monolithic, and tolerate little variance from the national norms. Academic nationalism theory emphasizes that national identity is contested, reflecting differences in region, class, gender, and language or dialect. A recent development is the idea of a national core culture, in Germany the Leitkultur, which emphasizes a minimal set of non-negotiable values: this is primarily a strategy of cultural assimilation in response to immigration. Nationalism has the strong territorial component, with an inclusive categorization of territory corresponding to the categorization of individuals. For each nation, there is a territory which is uniquely associated with it, the national homeland, and together they account for most habitable land. This is reflected in the geopolitical claims of nationalism, which seeks to order the world as a series of nation-states, each based on the national homeland of its respective nation. Territorial claims characterize the politics of nationalist movements. Established nation-states also make an implicit territorial claim, to secure their own continued existence: sometimes it is specified in the national constitution. In the nationalist view, each nation has a moral entitlement to a sovereign state: this is usually taken as a given. The nation-state is intended to guarantee the existence of a nation, to preserve its distinct identity, and to provide a territory where the national culture and ethos are dominant - nationalism is also a philosophy of the state. It sees a nation-state as a necessity for each nation: secessionist national movements often complain about their second-class status as a minority within another nation. This specific view of the duties of the state influenced the introduction of national education systems, often teaching a standard curriculum, national cultural policy, and national language policy. In turn, nation-states appeal to a national cultural-historical mythos to justify their existence, and to confer political legitimacy - acquiescence of the population in the authority of the government. Nationalists recognize that 'non-national' states exist and existed, but do not see them as a legitimate form of state. The struggles of early nationalist movements were often directed against such nonnational states, specifically multi-ethnic empires such as Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Most multi-ethnic empires have disappeared, but some secessionist movements see Russia and China as comparable non-national, imperial states. At least one modern state is clearly not a nation-state: the Vatican City exists solely to provide a sovereign territorial unit for the Roman Catholic Church. Some critics have maintained that (unlike modern nationalism, which is a creation of the 19th century nation state) authentic nationalism (as the Latin 'natio' would suggest) must be based in some form of genophilia and the sharing of ancestors. Nationalism as ideology includes ethical principles: that the moral duties of individuals to fellow members of the nation override those to non-members. Nationalism claims that national loyalty, in case of conflict, overrides local loyalties, and all other loyalties to family, friends, profession, religion, or class.

1. Stateless Nationalism

Nationalism may manifest itself as part of official state ideology or as a popular (non-state) movement and may be expressed along civic, ethnic, cultural, religious or ideological lines. These self-definitions of the nation are used to classify types of nationalism. However, such categories are not mutually exclusive and many nationalist movements combine some or all of these elements to varying degrees. Nationalist movements can also be classified by other criteria, such as scale and location. Some political theorists make the case that any distinction between forms of nationalism is false. In all forms of nationalism, the populations believe that they share some kind of common culture. A main reason why such typology can be considered false is that it attempts to bend the fairly simple concept of nationalism to explain its many manifestations or interpretations. Arguably, all "types" of nationalism merely refer to different ways academics throughout the years have tried to define nationalism. This school of thought accepts that nationalism is simply the desire of a nation to self-determine. With the establishment of a nation-state, the primary goal of any nationalist movement has been achieved. However, nationalism does not disappear but remains a political force within the nation, and inspires political parties and movements. The development of state nationalism leads to the development of stateless nationalism movements that feel oppressed by the mainstream nationalistic conception of the nation - such as the "eternal Spain", "La Grande France" - and aspire at setting up their own state either within the nation state or a state of its own. Stateless Nationalists in this sense typically campaign for: Defending from strengthening national unity, including campaigns for national salvation in times of crisis; Confronting nation state policies that attempt to impose a model of political behavior from the top; Unlike state nationalism is more opened to foreign influences, influenced by civic liberalism they reject the extreme xenophobia of state nationalist parties; Attempting to make borders flexible so as to collaborate with neighboring territories sharing common interests; Redefining the national territory which is considered part of the national homeland. This is called irredentism, from the Italian movement Italia irredenta; and small nations cannot survive unless they are opened to foreign trade so that they reject economic nationalism of nation states.

Nationalist parties and nationalist politicians, in this sense, usually place great emphasis on national symbols, such as the national flag. The term 'nationalism' is also used by extension, or as a metaphor, to describe movements which promote a group identity of some kind. This use is especially common in the United States, and includes black nationalism and white nationalism in a cultural sense. They may overlap with nationalism in the classic sense, including black secessionist movements and pan- Africanism. Nationalists obviously have a positive attitude toward their own nation, although this is not a definition of nationalism. The emotional appeal of nationalism is visible even in established and stable nation-states. The social psychology of nations includes national identity (the individual’s sense of belonging to a group), and national pride (self-association with the success of the group). National pride is related to the cultural influence of the nation, and its economic and political strength - although they may be exaggerated. However, the most important factor is that the emotions are shared: nationalism in sport includes the shared disappointment if the national team loses. The emotions can be purely negative: a shared sense of threat can unify the nation. However, dramatic events, such as defeat in war, can qualitatively affect national identity and attitudes to non-national groups. The defeat of Germany in World War I, and the perceived humiliation by the Treaty of Versailles, economic crisis and hyperinflation, created a climate for xenophobia, revanchism, and the rise of Nazism. The solid bourgeois patriotism of the pre-1914 years, with the Kaiser as national father-figure, was no longer relevant.

2. Fascism

Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist political ideology and mass movement that is concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence, and which seeks to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, militarism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, populism, collectivism, statism, social interventionism, and economic planning. In addition, many scholars see fascism as opposing liberalism, conservatism and communism. Fascist governments nationalized key industries and made massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of Soviet-style economic planning measures. Property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state. Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism. Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that they opposed reactionaries, and that they were actually revolutionary political movements that fused with conservative social values. Unlike reactionary political entities, fascists supported revolutionary politics, and fascists like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler used leftist political terms such as "proletariat" and "bourgeois" to describe society. Unlike typical reactionary political forces in Europe at the time, fascists did not demonstrate fondness with having monarchies and pushed them into figurehead positions. Even in Italy where Mussolini ruled alongside the King, relations between the Fascist regime and the monarchy at times grew tense and the Fascist regime made attempts to diminish and sideline the monarchy. Some authors reject broad usage of the term or exclude certain parties and regimes. Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals. In contemporary political discourse, the term fascist is often used by adherents of some ideologies as a pejorative description of their opponents.

Socialism

Socialism is the politico-economic theory of social organization advocating that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be regulated or owned by the community. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic interventionism, sometimes opposing each other — especially the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some require complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies; libertarian socialists advocate co-operative worker ownership of the means of production; Marxists (some inspired by the Soviet economic model), advocate State-controlled, centrally-planned economies; Anarchosyndicalists, Luxemburgists, the U.S. New Left favor decentralized ownership via co-operative workers' councils.

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general. It is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, although socialist historians say they are older. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems would be for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government. The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist and are growing in importance since the fall of the Soviet Union. Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxism-Leninism, Socialism is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatization, to collective ownership.

1. Marxism and Leninism

Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers. But whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform, Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to the socialist state. According to the Marxist argument for communism, the main characteristic of human life in class society is alienation; and communism is desirable because it entails the full realization of human freedom. Marx here follows Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of restraints but as action with content. According to Marx, Communism's outlook on freedom was based on an agent, obstacle, and goal. The agent is the common/working people; the obstacles are class divisions, economic inequalities, unequal life-chances, and false consciousness; and the goal is the fulfillment of human needs including satisfying work, and fair share of the product. They believed that communism allowed people to do what they want, but also put humans in such conditions and such relations with one another that they would not wish to exploit, or have any need to. Whereas for Hegel the unfolding of this ethical life in history is mainly driven by the realm of ideas, for Marx, communism emerged from material forces, particularly the development of the means of production. Marxism holds that a process of class conflict and revolutionary struggle will result in victory for the proletariat and the establishment of a communist society in which private ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community. Marx himself wrote little about life under communism, giving only the most general indication as to what constituted a communist society. It is clear that it entails abundance in which there is little limit to the projects that humans may undertake. In the popular slogan that was adopted by the communist movement, communism was a world in which each gave according to their abilities, and received according to their needs. The German Ideology (1845) was one of Marx's few writings to elaborate on the communist future:

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

Marx's lasting vision was to add this vision to a theory of how society was moving in a law-governed way toward communism, and, with some tension, a political theory that explained why revolutionary activity was required to bring it about. In the late 19th century the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a "first phase" in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. The "first phase" would eventually evolve into a "higher phase" in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism. These later aspects, particularly as developed by Lenin, provided the underpinning for the mobilizing features of 20th century Communist parties. Later writers such as Louis Malthusian and Nico Coagulants modified Marx's vision by allotting a central place to the state in the development of such societies, by arguing for a prolonged transition period of socialism prior to the attainment of full communism.

2. Social Democracy

Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement. Modern social democracy advocates the formation of a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices. This is unlike socialism in the traditional sense, which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to replace it entirely. Instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system. "Social democracy" is also used to refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. While some consider social democracy a moderate type of socialism, others, defining socialism in the traditional or Marxist sense, reject that designation. Social democratic parties initially advocated socialism in the strict sense, achieved by class struggle as defined by the Orthodox Marxists within or affiliated with the Social Democratic Party of Germany: August Bebel, Eduard Bernstein, Friedrich Engels, Karl Kautsky and Wilhelm Liebknecht. Schisms within the party during the early 20th century led to the desertion of the revolutionary socialists, and the primacy of Bernstein's evolutionary or reformist democratic path for social progress within the social democratic movement. Throughout Europe, a number of other socialist parties simultaneously rejected revolutionary socialism, and the followers of these movements ultimately came to identify themselves as social democrats or democratic socialists. Consequently, while social democrats share many views with the democratic socialists, they often differ on specific policy issues. The two movements sometimes share political parties, such as the British Labour Party in the 1980s, and the Brazilian Workers' Party today. One way to delineate between social democratic parties (or movements) and democratic socialist ones, would be to think of social democracy as moving left from capitalism and democratic socialism as moving right from Marxism: in other words, a mainstream leftist party in a state with a market economy and a mostly middle class voting base might be described as a social democratic party, while a party with a more radical agenda and an intellectual or working class voting base that has a history of involvement with further left movements might be described as a democratic socialist party. However, this is not always the case. The British Labour Party charter identifies the party as a "democratic socialist party," even though the current and former leader, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, identify themselves as social democrats