This purpose of
this page is to explain in brief, the various
political philosophies. We will add to this page as time permits.
Anarchism - Mutualist
Anarchism, meaning "no
rule", includes any belief system which is opposed to the creation of a
centralized government. Anarchism as a formal ideology became popular in 19th
century Europe, where it was often the ideology of extreme social reformists and
terrorists alike.
Mutualist anarchism is a
modern variant which shares elements in common with social anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism (although in practice its advocates have much more in common
with the former). Mutualist anarchism holds that the means of production should
be owned by the workers, who then function in a market economy.
What this means is that
productive organizations - think of them as fulfilling the function of
corporations or communes - must be owned and controlled by all of their workers
as a group. These collective organizations can then trade with each other in a
free market. Exactly how this is supposed to work is not something I have ever
seen well specified - anarchists of any stripe are usually vague or simplistic
when it comes to the practical economic and organizational side of their ideas.
At any rate, a mutualist
anarchist system is approximately what you would get if you took a modern
democratic capitalist society, abolished the entire government, and somehow
retained a free market without allowing any businesses not collectively owned by
their workers. The greatest weakness of this idea, as with all branches of
anarchism, is that without a central authority the system cannot be maintained
unless the society believes in anarchism strongly enough that individuals and
groups throughout society are willing and able to enforce it independently.
Anarchism-Social
Also known as:
Anarcho-Socialism, Libertarianism (Left/European), Libertarian Socialism,
Libertarian Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism. "ANARCHISMSOCIAL"Anarchism,
meaning "no rule", includes any belief system which is opposed to the creation
of a centralized government. Anarchism as a formal ideology became popular in
19th century Europe, where it was often the ideology of extreme social
reformists and terrorists alike.
Social anarchism goes
under many names, but they all refer to approximately the same beliefs. Note
that when anyone from outside of North America refers to "Libertarianism", they
are most likely referring to a form of social anarchism, not US-style
Libertarianism. The word "Libertarianism" was originally used to describe social
anarchism, but in the US was appropriated by a new domestic movement, sometimes
distinguished as Right Libertarianism, in the mid 20th century.
Social Anarchism of
today is closely related to the original Anarchist position. Social anarchists
believe that all forms of heirarchical power should be abolished, and that
society should be run as a decentralized collection of egalitarian direct
democracies. Not only state but also corporate power should be abolished. All
productive enterprises should be owned collectively by the workers. Unlike
Mutualist Anarchists, Social Anarchists do not believe that there should be a
market economy to trade resources between groups. Resources should be produced
for one's use, not for profit, and decisions (such as resource allocation)
should be made collectively by all those who are affected by them.
There is usually not
much detail on how voluntary association and discussion could organize the
highly specialized enterprise of an advanced economy - anarchists of any stripe
are usually vague or simplistic when it comes to the practical economic and
organizational side of their ideas. The greatest weakness of this idea, as with
all branches of anarchism, is that without a central authority the system cannot
be maintained unless the society believes in anarchism strongly enough that
individuals and groups throughout society are willing and able to enforce it
independently.
Anarcho-Capitalism
Also known as:
Libertarianism (a variant of). Anarchism, meaning "no rule", includes any belief
system which is opposed to the creation of a centralized government. Anarchism
as a formal ideology became popular in 19th century Europe, where it was often
the ideology of extreme social reformists and terrorists alike.
Anarcho-capitalism is
actually not derived from those roots, but is a variant of Right Libertarianism,
originating in the United States in the mid 20th century. To this day,
anarcho-capitalism is a small but vocal fringe ideology in the US and to some
extent Canada, but is nearly nonexistant elsewhere. It is often regarded as an
extreme subgroup of Right Libertarianism. Anarcho-Capitalists believe that no
government of any kind should exist, and society should be wholly organized
based on voluntary transactions, especially market transactions, in the context
of a free market with private property rights.
The Anarcho-Capitalist
model of social organization is usually based on one of two underlying ideals:
Marketarianism or Propertarianism. Anarcho-capitalists believe that all
transactions should be voluntary, but of course they cannot eliminate two forms
of coercion.
First, some people will
violate their ideals. Anarcho-capitalists are usually confident that private
security forces and the like can enforce sets of laws that can be established by
the market, but these views lead to the recognition that coercion will in fact
occur in the society whenever people wish to pay for it in the free market.
Second, the system of
private property itself must be maintained. Not only does this require coercion
of people who do not agree with the property system to get them to abide by it,
it also requires that in practice people are sufficiently willing and able to
pay for that coercion that the system is maintained.
Anarchists of any stripe
are usually vague or simplistic when it comes to the practical economic and
organizational side of their ideas, and anarcho-capitalists are only a partial
exception. They often concoct complicated economic concepts which supposedly
explain how their system would work, but do not deal with the organizational
aspect of how stable those economic concepts would be in a society where not
everyone practiced the anarcho-capitalist ideal.
The greatest weakness of
this idea, as with all branches of anarchism, is that without a central
authority the system cannot be maintained unless the society believes in
anarchism strongly enough that individuals and groups throughout society are
willing and able to enforce it independently.
Capitalism
Capitalism is an
economic system, rather than a philosophy or an ideology, but it is of great
importance to political philosophies and ideologies to the extent that they
support or oppose it. A
Capitalist economy is
one in which private property rights of some kind exist, and privately owned
goods can be traded on a market. In practice, Capitalism is never the sole basis
of a nation's economy. All Capitalist countries have economies which consist
partly of a market which is regulated to some extent by the government, and
partly of a government sector funded by measures such as taxation.
The non-market sector in
modern Capitalist nations typically accounts for one third to one half of the
total economy. Capitalism works quite well in practice for producing wealth, but
does not inherently insure an equitable distribution of wealth. Most political
ideologies and forms of government are compatible with a mixed economy (a
Capitalist economy with a significant government sector, which could also be
referred to as a Socialist component). Anarcho-Capitalism (only) is compatible
with an entirely Capitalist economy.
Several major ideologies
such as Marxism, Communism, and Socialism fundamentally reject the notion of a
Capitalist economy as incompatible with their conceptions of social welfare.
National Capitalism
National Capitalism says
that Capitalism is to be used for the good of the nation and of its workers. A
company or corporation would not be permitted, for example, to close a factory
in America and move it to another country if it meant American workers would
lose their jobs. Any and all major business decisions that would affect the
national or workers welfare would have to be reviewed and approved by a board.
Classic Liberalism
Classical Liberalism is
an ideology that was considered "left wing" in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries, and became dominant in the 19th century. It was eclipsed in the early
20th century at the beginning of the Progressive era. This ideology was most
popular in Britain and the United States, and was advocated by many famous
philosphers such as Adam Smith and the Utilitarians of the time.
Classical Liberalism
advocated democratic government, protected rights such as freedom of speech and
religion, and a relatively small state with an essentially laissez faire market
economy. These ideas were not mainstream at the time, and the Classical Liberals
won great victories as reformers. They were, in fact, largely responsible for
the spread of democracy, freedom, and laissez faire economics.
Classical Liberalism is
thus highly respected for its historical reforms, even though no significant
modern philosophy actually agrees with its entire set of beliefs. Various
ideologies, such as Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism, tend to claim
that they alone are the one true inheritor or closest descendant of Classical
Liberalism. This is, however, nothing more than an attempt to benefit from glory
by association.
The facts of the matter
are that all of these ideologies are heavily influenced by Classical Liberalism,
and that many of the specific claims of that old philosophy are generally
regarded as obsolete.
The adherence to laissez
faire economics, in particular, was rejected in the Progressive era because the
increasingly complex industrial economy was leading to a great many abuses and
market failures, as well as substantial social inequality. Market regulation was
introduced to counteract market failure, and social welfare systems were
introduced to reduce the poverty and inequality that had remained despite
productivity growth under laissez faire.
Communism
Communism, as generally
used today, refers to the form of government practiced by the Soviet Union and
the other countries of the now-defunct Eastern Bloc. These nations had
totalitarian governments running centrally planned economies.
Neither private
property, any form of market, or democracy existed under Communism. In fact,
Communist countries lacked any form of legally guaranteed rights and their
entire system of law was often vague and subject to interpretation, at best, and
meaningless at worst. Although originally based on Marxist ideals, Communism in
practice quickly departed from these.
Economically, all
aspects of society were centrally planned by interlocking bureaucracies. Both
the production and the distribution of wealth were centrally planned. The
government was dictatorial, with leaders chosen for life by a small Party elite
from among its own membership. The totalitarian nature of the Communist
governments meant that they attempted to extend their ideology to all aspects of
life. Active support of the state was required, not just resignation to its
control, and no social organization was permitted to exist outside of the
influence of the Communist ideology.
Communist ideology
itself was primarily influenced by the original Marxist ideology, and called by
revolutions by the workers to seize the means of production, so that they could
control the economy and prevent their labor from being exploited. Although
Communism is often described as a form of Socialism or as equivalent to
Socialism, Socialism actually describes an economic system.
Communist countries used
economies based on central planning, which is one form of Socialism, they were
primarily distinguished by their totalitarian governments (Socialism is
compatible with many forms of government). The Communism of the Soviets was not
the same as the original Communism proposed by Marx, and thus many modern
Marxists say that the Soviets were not "true Communists".
The Marxist usage is
generally regarded as defunct, however, and thus it is not only acceptable but
typical to use the word "Communism" to refer to the system of government used by
the Soviet bloc nations.
Fascism
Fascism was unique among
the radical forces produced by the early twentieth century, developing out of
World War I without any clear predecessor in the nineteenth century. It first
emerged in Italy in 1919, catapulting its leader, Benito Mussolini, into the
premiership three years later and then to the creation of a new political
dictatorship beginning in 1925. The term fascism, however, would later be
applied to an entire cluster or genus of new revolutionary nationalist movements
in Europe between the world wars, of which the most important was German
National Socialism, or Nazism, for short, so that the Italian origins of the
first fascism would often be overlooked, attention focusing primarily on
Germany. The initial, or "paradigmatic" fascism nonetheless had specifically
Italian roots and characteristics.
The term comes from the
Italian fascio, derived from the ancient Latin fasces, which referred to the
bundle of lictors, or axe-headed rods, that symbolized the sovereignty and
authority of the Roman Republic. From approximately the 1870s, the term fascio
was used in Italy in the names of radical new social and political
organizations, normally of the left. Thus the revolutionary nationalists who
sought to create a new left nationalist league in 1919, in the aftermath of
World War I, formed a Fascio di Combattimento, transformed two years later into
the new Fascist Party, and so a radical new "ism" was born.
Italian Fascism began on
the left, seeking to combine strong nationalism with modern developmentalism and
an aggressive new style of activism that prized violence, idealism, and
anti-materialism. While reenforcing Italian colonialism, Fascism originally
embraced national liberation and rejected extreme imperialism and racism.
Mussolini did not create the movement but skillfully guided himself to power as
its Duce (Dux, or leader), at the same time moving the party to the right and
engaging in practical compromise with Italy's established institutions. Though
Fascists invented the term "totalitarian" for their new system, Mussolini was
unable to complete a Fascist revolution and instead presided over a somewhat
limited, semi-pluralist political dictatorship.
Though Fascists were at
first wary of and even hostile to Hitlerism, the Nazi leader sought Mussolini as
his chief ally. The Duce allowed himself to be convinced by the end of 1937,
introducing Nazi-style racist and anti-semitic legislation in Italy despite the
membership of many Jews in the Fascist Party. Participation in World War II as
Germany's ally produced the downfall of Mussolini in 1943, but in
German-occupied northern Italy the Duce was installed as leader of a new puppet
Fascist-based Italian Social Republic, which waged a savage civil war against
Italian anti-Fascists in 1944-1945.
Though approximately
thirteen thousand Fascists were executed by partisans at the end of the war, the
official purge of Fascists conducted by the new democratic system in Italy was
limited and half-hearted. Thus the great majority of Fascists survived, and for
nearly forty years neo-Fascism would be stronger in Italy than anywhere else in
Europe.
The Death of Socialism
What is socialism?
In part, it is optimism translated into a political program. Until he took up
gardening, Candide was a sort of proto-socialist; his mentor Pangloss could have
been one of socialism’s founding philosophers. Socialism is also unselfishness
embraced as an axiom: the gratifying emotion of unselfishness, experienced
alternately as resentment against others and titillating satisfaction with
oneself. The philosophy of Rousseau, which elevated what he called the
“indescribably sweet” feeling of virtue into a political imperative, is
socialism in ovo. “Man is born free,” Rousseau famously exclaimed, “but is
everywhere in chains.” That heart-stopping conundrum—too thrilling to be
corrected by mere experience—is the fundamental motor of socialism. It is a
motor fueled by this corollary: that the multitude unaccountably colludes in
perpetuating its own bondage and must therefore be, in Rousseau’s ominous
phrase, “forced to be free.” ....(more)
JUAN PERON
| Evita Peron
| Eva Peron, Evita Peron
|