7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 1/27

Conservatism

(WIKIPEDIA)

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") is a political and social philosophy that

promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows thephilosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and

continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to

"the way things were".[1][2] The first established use of the term in a political context

was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French

Revolution.[3] The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been

used to describe a wide range of views. There is no single set of policies that are

universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism

depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus,

conservatives from different parts of the world - each upholding their respectivetraditions - may disagree on a wide range of issues.

Edmund Burke, an  Anglo-Irish politician who served in the British House of 

Commons and opposed the French Revolution, is credited as one of the founders

of  conservatism in Great Britain.[4]  According to Hailsham, a former chairman of the

British Conservative Party, "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an

attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free

society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature

itself."[5] 

Development of Western Conservatism

England

Theologian Benjamin Wiker argues that  Aristotle had ideas similar to those of some

modern conservatives. Modern European conservatives such as Edmund Burke

have found the extreme idealism of either democracy may endanger broader 

liberties, and similarly reject "abstract reason" as a guide for political theory.[6] 

English conservatism, which was called Toryism, emerged during

the Restoration (1660 –1688). It supported a hierarchical society with a monarch who

ruled by divine right. However the Glorious Revolution (1688), which established

constitutional government, led to a reformulation of Toryism which now considered

sovereignty vested in the three estates of Crown, Lords, and Commons.[7] 

Conservatives typically see Richard Hooker  as the founding father of conservatism,

the Marquess of Halifax as important for his pragmatism, David Humearticulated

conservative mistrust of  rationalism in politics, and Edmund Burke was the leading

early theorist. There is a debate in the historiography, because Hooker lived too

early, Halifax did not belong to any party, Hume was not involved in politics, and

Burke was a Whig. In the 19th century, Conservatives rejected Burke because of his

defense of Catholic emancipation, and found inspiration in Bolingbroke instead. John

Reeves, who wrote a Tory response to the French Revolution, is

ignored.[8] Conservatives also objected to Burke's support of the American

Revolution, which the Tory Samuel Johnson, for example, attacked in "Taxation No

Tyranny".[citation needed ] 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 2/27

Conservatism developed in Restoration England from royalism. Royalists supported

absolute monarchy, arguing that the sovereign governed by divine right. They

opposed the theory that sovereignty derived from the people, the authority of 

parliament and freedom of religion. Robert Filmer ’s Patriarcha: or the Natural Power 

of Kings, which had been written before the English Civil War , became accepted as

the statement of their doctrine. Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, theconservatives, known as Tories, accepted that the three estates of Crown, Lords,

and Commons held sovereignty jointly.[9] However Toryism became marginalized

during the long period of Whig ascendency.[10] The party, which was renamed the

Conservative Party in the 1830s, returned as a major political force after becoming

home to both paternalistic aristocrats and free market capitalists in an uneasy

alliance.[11] 

Edmund Burke was the private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham and official

pamphleteer to the Rockingham branch of the Whig Party.[12] Together with the

Tories, they were the conservatives in the late 18th century United

Kingdom.[13] Burke's views were a mixture of liberal and conservative, with the crucialcaveat that the meaning of these terms in this time period was markedly different

from popular conceptions of the present day. He supported the American

Revolution but abhorred the violence of the French Revolution. He accepted the

liberal ideals of private property and the economics of Adam Smith, but thought that

economics should be kept subordinate to the conservative social ethic, that

capitalism should be subordinate to the medieval social tradition and that the

business class should be subordinate to aristocracy.[14] He insisted on standards of 

honor derived from the medieval aristocratic tradition, and saw the aristocracy as the

nation's natural leaders.[15] That meant limits on the powers of the Crown, since he

found the institutions of Parliament to be better informed than commissionsappointed by the executive.[16] He favored an established church, but allowed for a

degree of  religious toleration.[17] Burke justified the social order on the basis of 

tradition: tradition represented the wisdom of the species and he valued community

and social harmony over social reforms.[18] 

Edmund Burke (1729 –1797)

In the 19th century, conflict between wealthy businessmen and the aristocracy split

the British conservative movement, with the aristocracy calling for a return to

medieval ideas while the business classes called for laissez-faire capitalism.[19]

 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 3/27

 Although conservatives opposed attempts to allow greater representation of the

middle class in parliament, in 1834 they conceded that electoral reform could not be

reversed and promised to support further reforms so long as they did not erode the

institutions of church and state. These new principles were presented in

theTamworth Manifesto which is considered by historians to be the basic statement

of the beliefs of the new Conservative Party.[20] 

Some conservatives lamented the passing of a pastoral world where the ethos

of  noblesse oblige had promoted respect from the lower classes. They saw

the Anglican Church and the aristocracy as balances against commercial

wealth.[21] They worked toward legislation for improved working conditions and urban

housing.[22] This viewpoint would later be called Tory Democracy.[23] However since

Burke there has always been tension between traditional aristocratic conservatism

and the wealthy business class.[24] 

By the late 19th century, the traditional business supporters of the UK Liberal

Party had joined the Conservatives, making them the party of business andcommerce.[25] Whig history is liberal historiography, written to show the inevitable

progress of mankind. Its opposite is conservative historiography or "Toryism."

English historian  A.J.P. Taylor  explains, "Toryism rests on doubt in human nature; it

distrusts improvement, clings to traditional institutions, prefers the past to the future.

It is a sentiment rather than a principle."[26] 

Germany

Conservative thought developed alongside nationalism in Germany, culminating in

Germany's victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War , the creation of the

unified German Empire in 1871, and the simultaneous rise of  Otto von Bismarck on

the European political stage. Bismarck's "balance of power" model maintained peacein Europe for decades at the end of the 19th century, and his "revolutionary

conservatism" led to significant popular reforms in insurance law, labor, and wages.

These and other policies made socialism seem less desirable to the average

German family, and propelled Bismarck to high renown during his lifetime.

With the rise of  Nazism in 1933, agrarian conservatism faded and was supplanted by

a more command-based economy and forced social integration. Though Adolf Hitler 

succeeded in garnering the support of many German industrialists, prominent

traditionalists openly and secretly opposed his policies of euthanasia, genocide, and

attacks on organized religion, including Claus von Stauffenberg, Dietrich

Bonhoeffer , Henning von Tresckow, Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen, andthe monarchist Carl Friedrich Goerdeler . 

More recently, the work of conservative CDU leader  Helmut Kohl helped bring

about German Reunification, along with the closer integration of Europe in the form

of the Maastricht Treaty. Today, German conservatism is often associated with

Chancellor   Angela Merkel, whose tenure has been marked by attempts to save the

common European currency (EURO) from demise.

United States 

In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the  American Revolution and its

commitment to conserve the rights and liberties of Englishmen. Most European

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 4/27

conservative writers do not accept American conservatism as genuine; they consider 

it to be a variety of liberalism.

Latin Europe

 Another form of conservatism developed in France in parallel to conservatism in

Britain. It was influenced by Counter-Enlightenment works by men such as Josephde Maistre and Louis de Bonald. Latin conservatism was less pragmatic and

more reactionary than the conservatism of Burke.[citation needed ] Many Continental or 

Traditionalist conservatives do not support separation of Church and state, with most

supporting state recognition of and cooperation with the Catholic Church, such as

had existed in France before the Revolution.

Eventually conservatives added patriotism and nationalism to the list of traditional

values they support. German conservatives were the first to embrace nationalism,

which was previously associated with liberalism and the Revolution in France.[28] 

Today, movements that use the name "conservative" have a wide variety of views.

Forms of Conservatism

Liberal Conservatism

Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values

and policies with classical liberal stances.[29]  As these latter two terms have had

different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a

wide variety of meanings. Historically, the term often referred to the combination

of  economic liberalism, which champions laissez-fairemarkets, with the classical

conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religiousvalues. 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 the term liberal conservatism was replaced

with conservatism. 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, such as Italy and Spain, the

terms liberal and conservative may be synonymous. The liberal conservative

tradition in the United States combines the economicindividualism of the classicalliberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of 

the  American conservative tradition, such as in the writings of  Russell Kirk).

 A secondary meaning for the term liberal conservatism that has developed

in Europe is a combination of more modern conservative (less traditionalist) views

with those of  social liberalism. This has developed as an opposition to the

more collectivist views of  socialism. Often this involves stressing what are now

conservative views of free-market economics and belief in individual responsibility,

with social liberal views on defence of  civil rights, environmentalism and support for a

limited welfare state. This philosophy is that of  Swedish Prime Minister  Fredrik

Reinfeldt. In continental Europe, this is sometimes also translatedinto English as social conservatism. 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 5/27

Conservative Liberalism

Conservative liberalism is a variant of  liberalism that combines liberal values and

policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, the right wing of the liberal

movement.[30][31][32] The roots of conservative liberalism are found at the beginning of 

the history of liberalism. Until the two World Wars, in most European countries the

political class was formed by conservative liberals, fromGermany to Italy. Events

after  World War I brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more

conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism.[33] 

Libertarian Conservatism

Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values

and policies with classical liberal stances.[29]  As these latter two terms have had

different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a

wide variety of meanings. Historically, the term often referred to the combination

of  economic liberalism, which champions laissez-fairemarkets, with the classical

conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religiousvalues. 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 the term liberal conservatism was replaced

with conservatism. 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, such as Italy and Spain, the

terms liberal and conservative may be synonymous. The liberal conservative

tradition in the United States combines the economicindividualism of the classicalliberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of 

the  American conservative tradition, such as in the writings of  Russell Kirk).

 A secondary meaning for the term liberal conservatism that has developed

in Europe is a combination of more modern conservative (less traditionalist) views

with those of  social liberalism. This has developed as an opposition to the

more collectivist views of  socialism. Often this involves stressing what are now

conservative views of free-market economics and belief in individual responsibility,

with social liberal views on defence of  civil rights, environmentalism and support for a

limited welfare state. This philosophy is that of  Swedish Prime Minister  Fredrik

Reinfeldt. In continental Europe, this is sometimes also translatedinto English as social conservatism. 

Conservative Liberalism

Conservative liberalism is a variant of  liberalism that combines liberal values and

policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, the right wing of the liberal

movement.[30][31][32] The roots of conservative liberalism are found at the beginning of 

the history of liberalism. Until the two World Wars, in most European countries the

political class was formed by conservative liberals, fromGermany to Italy. Events

after  World War I brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more

conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism.[33] 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 6/27

Libertarian Conservatism

Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies within the United

States and Canada which combine libertarian economic issues with aspects of 

conservatism. Its five main branches

are Constitutionalism, paleolibertarianism, neolibertarianism, small government

conservatism and Christian libertarianism. They generally differ 

from paleoconservatives, in that they are in favor of more personal and economic

freedom. 

 Agorists such as Samuel Edward Konkin III labeled libertarian conservatism right-

libertarianism.[34][35] 

In contrast to paleoconservatives, libertarian conservatives support strict laissez-

faire policies such as free trade, opposition to any national bank and opposition

to business regulations. They are vehemently opposed to environmental

regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic intervention.

Many of them have views in accord to Ludwig von Mises.[citation needed ]However, manyof them oppose abortion, as they see it as a positive liberty and consider abortion to

violate the non-aggression principle because abortion is aggression toward the

unborn.[36] 

Fiscal Conservatism 

Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending

and debt.[37] Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections on the Revolution in France', argued

that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the

burden on the taxpayer:

...[I]t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the

state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the

citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of 

individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a

participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security,

expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a

senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate

except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at

large.Green Conservatism

Green conservatism is a term used to refer to conservatives who have

incorporated green concerns into their  ideology.[38] One of the first uses of the

term green conservatism was by former United States Republican House

Speaker  Newt Gingrich, in a debate on environmental issues with John

Kerry.[39][40]  Around this time, the green conservative movement was sometimes

referred to as the crunchy con movement, a term popularized by National 

Review  magazine and the writings of  Rod Dreher .[41] The group Republicans for 

Environmental Protection seeks to strengthen theRepublican Party's stance on

environmental issues, and supports efforts to conserve natural resources and protecthuman and environmental health.

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 7/27

National and Traditional Conservatism

National conservatism is a political term used primarily in Europe to describe a

variant of conservatism which concentrates more on national interests than standard

conservatism as well as upholding cultural and ethnic identity,[42] while not being

outspokenly nationalist or supporting a far-right approach.[citation needed ] In Europe,

national conservatives are usually euro sceptics.[43][44] 

National conservatism is heavily oriented towards the traditional family and social

stability as well as in favour of limiting immigration. As such, national conservatives

can be distinguished from economic conservatives, for whom free market economic

policies, deregulation and fiscal conservatism are the main priorities. Some

commentators have identified a growing gap between national and economic

conservatism: "most parties of the Right [today] are run by economic conservatives

who, in varying degrees, have marginalized social, cultural, and national

conservatives."[45]National conservatism is also related to traditionalist conservatism. 

Traditionalist conservatism is a political philosophy emphasizing the need for theprinciples of  natural law and transcendent moral

order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, 

and the intersecting spheres of loyalty.[46] Some traditionalists have embraced the

labels "reactionary" and "counterrevolutionary", defying the stigma that has attached

to these terms since the Enlightenment. Having a hierarchical view of society, many

traditionalist conservatives, including a few Americans, defend

the monarchical political structure as the most natural and beneficial social

arrangement.

Cultural and Social Conservatism

Cultural conservatives support the preservation of the heritage of one nation, or of a

shared culture that is not defined by national boundaries.[47] The shared culture may

be as divergent as Western culture or  Chinese culture. In the United States, the

term cultural conservative may imply a conservative position in the culture war . 

Cultural conservatives hold fast to traditional ways of thinking even in the face of 

monumental change. They believe strongly in traditional values and traditional

politics, and often have an urgent sense of nationalism.

Social conservatism is distinct from cultural conservatism, although there are some

overlaps. Social conservatives believe that the government has a role in encouraging

or enforcing what they consider traditional values or behaviors. A social conservativewants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often through civil law or 

regulation. Social change is generally regarded as suspect.

 A second meaning of the term social conservatism developed in the Nordic

countries and continental Europe. There it refers to liberal conservatives supporting

modern European welfare states. 

Social conservatives (in the first meaning of the word) in many countries generally

favor the pro-life position in the abortion controversy and oppose human embryonic

stem cell research (particularly if publicly funded); oppose both eugenics and human

enhancement (trans humanism) while supporting bio conservatism;[48] support a

traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman; view the  nuclear family model as society's foundational unit; oppose expansion of  civil

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 8/27

marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships; 

promote public morality and traditional family values; oppose atheism,[49] especially

militant atheism, secularism and the separation of church and state;[50][51][52] support

the prohibition of  drugs, prostitution, and euthanasia; and support

the censorship of  pornography and what they consider to be obscenity or  indecency. 

Most conservatives in the U.S. support the death penalty. 

Religious Conservatism

Religious conservatives principally seek to apply the teachings of particular religions

to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other 

times by having those teachings influence laws.[53] 

Progressive conservatism

Progressive conservatism incorporates progressive policies alongside conservative

policies. It stresses the importance of a social safety net to deal with poverty, support

of limited redistribution of wealth along with government regulation to regulate

markets in the interests of both consumers and producers.[54] Progressive

conservatism first arose as a distinct ideology in the United Kingdom under Prime

Minister  Benjamin Disraeli's "One Nation" Toryism.[54][55] 

There have been a variety of progressive conservative governments. In the UK, the

Prime Ministers Disraeli, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Winston

Churchill, Harold Macmillan,[56] and present Prime Minister  David Cameron are

progressive conservatives.[57][58] The Catholic Church's Rerum Novarum (1891)

advocates a progressive conservative doctrine known as social Catholicism.[59] In

the United States, the administration of President William Howard Taft was

progressive conservative and he described himself as "a believer in progressive

conservatism"[60] and President Dwight D. Eisenhower  declared himself an advocate

of "progressive conservatism".[61] In Germany, Chancellor  Leo von Caprivi promoted

a progressive conservative agenda called the "New Course".[62] In Canada, a variety

of conservative governments have been progressive conservative, with Canada's

major conservative movement being officially named the Progressive Conservative

Party of Canada from 1942 to 2003.[63] In Canada, the Prime Ministers  Arthur 

Meighen, R.B. Bennett, John Diefenbaker , Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, and Kim

Campbell led progressive conservative federal governments.[63] 

Marxism

Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview and method of socioeconomic

inquiry based upon a materialist interpretation of historical development, 

a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis of class-relations within society

and their application in the analysis and critique of the development of  capitalism. In

the mid-to-late 19th century, the intellectual development of Marxism was pioneered

by two German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxist analyses and

methodologies have influenced multiple political ideologies and social movements

throughout history. Marxism encompasses an economic theory, a sociological

theory, a philosophical method and a revolutionary view of social change.[1] There is

no one definitive Marxist theory; Marxist analysis has been applied to a variety of different subjects and has been modified during the course of its development,

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 9/27

resulting in multiple and sometimes contradictory theories that fall under the rubric of 

Marxism or Marxian analysis.[2] 

Marxism is based on a materialist understanding of societal development, taking as

its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to

provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or  mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social

phenomena — including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and

ideology — arise (or at the least by which they are greatly influenced). These social

relations form the superstructure, for which the economic system forms the base. As

the forces of production (most notably technology) improve, existing forms of social

organization become inefficient and stifle further progress. These inefficiencies

manifest themselves as social contradictions in the form of  class struggle.[3] 

 According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to

intensifying contradictions between highly-productive mechanized and socialized

production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and privateappropriation of the surplus product in the form of  surplus value (profit) by a small

minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes

apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes

intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of this

revolution would be the establishment of socialism - a socioeconomic system based

on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's

contribution, and production organized directly for use. Karl Marx hypothesized that,

as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would

eventually give way to acommunist stage of social development. Communism would

be a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership and the

principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Marxism has developed into different branches and schools of thought. Different

schools place a greater emphasis on certain aspects of  Classical Marxismwhile de-

emphasizing or rejecting other aspects of Marxism, sometimes combining Marxist

analysis with non-Marxian concepts. Some variants of Marxism primarily focus on

one aspect of Marxism as the determining force in social development - such as the

mode of production, class, power-relationships or property ownership - while arguing

other aspects are less important or current research makes them irrelevant. Despite

sharing similar premises, different schools of Marxism might reach contradictory

conclusions from each other .[4] For example, different Marxian economists have

contradictory explanations of economic crisis and different predictions for the

outcome of such crises. Furthermore, different variants of Marxism apply Marxist

analysis to study different aspects of society (e.g.: mass culture, economic crises, 

or Feminism).[5] 

These theoretical differences have led various socialist and communist parties and

political movements to embrace different political strategies for attaining socialism,

advocate different programs and policies. One example of this is the division

between revolutionary socialists and reformists that emerged in the German Social

Democratic Party during the early 20th century.

Marxist understandings of history and of society have been adopted by academics inthe disciplines of  archaeology and anthropology,[6] media studies,[7] political

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 10/27

science, theater , history,sociological theory, art history and art theory, cultural

studies, education, economics, geography, literary criticism, aesthetics, critical

psychology, and philosophy.[8] 

Communism

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary

socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social

order  structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as

a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social

order .[3] This movement, in its Marxist –Leninist interpretations, significantly

influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the

"socialist world" (socialist states ruled by communist parties) and the "western world"

(countries with capitalist economies).[4] 

Marxist theory holds that  pure communism or full communism is a specific stage of 

historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of 

the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing

for  distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated

individuals.[5][6] The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly,

in general political discourse, used interchangeably withsocialism; however, Marxist

theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to

communism. Leninism adds to Marxism the notion of avanguard party to lead the

proletarian revolution and to secure all political power after the revolution for the

working class, for the development of universalclass consciousness and worker 

participation, in a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-

communists oppose the ideas of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and

advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the

abolition of capitalism. There is a very wide range of theories amongst those

particular communists in regards to how to build the types of institutions that would

replace the various economic engines (such as food distribution, education, and

hospitals) as they exist under capitalist systems—or even whether to do so at all.

Some of these communists have specific plans for the types of administrative bodies

that would replace the current ones, while always qualifying that these bodies would

be decentralised and worker-owned, just as they currently are within the activist

movements themselves. Others have no concrete set of post-revolutionary blueprints

at all, claiming instead that they simply trust that the world's workers and poor will

figure out proper modes of distribution and wide-scale production, and also

coordination, entirely on their own, without the need for any structured

"replacements" for capitalist state-based control.[citation needed ] 

In the modern lexicon of what many sociologists and political commentators refer to

as the "political mainstream", communism is often used to refer to the policies of 

communist states, i.e., the ones totally controlled by communist parties, regardless

of the practical content of the actual economic system they may preside over.

Examples of this include the policies of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam where the

economic system incorporates "doi moi", the People's Republic of China (PRC)

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 11/27

where the economic system incorporates "socialist market economy", and the

economic system of the Soviet Union which has been described as "state capitalist".

Social Democracy

Social democracy is a political ideology that considers itself to be a form

of  reformist democratic socialism.[1] It advocates for a peaceful, evolutionary

transition of the economy to socialism through progressive social reform

of  capitalism.[2][3] It asserts that the only acceptable constitutional form of government

is representative democracy under the rule of law.[4] It promotes extending

democratic decision-making beyond political democracy to includeeconomic

democracy to guarantee employees and other economic stakeholders sufficient

rights of  co-determination.[4] Common social democratic policies include advocacy of 

universal social rights to attain universally accessible public services such

as education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services including child

care and care for the elderly.[5] Social democracy is connected with the tradeunion labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers.[6] Most

social democratic parties are affiliated with the Socialist International.[1] 

Social democracy originated in 19th century Germany from the influence of both

the internationalist revolutionary socialism and doctrine of  communismadvanced

by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels; and the reformist socialism of  Ferdinand

Lassalle.[7] The Marxists and Lassallians were in rivalry over political influence in the

movement until 1868-1869 when Marxism became the official basis of Germany's

Social Democratic and Labour Party.[8] In the Hague Congress of 1872, Marx

modified his stance on revolution by declaring that there were countries with

democratic institutions where reformist measures could be advanced, saying that"workers may achieve their aims by peaceful means, But this is not true of all

countries".[9] Marx stressed his support for the Paris Commune due to its

representative democracy based on universal suffrage.[9] 

 A major non-Marxian influence on social democracy came from the British Fabian

Society founded in 1884 by Frank Podmore that emphasized the need for a

gradualist evolutionary and reformist approach to the achievement of 

socialism.[10] Fabianism is believed to have strongly

influenced revisionist Marxist Eduard Bernstein who adopted its evolutionary

socialism.[10] Bernstein rejected many major tenets promoted by Marx and Engels

that he viewed as inaccurate or obsolete.[11][12] He opposed classical and orthodox

Marxisms' assumption of the necessity of  socialist revolution and class conflict, 

claiming that socialism could be achieved through evolutionary means

via representative democracy and cooperation between people regardless of 

class.[13] He claimed that a mixed economy of  public, cooperative and private

enterprise would be necessary for a long period of time before private enterprises

would evolve of their own accord into cooperative enterprise.[13][14] 

Social democracy in the 1930s began to transition away from association with

Marxism towards liberal socialism, particularly through the influence of figures

like Carlo Rosselli who sought to disassociate socialism from the legacy of Marx's

communism.[15] This also was the result of the alliance of liberal and social

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 12/27

democratic movements in popular front movements in the 1930s, that

opposed fascism.[15] Such views were inspired by Bernstein's description of socialism

as being an "organized liberalism", that completely rejected Marx's hostility to

liberalism.[11] By the post-World War II period, most social democrats in Europe had

abandoned their ideological connection to Marxism.[16] The Third Way is a

controversial major faction in social democratic parties that developed in the 1990s,that has claimed to be social democratic though others have identified it as being

effectively a neoliberal movement and not social democratic.[17]  Another substantial

contemporary faction in the social democratic movement are proponents of  market

socialism.[18] 

Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism is a variant of  socialism that rejects centralized, elitist,

or  authoritarian methods of transitioning from capitalism to socialism in favor of 

grassroots-level movements aiming for the immediate creation of 

decentralized economic democracy. The term is often used by socialists who favor either electoral transition to socialism

or a spontaneous mass revolution from below to distinguish themselves from

authoritarian socialists that call for a single-party state, most notably to contrast

with Marxist-Leninists and Maoists. 

Democratic socialists endorse a post-capitalist, socialist economic system as an

alternative to capitalism. Some democratic socialists advocate market

socialism based on workplace self-management, while others support a non-market

system based on decentralized-participatory planning. Many contemporary

democratic socialists reject centralized planning as a basis for democratic

socialism.[1] 

Definition

Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically

different definitions for the term. Some definitions simply refer to all forms

of socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather 

than a revolutionary one.[2] Often, this definition is invoked to distinguish democratic

socialism from Stalinist socialism, as in Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A

Global Survey ,[3] Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The

 Attlee Years, 1945-1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new 

appraisal or  Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism.But for those who use the term in this way, the scope of the term "socialism" itself 

can be very vague, and include proposals compatible with capitalism. For example,

Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at

the University of Birmingham, writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to

refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee government (a strong welfare state, fiscal

redistribution, some nationalisation) and "revisionist democratic socialism," as

developed by  Anthony Crosland and Harold Wilson: 

The most influential revisionist Labour thinker, Anthony Crosland..., contended that a

more "benevolent" form of capitalism had emerged since the [Second World War] ... According to Crosland, it was now possible to achieve greater equality in society

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 13/27

without the need for "fundamental" economic transformation. For Crosland, a more

meaningful form of equality could be achieved if the growth dividend derived from

effective management of the economy was invested in "pro-poor" public services

rather than through fiscal redistribution.[4] 

Indeed, some proponents of  market socialism see the latter as a form of democratic

socialism.[5] 

 A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter 's argument, set out

in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941), that liberal democracies were

evolving from "liberal capitalism" into democratic socialism, with the growth

of  workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[6] 

In contrast, other definitions of democratic socialism sharply distinguish it from social

democracy.[7] For example, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism, along

with libertarian socialism, as a form of  anti-authoritarian "socialism from below" 

(using the term popularised by Hal Draper ), in contrast to Stalinism and socialdemocracy, variants of  authoritarian state socialism. For Hain, this

democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than

the revolutionary/reformist divide.[8] In this definition, it is the active participation of 

the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy

that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation and economic

planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of 

state socialism. A similar, but more complex, argument is made by Nicos

Poulantzas.[9] Draper himself uses the term "revolutionary-democratic socialism" as a

type of  socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism. He writes: "the

leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democraticSocialism-from-Below [was] Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and

hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers

invented for her a 'theory of spontaneity'".[10] Similarly, about Eugene Debs, he

writes: "'Debsian socialism' evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the

people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic

socialism."[11] 

Other definitions fall between the first and second set, seeing democratic socialism

as a specific political tradition closely related to and overlapping with social

democracy. For example, Bogdan Denitch, in Democratic Socialism, defines it as

proposing a radical reorganization of the socio-economic order through publicownership, workers' control of the labor process and redistributive tax

policies.[12] Robert G. Picard similarly describes a democratic socialist tradition of 

thought including Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Evan Durbin and Michael

Harrington.[13] 

The term democratic socialism can be used in a third way, to refer to a version of 

the Soviet model that was reformed in a democratic way. For example,  Mikhail

Gorbachev described perestroikaas building a "new, humane and democratic

socialism."[14] Consequently, some former  Communist parties have rebranded

themselves as democratic socialist, as with the Party of Democratic Socialism in

Germany.

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 14/27

Justification of democratic socialism can be found in the works of social philosophers

like Charles Taylor  and  Axel Honneth, among others. Honneth has put forward the

view that political and economic ideologies have a social basis, that is, they originate

from intersubjective communication between members of a society.[15] Honneth

criticises the liberal state because it assumes that principles of  individual

liberty and private property are ahistorical and abstract, when, in fact, they evolvedfrom a specific social discourse on human activity. Contra liberal individualism, 

Honneth has emphasised the inter-subjective dependence between humans; that is,

our well-being depends on recognising others and being recognised by them.

Democratic socialism, with its emphasis on social collectivism, could be seen as a

way of safeguarding this dependency.

In recent years, some[who?] have suggested replacing "democratic" with

"participatory" upon seeing the reduction of the former to parliamentarism.

Anarchism

Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be

undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[1][2] However, others argue that while anti-

statism is central, it is inadequate to define anarchism.[3] Therefore they argue,

alternatively, that anarchism entails opposing authority or  hierarchical organization in

the conduct of human relations, including, but not only, the state

system.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists",

advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[5][11][12] voluntary

associations.[13][14] 

 As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single

particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[15] There are many

types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually

exclusive.[16]  Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting

anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2] Strains of anarchism

have often been divided into the categories of  social and individualist anarchism or 

similar dual classifications.[17][18]  Anarchism is often considered a radical left-

wing ideology,[19][20] and much of  anarchist economics and anarchist legal

philosophy reflect anti-autoritarian

interpretations of  communism,collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism or  participatory

economics.[21] 

 Anarchism as a mass social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in

popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement has been

represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist

anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon[22] which nevertheless did have an

impact on the bigger currents[23] and individualists have also participated in large

anarchist organizations.[24][25] Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, 

supporting self-defense or  non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[26][27] while others have

supported the use of some coercive measures, including

violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.[28] 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 15/27

Feminism

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining,

establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for 

women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in

education and employment.French philosopher  Charles Fourier  is credited with having originated the word

"feminism" in 1837.[3] The words "feminism" and "feminist" first appeared

in France and the Netherlands in 1872,[4] Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United

States in 1910.,[5][6] and the Oxford English Dictionary  lists 1894 as the year of the

first appearance of "feminist" and 1895 for "feminism".[7] Today the Oxford English

Dictionary defines afeminist as "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality

of women".[8] 

Feminist theory, which emerged from these feminist movements, aims to understand

the nature of gender inequality by examining women's social roles and lived

experience; it has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond toissues such as the social construction of sex and gender .[9][10] Some of the earlier 

forms of feminism have been criticized for taking into account only white, middle-

class, educated perspectives. This led to the creation of ethnically specific or 

multiculturalist forms of feminism.[11] 

Feminist activists campaign for  women's rights  – such as in contract law, property,

and voting  – while also promoting bodily integrity, autonomy, and reproductive

rights for women. Feminist campaigns have changed societies, particularly in the

West, by achieving women's suffrage, gender neutrality in English, equal pay for 

women, reproductive rights for women (including access

to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and ownproperty.

[12][13] Feminists have worked to protect women and girls from domestic

violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.[14][15][16] They have also advocated

for workplace rights, including maternity leave, and against forms of  discrimination

against women.[12][13][17] Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because

feminism seeks gender equality, bell hooks, among other feminists, has argued

that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed

by sexism and gender roles.[18] 

Ecologism

1. Concern for the environment and its protection.2. Theory emphasizing the primary influence of the environment on the

development of groups or individuals. It stresses the importance of the physical,

biological, psychological, or cultural environment as a factor influencing the structure

or behaviour of animals, including humans. In politics, this has given rise in many

countries to Green Parties, which aim to ―Preserve the planet and its people".

Environmentalism is an ideology [1] [2] [3] , broad social movement and philosophy,

concerned with preserving the environment and improving the health of the

environment, especially to the extent that this health seeks to incorporate theconcerns of non-human elements. Environmentalism supports the preservation,

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 16/27

restoration and / or improvement of the natural environment, and can be called a

movement to control pollution . [4] For this reason, concepts such as land ethics,

environmental ethics, biodiversity, ecology and outlines biopfilia hypothesis

predominant. At its core, environmentalism is an attempt to balance relations

between people and the different natural systems that depend so that all

components are given an appropriate degree of respect. The exact nature of thisbalance is controversial and there are various ways to environmental issues and how

they should be expressed in practice. Environmentalism and environmental concerns

are often represented by green, [5] but this association has been appropriated by the

marketing industries and is a key tactic of greenwashing. Environmentalism is

opposed to anti-environmentalism, which is skeptical about many environmental

perspectives.

Nationalism

Nationalism is a belief system, creed or political ideology that involves a strong

identification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two major perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is

the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient

and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping

based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes

nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of 

modern society, in order to exist.[1] There are various definitions for what constitutes

a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a

belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or 

identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise

the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[2] 

The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development, has commonly

been the result of a response by an influential group or groups that is unsatisfied with

traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the

experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of  anomie that

nationalists seek to resolve.[3] This anomie results in a society or societies

reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing

elements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community.[3] This

development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of 

resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially

foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.[3] 

National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are

commonly considered highly important symbols of the national community. Deep

emotions are aroused.[4][5][6][7] 

History

In Europe before the development of nationalism, people were generally loyal to a

city or to a particular leader rather than to their nation.

With the emergence of a public sphere and integrated economy in the 18th century,

a broader sense of identification with one's country began to permeate society. In

England, the early emergence of a patriotic nationalism can be traced to the period1740-1790 and was spurred on by many of the writers and leading intellectuals of 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 17/27

the day.[8] Many symbols of national identity became widespread, such as the  Union

Jack being increasingly adopted as a national flag, the composition of  patriotic

songs such as Rule, Britannia! and the creation of  John Bull as the personification of 

Britain by John Arbuthnot. 

The movement intensified and became overtly political with the late-18thcentury  American Revolution and French Revolution; specifically the ultra-nationalist

party in France during the French Revolution.[9][10][11] 

The term nationalism was coined by Johann Gottfried Herder  (nationalismus) during

the late 1770s.[12] Precisely where and when nationalism emerged is difficult to

determine, but its development is closely related to that of the modern state and the

push for  popular sovereignty that surfaced with the French Revolution and

the  American Revolution in the late 18th century and culminated with the

ethnic/national revolutions of Europe, for instance the Greek War of 

Independence.[9] Since that time, nationalism has become one of the most significant

political and social forces in history, perhaps most notably as a major influence or postulate of  World War I and especially World War II. Fascism is a form of 

authoritarian nationalism which stresses absolute loyalty and obedience to the state,

whose purpose is to serve the interests of its nation alone.[13][14][15][16] Benedict

 Anderson argued that, "Print language is what invents nationalism, not a particular 

language per se".[17] 

Causes

There are two major bodies of thought on the causes of nationalism, one is

the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that

requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist; the other is

the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancientand perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping

based on an affinity of birth.[1] Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics says that both

the primordialist and modernist conception of nationalism both involve an

acceptance of three levels of common interest of individuals or groups in national

identity. The first level is that at an inter-group level, humans respond to competition

or conflict by organizing into groups to either attack other groups or defend their 

group from hostile groups.[18] The second level is the intragroup level, individuals

gain advantage through cooperation with others in securing collective goods that are

not accessible through individual effort alone.[18] The third level is the individual level,

where self-interested concerns over personal fitness by individuals either consciously or subconsciously motivate the creation of group formation as a means

of security.[18] Leadership groups' or elites' behaviour that involves efforts to advance

their own fitness when they are involved in the mobilization of an ethnic or national

group is crucial in the development of the culture of that group.[18] 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 18/27

Primordialist Interpretation

Beginning in 1821, the Greek War of Independence began as a rebellion by Greeknationalists against the ruling Ottoman Empire.

The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary theory.[19] The evolutionary

theory of nationalism perceives nationalism to be the result of the evolution of human

beings into identifying with groups, such as ethnic groups, or other groups that form

the foundation of a nation.[19] Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics describes the

primordial explanation of the origin of ethnic and national groups as recognizing

group attachments that are thought to be unique, emotional, intense, and durable

because they are based upon kinship and promoted along lines of common

ancestry.[20] 

The primordialist evolutionary view of nationalism has its origins in the evolutionary

theories of  Charles Darwin that were later substantially elaborated byJohn

Tooby and Leda Cosmides.[21] Central to evolutionary theory is that all biological

organisms under changes in their anatomical features and their characteristic

behaviour patterns.[21] Darwin's theory of  natural selection as a mechanism of 

evolutionary change of organisms is utilized to describe the development of human

societies and particularly the development of mental and physical traits of members

of such societies.[22] 

In addition to evolutionary development of mental and physical traits, Darwin and

other evolutionary theorists emphasize the influence of the types of environmentupon behaviour .[23] First of all there are ancestral environments that are typically

long-term and stable forms of situations that influence mental development of 

individuals or groups gained either biologically through birth or learned from family or 

relatives, that cause the emphasis of certain mental behaviours that are developed

due to their necessity the ancestral environment .[23] In national group settings, these

ancestral environments can result in psychological triggers in the minds of 

individuals within a group, such as responding positively to patriotic cues.[23] There

are immediate environments that are those situations that confront an individual or 

group at a given point and activate certain mental responses.[23] In the case of a

national group, the example of seeing the mobilization of a foreign military force on

the nation's borders may provoke members of a national group to unify and mobilize

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 19/27

themselves in response.[23] There are proximate environments where individuals

identify nonimmediate real or imagined situations in combination with immediate

situations that make individuals confront a common situation of both subjective and

objective components that affect their decisions.[24]  As such proximate environments

cause people make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated

situations.[24] In the context of the politics of nations and nationalism, a politicalleader may adopt an international treaty not out of a benevolent stance but in the

believe that such a treaty will either benefit their nation or will increase the prestige of 

their nation.[24] The proximate environment plays a role in the politics of nations that

are angry with their circumstances, an individual or group that becomes angry in

response to feelings that they are being exploited usually results in efforts to

accommodate them, while being passive results in them being ignored.[24] Nations

that are angry with circumstances imposed on them by others are affected by the

proximate environment that shapes the nationalism of such nations.[24] 

Pierre van den Berghe in The Ethnic Phenomenon (1981) emphasizes the role of 

ethnicity and kinship involving family biological ties to members of an ethnic group asbeing an important element of national identity.[25] Van den Berghe states the sense

of family attachments among related people as creating durable, intense, emotional,

and cooperative attachments, that he claims are utilized within ethnic groups.[25] Van

den Berghe identifies genetic-relatedness as being a basis for the durable

attachments of family groups, as genetic ties cannot be removed and they are

passed on from generation to generation.[25] Van den Berge identifies common

descent as the basis for the establishment of boundaries of ethnic groups, as most

people to not join ethnic groups but are born into them.[25] Berghe notes that this

kinship group affiliation and solidarity does not require actual relatedness but can

include imagined relatedness that may not be biologically accurate.[20]

 Berghe notesthat feelings of ethnic solidarity usually arise in small and compact groups whereas

there is less solidarity in large and dispersed groups.[26] 

There are functionalist interpretations of the primordialist evolutionary theory. The

functionalists claim that ethnic and national groups are founded upon individuals'

concerns over distribution of resources acquired through individual and collective

action.[27] This is resolved by the formation of a clan group that defines who is

accepted within the group and defines the boundaries within which the resources will

be distributed.[27] This functionalist interpretation does not require genetic-

relatedness, and identifies a variety of reasons for ethnic or national group

formation.[27] The first reason is that such groups may extend group identity andcooperation beyond the limited of family and kinship out of reciprocal altruism, in the

belief that helping other individuals will produce an advantageous situation for both

the sender and receiver of that help, this tendency has been noted in studies

by Robert Axelrod that are summarized in his book The Evolution of 

Cooperation(1984).[27] The second reason is that such groups may be formed as a

means of defense to insure survival, fears by one group of a hostile group

threatening them can increase solidarity amongst that group, R. Paul

Shaw and Yuwa Wong in their book The Genetic Seeds of Warfare (1989) identify

this as the foundation of  xenophobia that they identify as originating in hunter 

gatherer societies.[28]

 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 20/27

Modernist Interpretation

The modernist interpretation of nationalism and nation-building perceives that

nationalism arises and flourishes in modern societies described as being associated

with having: an industrial economy capable of self-sustainability of the society, a

central supreme authority capable of maintaining authority and unity, and a

centralized language or small group of centralized languages understood by a

community of people.[29] Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern

societies, while traditional societies typically: lack a modern industrial self-

sustainable economy, have divided authorities, have multiple languages resulting in

many people being unable to communicate with each other .[29] 

Karl Marx wrote about the creation of nations as requiring a bourgeois revolution and

an industrial economy.[30] Marx applied the modern versus traditional parallel to

British colonial rule in Indiathat Marx saw in positive terms as he claimed that British

colonial rule was developing India, bringing India out of its "rural idiocy" of its

"feudalism".

[29]

 However Marx's theories at the time of his writing had little impact onacademic thinking on the development of nation states.[29] 

Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation of nations and

nationalism include: Carlton Joseph Huntley Hayes, Henry Maine, Ferdinand

Tönnies, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber , and Talcott Parsons.[29] 

Henry Maine in his analysis of the historical changes and development of human

societies noted the key distinction between traditional societies defined as "status"

societies based on family association and functionally diffuse roles for individuals;

and modern societies defined as "contract" societies where social relations are

determined by rational contracts pursued by individuals to advance their 

interests.[31] Maine saw the development of societies as moving away from traditionalstatus societies to modern contract societies.[31] 

Ferdinand Tönnies in his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft  (1887) defined a

gemeinschaft (community) as being based on emotional attachments as attributed

with traditional societies, while defining a gessellschaft (society) as an impersonal

societies that are modern.[31] While he recognized the advantages of modern

societies he also criticized them for their cold and impersonal nature that

caused alienation while praising the intimacy of traditional communities.[31] 

Emile Durkheim expanded upon Tönnies' recognition of alienation, and defined the

differences between traditional and modern societies as being between societiesbased upon "mechanical solidarity" versus societies based on "organic

solidarity".[31] Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit,

and repression that was necessary to maintain shared views.[31]Durkheim identified

organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a division

of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation.[31] Durkheim claimed

that social integration in traditional society required authoritarian culture involving

acceptance of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society bases

integration on the mutual benefits of the division of labour, but noted that the

impersonal character of modern urban life caused alienation and feelings

of  anomie.[31] 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 21/27

Max Weber claimed the change that developed modern society and nations is the

result of the rise of a charismatic leader to power in a society who creates a new

tradition or a rational-legal system that establishes the supreme authority of the

state.[31] Weber's conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of 

many nationalist governments.[31] 

Fascism

Fascism (pron.: /ˈfæ ʃɪzəm/) is a form

of  radical authoritarian nationalism.[1][2] Fascists seek to unify their  nation through

a totalitarian state that seeks themass mobilization of the national

community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the

nation on fascist principles.[5] Fascism views political

violence, war  and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation, spirit and

vitality.[3][6][7][8] It asserts that claimed superior nations and races that need living

space should displace claimed weak and inferior nations and races.[9] 

Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from Marxist socialism but applied themto what it saw as the more significant conflict between nations and races rather 

than class conflict, and focuses on ending the divisions between classes within the

nation and securing national solidarity.[10] It advocates a mixed economy; the

principal economic goal of fascism is to achieve autarky to secure national self-

sufficiency and independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic

policies.[11] It promotes regulated private enterprise and private property contingent

whenever beneficial to the nation and state enterprise and state property where

private enterprise and private property is unable to meet the nation's

needs.[11] Fascism promotes such economics as part of what is sometimes called

a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism.[12]

 Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists, who

combined elements of  left-wing politics with more typically right-

wingpositions,[13][14] in opposition to mainstream socialism, communism, democracy

and, in some cases, traditional right-wing conservatism. Although fascism is usually

placed on the far right on the traditional left-right spectrum, fascists themselves and

some commentators have argued that the description is inadequate.[15][16] Following

the Second World War , few parties openly describe themselves as fascist and the

term is more usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The term neo-

fascist or  post-fascist is sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the

far right with ideological similarities to, or roots in, 20th century fascist movementsrespectively.

Etymology

The term fascismo is derived from the Latin word fasces. The fasces, which

consisted of a bundle of rods that were tied around an axe, was an ancient

Roman symbol of the authority of the civicmagistrate. They were carried by

his lictors and could be used for  corporal and capital punishment at his

command.[17][18] The word fascismo also relates to political organizations in Italy

known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or  syndicates. 

The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity : a single rod is easilybroken, while the bundle is difficult to break.[19] Similar symbols were developed by

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 22/27

different fascist movements. For example the Falange symbol is five arrows joined

together by a yoke.[20] 

Islamic Fundamentalists

Islamic fundamentalism ( Arabic: usul , the "fundamentals") is the group of religious

ideologies seen as advocating a return to the "fundamentals" of  Islam: the Quran and the Sunnah. Definitions of Islamic fundamentalism vary. It is deemed

problematic by those who suggest that Islamic belief requires all Muslims to be

fundamentalists,[1] and by others as a term used by outsiders to describe perceived

trends within Islam.[2] Exemplary figures of Islamic fundamentalism who are also

termed Islamists are Sayyid Qutb, Ruhollah Khomeini,  Abul Ala Mawdudi, and Israr 

 Ahmad.[3] The1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran is seen by Western scholars as a

political success of Islamic fundamentalism.

Definitions

 According to academic John Esposito, one of the most defining features of Islamicfundamentalism is belief in the "reopening" of the gates of  ijtihad .[4] Graham

Fuller  describes Islamic fundamentalism not as distinct from Islamism but as a

subset, "the most conservative element among Islamists." Its "strictest form" includes

"Wahhabism, sometimes also referred to assalafiyya. ... For fundamentalists the law

is the most essential component of Islam, leading to an overwhelming emphasis

upon  jurisprudence, usually narrowly conceived."[5]  Another American observer,

Robert Pelletreau, Jr., assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, believes it

the other way around, Islamism being the subset of Muslims "with political goals ...

within" the "broader fundamentalist revival".[6] Still another, Martin Kramer , sees little

difference between the two terms: "To all intents and purposes, Islamic

fundamentalism and Islamism have become synonyms in contemporary Americanusage."

[7] 

 American historian Ira Lapidus calls Islamic fundamentalism "an umbrella

designation for a very wide variety of movements, some intolerant and exclusivist,

some pluralistic; some favourable to science, some anti-scientific; some primarily

devotional and some primarily political; some democratic, some authoritarian; some

pacific, some violent."[8] He distinguishes between mainstream Islamists and

Fundamentalists, saying a fundamentalist is "a political individual" in search of a

"more original Islam," while the Islamist is pursuing a political agenda.

 Author  Olivier Roy distinguishes between fundamentalists (or neo-fundamentalists)and Islamists in describing fundamentalists as more passionate in their opposition to

the perceived "corrupting influence of Western culture," avoiding Western dress,

"neckties, laughter, the use of Western forms of salutation, handshakes, applause."

While Islamists like[9] 

Maududi didn't hesitate to attend Hindu ceremonies. Khomeini never proposed the

status of dhimmi (protected) for Iranian Christians or Jews, as provided for in the

sharia: the Armenians in Iran have remained Iranian citizens, are required to perform

military service and to pay the same taxes as Muslims, and have the right to vote

(with separate electoral colleges). Similarly, the Afghan Jamaat, in its statutes, has

declared it legal in the eyes of Islam to employ non-Muslims as experts.

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 23/27

—Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam 

Other distinctions are in

  Politics and economics. Islamists often talk of "revolution" and believe "that the

society will be Islamized only through social and political action: it is necessary toleave the mosque ..." Fundamentalists are uninterested in revolution, less

interested in "modernity or by Western models in politics or economics," and less

willing to associate with non-Muslims.[10] 

  Sharia. While both Islamists and fundamentalists are committed to implementing

Sharia law, Islamists "tend to consider it more a project than a corpus."[11] 

  Issue of women. "Islamists generally tend to favour the education of women and

their participation in social and political life: the Islamist woman militates, studies,

and has the right to work, but in a chador . Islamist groups include women's

associations." While the fundamentalist preaches for women to return to the

home, Islamism believes it is sufficient that "the sexes be separated in public." 

[12]

 

Controversy

The term Islamic fundamentalism has been criticized by Bernard Lewis, Khaled Abou

El Fadl, Eli Berman, John Esposito, among others. Many have proposed substituting

another term, such as "puritanical", "Islamic revivalism" or "activism", and "Radical

Islam".

Lewis, a leading historian of Islam, believes that although "the use of this term is

established and must be accepted" it remains unfortunate and can be misleading.

"Fundamentalist" is a Christian term. It seems to have come into use in the early

years of last century, and denotes certain Protestant churches and organizations,

more particularly those that maintain the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the

Bible. In this they oppose the liberal and modernist theologians, who tend to a more

critical, historical view of Scripture. Among Muslim theologians there is as yet no

such liberal or modernist approach to the Qur'an, and all Muslims, in their attitude to

the text of the Qur'an, are in principle at least fundamentalists. Where the so-called

Muslim fundamentalists differ from other Muslims and indeed from Christian

fundamentalists is in their scholasticism and their legalism. They base themselves

not only on the Qur'an, but also on the Traditions of the Prophet, and on the corpus

of transmitted theological and legal learning.[13] 

John Esposito has attacked the term for its association "with political activism,

extremism, fanaticism, terrorism, and anti-Americanism," saying "I prefer to speak of 

Islamic revivalism and Islamic activism."[14] 

Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, a critic of those called Islamic Fundamentalists, also

finds fault with the term because

"many liberal, progressive, or moderate Muslims would describe themselves as

usulis, or fundamentalist, without thinking that this carries a negative connotation. In

the Islamic context, it makes much more sense to describe the fanatical reductionism

and narrow-minded literalism of some groups as puritanical (a term that in the Westinvokes a particular historical experience ..." [15] 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 24/27

Eli Berman argues that "Radical Islam" is a better term for many post-1920s

movements starting with the Muslim Brotherhood, because these movements are

seen to practice "unprecedented extremism", thus not qualifying as return to historic

fundamentals.[16] 

In contrast, American author Anthony J. Dennis accepts the widespread usage andrelevance of the term and calls Islamic fundamentalism "more than a religion today, it

is a worldwide revolutionary movement." He notes the intertwining of social, religious

and political goals found within the movement and states that Islamic

fundamentalism "deserves to be seriously studied and debated from a secular 

perspective as a revolutionary ideology."[17] 

 At least two Muslim academics, Syrian philosopher  Sadiq Jalal al-Azm and Egyptian

philosopher  Hassan Hanafi, have defended the use of the phrase. Surveying the

doctrines of the new Islamic movements, Al-Azm found them to consist of "an

immediate return to Islamic ‘basics' and ‘fundamentals.' .... It seems to me quite

reasonable that calling these Islamic movements ‘Fundamentalist' (and in the strongsense of the term) is adequate, accurate, and correct."[18] 

Hassan Hanafi reached the same conclusion: "It is difficult to find a more appropriate

term than the one recently used in the West, ‘fundamentalism,' to cover the meaning

of what we name Islamic awakening or revival."[19]

Secularism

Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons

mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. 

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule andteachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon

the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also separation of 

church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human

activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious

influence.[1] (See also public reason.) Some scholars are now arguing that the very

idea of secularism will change.[2] 

Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such

as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus; medieval Muslim polymaths such asIbn

Rushd; Enlightenment thinkers such as Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch

Spinoza, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; andmore recent freethinkers, agnostics, and atheists such as Robert

Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell. 

The purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely. In

European laicism, it has been argued that secularism is a movement toward

modernization, and away from traditional religious values (also known

as secularization). This type of secularism, on a social or philosophical level, has

often occurred while maintaining an official state church or other state support of 

religion. In the United States, some argue that state secularism has served to a

greater extent to protect religion and the religious from governmental interference,

while secularism on a social level is less prevalent.[3][4] Within countries as well,differing political movements support secularism for varying reasons.[5]

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 25/27

 

Humanitarianism

In its most general form, humanitarianism is an ethic of kindness, benevolence and

sympathy extended universally and impartially to all human beings. Humanitarianism

has been an evolving concept historically but universality is a common element in its

evolution. No distinction is to be made in the face of  suffering or abuse on grounds of 

gender, sexual orientation, tribe, caste, age, religion, or nationality.

Humanitarianism can also be described as the acceptance of every human being for 

plainly just being another human, ignoring and abolishing biased social views,

prejudice, and racism in the process, if utilized individually as a practiced viewpoint,

or mind-set

Internationalism

Internationalism may refer to:

  Multilateralism (International relations), multiple countries working in concert on a

given issue

  Internationalism (politics), a political movement that advocates a greater 

economic and political cooperation among nations

  Internationalism, a current within the socialist movement opposed to World War I

  Cosmopolitanism, the view that all human ethnic groups belong to a single

community based on a shared morality as opposed to communitarian-ism,

patriotism and nationalism

  Internationalism (linguistics), the groups of words called internationalisms

  Proletarian internationalism, the Marxist view of internationalism

  Internationalism (US), the United States political party

  Internationalism (Venezuela), the Venezuelan political party

International

International mostly means something (a company, language or  organization) 

involving more than one country. The term international as a word means

involvement of, interaction between or encompassing more than one nation, or 

generally beyond national boundaries. For example, international law, which is

applied by more than one country and usually everywhere on Earth, andinternational

language which is a language spoken by residents of more than one country.

In  American English, "International" is also commonly used as a euphemism for 

"foreign" or even "foreigner."[1][2] 

Origin of the word

The term international was coined by the utilitarian philosopher  Jeremy Bentham in

his Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation, which was printed for 

publication in 1780 and published in 1789. Bentham wrote: "The word international , it

must be acknowledged, is a new one; though, it is hoped, sufficiently analogous and

intelligible. It is calculated to express, in a more significant way, the branch of lawwhich goes commonly under the name of the law of nations.[3] The word was

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 26/27

adopted in French in 1801.[4] Thomas Erskine Holland noted in his article on

Bentham in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that "Many of Bentham's

phrases, such as 'international,' 'utilitarian,' 'codification,' are valuable additions to

our language; but the majority of them, especially those of Greek derivation, have

taken no root in it."

Meaning in particular field

  In team sports, "international" is a match between two national teams, or two

players capped by a national team.

  In politics, "The International" may refer to a political international. 

  In linguistics, an international language is one spoken by the people of more than

one nation, usually by many. Also called world

language. English, Spanish, French and  Arabic are considered to be world

languages.[5] 

  In interlinguistics, international often has to do with languages rather than nations

themselves. An "international word" is one that occurs in more than one

language. These words are collected from widely spoken source or control

languages, and often used to establish language systems that people can use to

communicate internationally, and sometimes for other purposes such as to learn

other languages more quickly. The vocabulary of  Interlingua has a particularly

wide range, because the control languages of Interlingua were selected to give

its words and affixes their maximum geographic scope.[6] In part, the

language Ido is also a product of interlinguistic research.

  In arts, an international art movement is an art movement with artists from more

than one country, usually by many. Some international art movements

are Letterist International, Situationist International, Stuckism International. 

"International" is not the same as "global"; the latter implies "one world" as a single

unit, while "international" recognizes the differences between different places.

Nationalism

Nationalism is a belief system, creed or political ideology that involves a strongidentification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two major 

perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is

the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient

and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping

based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes

nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of 

modern society, in order to exist.[1] There are various definitions for what constitutes

a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a

belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or 

identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprisethe right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[2] 

7/28/2019 Great Ideologies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-ideologies 27/27

The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development, has commonly

been the result of a response by an influential group or groups that is unsatisfied with

traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the

experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of  anomie that

nationalists seek to resolve.[3] This anomie results in a society or societies

reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removingelements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community.[3] This

development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of 

resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially

foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.[3] 

National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are

commonly considered highly important symbols of the national community.[4][5][6][7] 

Secularism

Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons

mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. 

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and

teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon

the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also separation of 

church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human

activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious

influence.[1] (See also public reason.) Some scholars are now arguing that the very

idea of secularism will change.[2] 

Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers suchas Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus; medieval Muslim polymaths such asIbn

Rushd; Enlightenment thinkers such as Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch

Spinoza, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and

more recent freethinkers, agnostics, and atheists such as Robert

Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell. 

The purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely. In

European laicism, it has been argued that secularism is a movement

towardmodernization, and away from traditional religious values (also known

as secularization). This type of secularism, on a social or philosophical level, has

often occurred while maintaining an official state church or other state support of religion. In the United States, some argue that state secularism has served to a

greater extent to protect religion and the religious from governmental interference,

while secularism on a social level is less prevalent.[3][4] Within countries as well,

differing political movements support secularism for varying reasons.[5]