Talk:List of political ideologies
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Why isn't Capitalism on the colour bar?
- Capitalism is an economic ideology, not a political ideology. Capitalism is, however, on this bar. VolatileChemical 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Bold textThe entire article is based on teh assumption that the major contradiction in politics would go along the authoritarianism-individualism axis. That is highly biased. The author of the article know very well that it is considered smearing to place marxists in the same category as fascists. --18.104.22.168 16:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Please read the article again. Marxism is not in the same category as fascists. Electionworld 06:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have two questions: (1) What is being disputed on this article? I can't find mentions of the NPOV dispute anywhere... (2) National socialism is just a disambig page pointing to various groups that called themselves "national socialists", some of which had nothing to do with the nazis (or with each other). So, should that disambig page be listed here? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the new categorization. It doesn't seem to be an improvement and in no way communism can be considered as a variant of liberal. These are contradictory. Electionworld 22:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to revert your revert because you failed to explain how the new categorization is not an improvement, seemingly resting this decision solely on your particular bugaboo regarding communism. It is a clear improvement, because it divides the political world with more categories and more precision, dividing the spectrum of individualism and community (collectivity) into economic and cultural components. This is better. Instead of just the misleading left-right axis or just the communitarian-individualism axis, it uses BOTH. It can also help clarify the difference between European and American conservatism and liberalism (American following the labels shown and European (I think) correlating more to "cultural right" (communitarianism and conservatism) and "cultural left" (liberalism and libertarianism) shown on the diagram). If you question this, please raise the issue here rather than doing a massive revert. I am open to changing particulars, but the general changes are clearly better. I will take "communism" out of the cultural left category, but leave it under liberal in the economic left category. This is because communism is clearly left on economic issues, and I think leans toward the left on cultural issues, certainly on the moral issues they do (religion, abortion, etc.). This would put it in the economic left and cultural left categories (the "liberal" quadrant on the diagram shown, and in American parlance). I am open to persuasion on the cultural issues category, but let's talk about it. -- Chris 09:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Further making a point of even-handedness ... from the beginning, I had put Nazism in my quadrant (though it is debatable as well). I don't like that ... wanna trade? I'm an American who feels communitarian-centrist longings, and proclaims himself a Christian Democrat, because Republicans are too conservative on economic issues (again, see the diagram) and Democrats are too liberal on cultural issues. You don't like being lumped with commies. I don't like being lumped with Nazis. But unless we are ready to propose a more complicated categorization scheme, then everyone has a blacksheep in the family. -- Chris 15:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please read the article on liberalism and you can clearly see that communism and libralism have noting in common. Liberal is not a synomym of left (neither of right) and this is not an American page. Communism starts with the collective, with class, liberalism starts with individual liberty. There was a well balanced oversight, which whereby the new one isn't. If we cannot agree, we could make an alphabetical list. Electionworld 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Proposal for new categories in response to criticism
In response to Electionworld ... Well, in American parlance the categories on the present diagram (liberal, conservative, libertarian, communitarian, center) fit perfectly, when not considering the third axis between anarchy and monarchy, which is probably too complex here. In my estimation, European parlance overly conflates conservative with communitarian and liberal with libertarian (still using American parlance in describing). Europe doesn't seem to allow the economic distinction between free market and social market on the spectrum. In an effort to move beyond terminology issues, and still allow four basic categories, I propose the new diagram to the right. Liberal ---> Social Market Individualism. Conservative ---> Free Market Communitarianism. Communitarian ---> Social Market Communitarianism. Libertarian ---> Free Market Individualism. I think that these new classifications should rectify the situation. What do you think? -- Chris 08:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- No it doesn't fit. It ignores the meaning of words outside the US. Liberals around the world believe in free market individualism, but differ on the degree of government intervention. The new categorization is still not better than the categorization ad developed in the last months in this article. As I said, I am ready to make an alphabetical list it the old one is considered not neutral POV. Electionworld 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think you may be missing the point of the new diagram. The new diagram transcends the label problems. According to the new categories, all who are free market individualists would be placed under "free market individualism". Classical liberalism (or just plain "liberalism" according to Euro-parlance) would be under "free market individualism". Libertarianism would likewise be so classified. However, American liberalism would fit under "social market individualism". British liberalism and Labour would also be so classified. I'm not claiming that liberalism (read "classical" or Euro-parlance) has to fit under the social market individualism (formerly called "liberalism"). That is the whole point, and I think the point of misunderstanding. Do you feel uncomfortable with categorizing classical liberalism under "free market individualism" and American liberalism under "social market individualism"? I don't think that the alphabetical list helps because the article isn't just a list of ideologies, but an article that places political ideologies in context, showing how they relate to each other. That is the point of what I have done. -- Chris 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- It is not yet complete. Please understand: classical liberalism is not the same as European liberalism, European liberalism is not the same as libertarianism. Social market is what most liberals would agree to, but where in the scheme is the planned economy of the socialists? Electionworld 07:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There are a multitude of competing political spectrum diagrams. As such, any one diagram is POV. The only NPOV way to list ideologies is by "common themes", without making any definite assertions about an overarching political spectrum. Thus, I strongly believe the old classification was better. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- What the hell? Who organized this list, this is terrible. Conservativism listed as "traditional" when in fact the definition of the word "conservative" is less: i.e. less gov't. Liberalism is listed as more personal freedom (or whatever) while it is for MORE gov't. Please, this is _insane_
- I have added anarchism to Ideologies emphasizing class struggle, in Argentina and Spain (two of the countries where historically anarchism has had a great impact, with anarchosyndicalist unions of hundreds of thousands of memeber, general insurrections and anarcho-communists organizations with great political wight) it is the main branch of anarchism (anarchism as a culturalist individualist ideology is a post-modern higher class invention with no ties to anarchism -Bakunin, Durruti, Makhno-).
my radical revision vs nikodemos'
I'm not satisfied with Nikodemos' recent edit. Although there is no reason to choose his classification over mine, I have one major issue with it: "Focus on social equality" instead of "Focus on the position of the working class". To me it is unclear what social equality is and why socialism would want that and liberalism or anarchism not. Socialism is however better defined as focussing on the working clas (proletariat) this in adaptation of the original version which used the term "class struggle". Socialists unlike liberals focus on the working class. I also prefer to keep anarchism neatly separated from socialism and not mix subtypes of working class-oriented ideologies with individual-oriented ones. I realize that this differences is not entirely indisputable, but I'd prefer to keep the system ordered.
I also see no reason to put the working class oriented ideologies first. The individually oriented ideologies anarchism and liberalism are logical to put first, because liberalism is the first real political ideology of the modern age.
Furthermore, some orderings were deliberately not alphabetical, such as anarchism but instead I tried to form a subclassifcation between more individualist and collectivist types of anarchism.
I hope that we can come to some kind of compromise on these differences. C mon 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am always open to compromise. Let's discuss the issues point by point. I'll start with your recent edits: First, "socialism" can be used with two very distinct meanings: an ideology or an economic system. What is the name of the economic system supported by socialist ideology? Socialism. Yes, I know it's confusing, but that is precisely why the article should explain the issue. Second, the Nazis were not the only ones to use the term "national socialism" - they weren't even the first (see national socialism (disambiguation). Czech national socialists, with their belief in Czech independence and moderate social reform, would be insulted by anyone equating them with the Nazis.
- Now, regarding the "focus on social equality", keep in mind that the categories are not mutually exclusive. Just because socialists want social equality that doesn't mean that liberals don't. It's just that liberals put individualism first. And yes, "social equality" is vague, but so are all the other criteria for classification (e.g. "tradition" - anything could be "traditional").
- Anarchism (or at least the collectivist schools thereof) is also very much concerned with social equality and class struggle.
- As far as the ordering and the classifications are concerned, I have no particular preference. -- Nikodemos 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your last sentence: you have no preference for any classification; also not for the title of one on socialism? and the inclusion of anarchism? I will assume you do.
- I don't think we can solve the socialism/corporatism issue here, let's just remove the second economic system, capitalism is clear as an example of economic systems.
- I realize the term "national socialist" is problematic, Nazism is as problematic for me because it is slang: it would be the same as calling socialism "sozism" or christian democracy "kallotisme" or green politicians "greenies". There is a reason why the article national socialism (disambiguation) is not the article national socialism.
- Social equality is not only vague, it is also no the core issue of a socialist. The social equality article does not discuss socialism and the socialism article does not discuss social equality. The working class article however discusses socialism and vice versa. The fact that the social equality article is a stub should be indication that this term is not only vague but also not used very often.
- I don't understand why we can't seek to make mutually exclusive categories, we can at least try.
- But if we do (as you propose). There is no reason to mix anarchism with socialism: some anarchists (like some liberals) might be interested in social equality, but destroying systems that repress individuals is first.
- Although I would prefer compromise, I can't really see it now. C mon 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- You'd be surprised of how compromise can be achieved after sufficient discussion. What I meant with my last sentence ("no preference for any classification") was that I have no particular preference for the order of the sections, or the order of individual articles within a section. This was in response to your objection that you didnot like my efforts to alphabetize the list. I think alphabetical order is good because it is neutral (you can't be accused of any bias), but if you want to change it I won't stop you.
- I don't understand your objection to using socialism as an example of an economic system.
- "Nazism" is the most common English word used to describe the ideology of Adolf Hitler. That may not be the case in German, but what is slang in one language may not be slang in another. An English Google search reveals 3,800,000 hits for "nazism" as opposed to only 392,000 hits for "national socialism". So "nazism" is about 10 times more common than "national socialism". The general consensus on wikipedia is that we will use the most popular names for things. Thus the article on the USSR is called Soviet Union and not Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The article on North Korea is called North Korea and not Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
- Many socialists have moved away from a working class emphasis in recent decades, and some forms of socialism (e.g. utopian socialism) were never focused on the working class to begin with. The only thing all socialists have in common is their desire for equality.
- Mutually exclusive categories are logically impossible, because some ideologies clearly belong in at least two categories (e.g. anarcho-communism, or eco-feminism).
- Some forms of anarchism are already mixed with socialism by their very nature (again, I give you anarcho-communism as an example, but also anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism). An anarcho-communist might be an anarchist first and a communist second, or he might be a communist first and an anarchist second... -- Nikodemos 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, we'll order them alphabetically (that is really alphabetically, and not putting Social equality before Gender issues or Foreign policy;
- Listing socialism creates confusion, because it is also a political ideology. It does not help to clarify why some things should be on the list and somethings not;
- Nazism appears to be the consensus on wikipedia. I'll have to fight that battle somewhere else;
- I'm not convinced by your argument on socialism being oriented towards equality. Can you supply me any proof (can also be within wikipedia) of this claim? Furthermore in this reasoning liberalism should be listed as focus on liberty and green politics as focus on sustainability. This kind of classification is different from the one issued here (which uses more neutral terms than values; they are also real focuses and not goals). I'd prefer to keep working class.
- We'll put some of the collectivist anarchist in the socialist bloc, but not mixed with the "other" category, but under the header "anarchism".
- Is this a compromise you can live with? C mon 08:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with alphabetical ordering (though I believe the "Big 3" categories - individualism, tradition and equality - should take precedence over others, because they define the three main directions of modern political thought). Alternatively, we could return to the order you established before.
- Yes, it's certainly true that socialism can mean two different things is a source of confusion. That's precisely why we should strive to eliminate that confusion by explaining things...
- I would have no objection to liberalism being listed as being focused on (individual) liberty, or green politics as being focused on sustainability. Regarding the focus on socialism, I can go look for references stating that it is indeed social equality, though it seems self-evident to me. Perhaps you would find it more acceptable if we said the focus was on society?
- I agree with your proposal about anarchism in the socialist bloc.
- We seem to be down to a single disagreement now (the one over the focus of the socialist bloc). I'm definitely happy with our progress. -- Nikodemos 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay three down one to go (although that big three thing? There aren't three big ideologies on a global level).
Focus on society? That is certainly the worst classification one could give: political ideologies per definition focus on society and social issues! That is not a criterion that will ever work!
Socialism could be said to focus on
- a social group: the working class/workers/the proletariat/lower classes/the poor/chanceles
- a strategy: class conflict/proletarian revolution)
- a source of value: labour
- a goal: worker/state ownership/control of the means of production
- a value: substantive equality/equality of outcome/positive freedom
I could settle for any of these, (except the class conflict because it's highly disputable), as long as there is some consistency between this and other headers.
I would not settle for headers like society/collective/group, that's too general.
We could try to make a consistent classification for each of the 4/5 categories above and choose one. I have done this here.
Alternatively we could classify them by "general ideology", those which for instance have made the template (anarchism/christian democracy/communism/communitarianism/conservatism/fascism/feminism/green politics/islamism/liberalism/libertarianism/nationalism/social democracy/socialism). Although we could collapse several (anarchism/religious ideologies/socialism/conservatism/nationalism/green politics/liberalism/feminism) we would throw out several ideologies which are issue stances (multiculturalism/foreign policy/form of government).
I think the 'alternative' route presented here would be most fruitful. C mon 16:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- I could go with either a classification based on values (e.g. equality), or one based on goals (e.g. collective control over the means of production), or the alternative one you proposed (based on "general ideology"). I dislike the alternative route, however, because there are many hybrid ideologies that would be difficult to classify (e.g. we can all agree that anarcho-capitalism focuses on the individual, but there are bitter disputes on whether it is an anarchist or liberal ideology). A classification by general ideology seems to invite endless debate on the exact nature and origins of the hybrids. I like a classification on values most of all. -- Nikodemos 19:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- True, but we could easily list ideologies twice under two different values without raising much of a dispute, whereas if we did it by general ideology we would be inviting chaos. Are you aware of the never-ending debates in Talk:Anarcho-capitalism as to whether anarcho-capitalism really is a form of anarchism? I wish to avoid things like that. -- Nikodemos 20:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
We can not avoiding these issues by entering in a debate whether conservatives value freedom, liberals equality and nationalists solidarity. A 'general ideology' typology is simplest. C mon 20:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
- Very well, I agree to the 'general ideology' typology. However, I reserve the right to change it if it causes an edit war some time in the future. -- Nikodemos 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
New Template: Lib
I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think a different solution is necessary renaming the article list of political ideologies, because that would 1) show the list nature of the artcicle and 2) allow is to encompass all ideologies and not just party political ones. But we will need an admin for the move because the article already exists and is a redirect to this article. C mon (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the list's organization in order to avoid the use of list items as list headers and to cut back on some redundancy. I'm not sure if this is the correct style. I've read Wikipedia:Lists but I couldn't see any style guide that addressed the way the list was before, which seemed a bit awkward in my opinion. Please feel free to revert or change the list in case I made a mistake in changing it. Ecto (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There might be a few ideologies missing from this list. I think "anti" articles like anticommunism, antifascism, or antifeminism should be included on this list but I understand why others might disagree. What does everyone think?
Also, capitalism should be on this list too, even though it has been removed. There are some old discussions about how capitalism is an economic system rather than a political ideology but I think that leaving capitalism off this list has NPOV issues. We probably wouldn't even use the word "ideology" at all today if Marx and Engles hadn't used it to identify the pro-status quo belief system (superstructure) generated by the economic system of the day (the basis), so "capitalism" doesn't just refer to an economic system but also the value system that makes the economic system acceptable to a society. Marx and Engles used "ideology" to distinguish pro-capitalist ideas from the "science" of socialism. When communists talk about "bergousie morality" they're talking about capitalism as an ideology. We might not agree with the communist point of view that capitalism is as an ideology but we should take it into account when making this list in accordance with NPOV.Ecto (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I added "National Socialism" after Nazism, but then discovered National Socialism (disambiguation) and National Socialist Party both of which described a number of ideologies or groups that were NOT Nazi. I don't see a previous discussion on how to handle this. I'm sure some would like the ideology not mentioned at all because they think it makes "socialism" look bad. But it makes Wikipedia look bad to not try to distinguish the types here. That being said, I don't have a strong idea of how to do that right now and busy on other stuff, so I'll keep it in mind and see what others think. CarolMooreDC 10:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Authoritarianism and Technocracy
Way to avoid overlaps of ideologies in groups.
I have noticed many ideologies can fit into 2 or more categories and while this system works fine. I believe it could be massively improved.
What determines an ideology being a "major" field in bold rather than an ideology listed below it? Fascism seems to be radically different enough to be its own category, while many of the environmental ideologies feel like they would be included in some of the other categories. Is Libertarianism even considered a part of the Liberal tradition? Also, should this list be relabeled "List of ideologies" rather than "List of political ideologies" to facilitate the inclusion of economic ideologies such as Capitalism? Communism and Socialism may be political ideologies but economics remains heavily engrained in their beliefs. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the Fascism. It is dubious to list it under the moniker "Nationalism" as I don't think that Nationalism can be really considered integral to Fascism, nor Fascism a sub-group of Nationalism. There have been "Internationalist" Fascist idealogues such as Werner Daitz who visioned a kind of German-led "European Union" in the 1940s. Also, the Nouvelle Droite has somewhat pan-Europeanist views, although still wanting to preserve "ethno-pluralism". Fascism does require strong adherence to the State and the Leader, but it does not necessarily include strong Nationalist elements, or adherence to the common cultural heritage. It should be noted that at the time most of the Fascist parties, movements and states were operating (20s, 30s, 40s), even Liberals (by this, I mean European Liberals) were often fiercely nationalistic. The point of contention wasn't the Nationalism, but the totalitarian nature of Fascist movements.
- Libertarianism is clearly a part of Liberal tradition. This is evident in Europe where most of the parties named "Liberal Party", while not being Libertarian, still adhere to a quite laissez-faire economic policy. Adam Smith, the oft-quoted economist in Libertarian circles, was an enemy of Mercantilism and hence, a Liberal. The broad "Liberal tradition" could be defined as belief in Parlamentarism as opposed to Monarchism and in Progressivism as opposed to Conservatism which are characteristics of both (in economic terms) Left-Liberal and Right-Liberal parties.
- The question of whether Capitalism could be considered an ideology is difficult. Capitalism is, to quote Marx, really a mode of production. But then again, so is Socialism, and yet many movements attempting to establish Socialism as a preferred mode of production call themselves "Socialist" and often include additional political goals they claim are inherent to their "Socialism". Communism as a movement is more consistent, as their stated goal is Socialism, and their means of achieving it is class struggle. The argument against including Capitalism as its own ideology would be that the support of "Capitalist mode of production" is prevalent in many different political movements, even in contemporary Social Democracy. As such, there really isn't an "ideology of Capitalism". JJohannes (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)