TWENTY-TWO POLITICAL ‘ISMs’

Here, I have attempted to define a comprehensive collection of political theories. Most people will have a vague notion of most of them, but I have attempted to give a brief description of the reasoning behind them.

Individuals and political parties seldom adhere to any of these ‘isms’ in a pure sense, but combine them - or pick particulars - to their taste. Indeed, many of these concepts have been formed through coalitions of others, or the development of concepts to what seems to be their logical conclusion.

The foundation of modern politics came with the French Revolution of 1789-1799 which itself was based on the ideas of the Western Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These were to do with individual rights, and the individual’s relation to the state. They embraced rationalism, and sought to shake off feudal traditions that had built up over centuries from a base of German tribalism and Roman law. Those wanting profound change sat on the left side of the French national assembly, those wanting to conserve aspects of the status quo sat on the right. Most political theories attempt to answer the questions of - what changes should we make? how profound should those changes be? and what parts of the status quo should we hold on to? Karl Marx was correct in predicting a ‘permanent state of revolution’ – and we can count on political change to be happening all the time.

Though the basis of modern politics throughout the world is emphatically euro-centric, some old ideas from other civilisations have managed to combine with them in some places. Communism with Chinese Characteristics is somewhat similar to the ethos of the pre-modern Chinese Empire. The strange and tyrannical political system of North Korea is a basic continuation of traditional Korean politics. Both Turkey and India made massive efforts to emulate the West after the world wars, but have more recently embraced and developed older native ideas. Islam has had an obvious impact on the politics of the Middle East and elsewhere. This makes sense given the decline of the West, and the rise of ‘the rest’.

I have tried to list these ‘isms’ in a spectrum from left to right, but the ordering is not definitive as some fit on different spectrums in different ways, or fit on no spectrum at all.

1. Anarchism

The concept that it is authority and private property that leads to crime and war, and that humanity would be more content once freed of these things. Anarchy is a revolutionary theory inspired by Marx, but disagreeing with Marx over the necessity of a government. Anarcho-syndicalism dictates that trade unions could take over ownership of their work places and provide their members with work, mutual care and principals for life - becoming the syndicates that would run society. Property would be controlled by these syndicates and the state - if there is any - would merely facilitate relations between the syndicates. Militaries, police forces and justice systems would be unnecessary as resources would be shared democratically by the people. The USA has been described as ‘anarcho-capitalistic’, with its giant corporations acting much like the syndicates – albeit in an undemocratic and non-inclusive manner. African states can be argued to be somewhat anarchistic as the people vote according to tribal membership rather than political differences, and government is a matter of dividing resources between tribes.

2. Communism

A politics of class that Karl Marx conceived and believed was bound to succeed through his theory of history: As the bourgeoisie seized power from the aristocrats in the American and French revolutions, so would the proletariat eventually seize power from the bourgeoisie. The economy is collectively and democratically controlled and owned by the workers through workers councils, whilst the state is run by a ‘proletarian dictatorship’ – usually a one party system representing the workers. Through this system society would inevitably become classless and therefore democratic, and a ‘permanent revolution’ of knowledge and technology would put an end to any creation of a new underclass. This ideology has become deeply problematic due to its failure in the Soviet Union and China. Maoism was a Chinese branch of Communism that centred itself on the peasantry rather than the proletariat, sometimes attempting to compromise with the industrial revolution and sometimes hoping to ignore or defeat it.

3. Democratic Marxism

The ideology of Karl Marx updated for the modern age: The economy is collectively and democratically controlled and owned by everybody – including the unnecessariat – through worker-customer co-operatives rather than workers’ councils. The political system is made as democratic as possible, meaning that a classless society may be achieved with a strong Marxist party, that would easily acquire majorities if the workers and unnecessariat could be kept united. As this would be necessary for a proletarian dictatorship anyway, the dictatorship can be skipped and democracy maintained. Some kind of revolutionary activity or general strike may be necessary to reform electoral systems in a way that makes divisive tactical voting unnecessary and to build the support Democratic Marxism needs.

4. Neo-Marxism

The ideology of Karl Marx applied to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, culture and lifestyle rather than to class and economics. It was inspired by civil rights movements and feminist campaigns in the twentieth century, and had Marxism bolted on to it. Neo-Marxism ignores the political system and takes little interest in the economy, rather it attempts to discriminate in favour of minority groups that are traditionally discriminated against. It posits that positive discrimination will balance the negative and bring equality to society - in terms of individual rights, economics and politics. It in fact tends to exaggerate differences, making it difficult to acquire majority support for the idea.

5. Internationalism / Globalism

The idea that the world can get along in an equitable and co-operative manner possibly through some lose form of world government. Bodies such as the UN, the EU, Unesco and the WHO tend to promote some forms of equality and care internationally and reduce the risks of war. The internationalist idea found its popularity with Marx, who believed that the workers of the world had more in common with each other than their rulers, and envisaged history culminating in a world-wide revolution and internationalist workers’ state. In modern times the idea has been co-opted by capitalists, who seek security and common rules for carrying out their business. The growth of multi-national corporations that are more powerful than many states, as well as communication technologies and the ease of migration, has facilitated the rise of globalism.

6. Socialism

The idea that the economy should mostly be controlled and owned by the state through government owned enterprises, for the benefit of the people. It is a modification of Marxism, that is easier to facilitate than the original within current state structures and economic practices. State intervention can drastically reduce the natural swings of the capitalist economy, promoting stability and economic justice. A socialist state may be run democratically, or in an authoritarian manner. The Eastern bloc in the cold war was actually made up of dictatorial socialist states, not communistic ones. Between the war and the 1980s the UK was run in a moderately socialistic manner.

7. Socialist Democracy

Whilst the economy is essentially capitalistic the state intervenes to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor and maintain adequate services. Trade Unions are kept strong in order to acquire a fair deal for workers. Social democracy is the obvious compromise between left and right. Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party manifesto’s were a mixture of Socialist Democracy and Socialism.

8. Progressivism

A vague notion usually connected with Socialist Democracy or Liberalism that the life of the majority should get better with time. Since the mid nineteenth century to the early twenty-first this seems to have held up, but recent economic, political and technological changes have reversed the trend. The Progressives are in crisis, and they represent an alliance of the left and some liberals who want to make the reforms necessary to continue with the old trend.

9. Environmentalism

The human race is ruining its environment and undermining its own chance of survival, as well as the sustainability of life on Earth. Environmentalists believe that this is the most important fact of our age, and that we must reduce carbon emissions to prevent disastrous climate change and use resources more efficiently. It is a pragmatic response to a situation and in essence has little to do with left or right. Many mainstream political parties have taken on environmentalist policies, though usually watered down. Environmentalists tend to take a leftist view of the economy, as a minority living in luxury uses more resources than everybody living moderately.

10. Capitalism

Identified by Adam Smith in his 1776 book ‘the Wealth of Nations’ it is the belief that general wealth can be generated by a minority having capital to invest. The value of resources and work will be set by the market – a reasonable negotiation by people in general – rather than any sort of authority (a guild, for example) that may calculate a commodity’s logical worth. Individuals will be motivated by profit, and those who are the most successful may invest in enterprises for the benefit of all and to the profit of themselves. Although this is an economic theory rather than a political one, since the eighteenth century it has become the default economic policy of the world, and therefore political in that it represents the status quo.

11. Liberalism

This ideology emphasises the equality of everybody as individuals and their capacity to make decisions for themselves - it grew directly from the ideal of the Western Enlightenment with its concern with a contract between the ruled and the rulers. It leads naturally to democracy and capitalism. Whilst Liberal governments guard the freedom of the market they also encourage workers to organise for their own benefit - or with government assistance - in groups such as trade unions and insurance schemes.

12. Neo-Liberalism

A development of Liberalism that involves the pathological belief that the free market can solve all problems and look after everybody. Taxes must be kept as low as possible, and trade unions must be kept as weak as possible, in order to give the market complete freedom. The free market economy has exaggerated the busts and booms of the capitalist cycle and is chronically unstable. Although it was founded on the assumption of a broad spread of stakeholders in the population, it has led to wealth ‘trickling up’ to the one-percent – assertions that it would ‘trickle down’ have all turned out to be false.

13. Oligarchy

Oligarchy is neo-liberalism devoid of any liberalism. A few super-rich people or institutions control the market and therefore the economy. They sponsor the political parties and control most of the politicians. Democracy and equality are undermined both implicitly and practically. Oligarchy is combined with (usually insincere) compromises with parts of the electorate in order to maintain its support. As democracy is further undermined this support becomes less necessary. Russia and China are obvious examples of oligarchies, the UK and USA are not so obvious due to their democratic credentials, but nevertheless operate in this fashion to a large degree.

14. Conservatism

Conservatism began in the nineteenth century as an attempt to conserve the status quo, but this has become meaningless in a modern world where change happens so often and quickly that change is the status quo. The ideology maintains that the ‘respectable classes’ should oversee and ‘look after’ the masses who do not have the wherewithal to look after themselves. Whilst this is rather patronising to the majority, it would not be a bad idea if there were some way of making sure that the ‘respectable classes’ did have the qualifications to rule. However, the ‘respectable classes’ are always whatever group who happened to have power previously. Conservatives are very flexible when it comes to economic theory, and in the past have taken up liberal, socialistic and neo-liberal ideas. To begin with conservatives were anti-democratic, but in the early twentieth century came to terms with democracy implying that the people could choose between the ‘respectable’ candidates.

15. Religious Democracy

This is much like conservatism, but replaces the ‘respectable classes’ with adherents to a certain faith. The precepts of the faith are decided democratically by its adherents, and do not necessarily follow the pronouncements of religious authorities. Christian Democrats in Europe have historically been both right wing traditionalists and close to socialists in their support for welfare states and economic intervention. Nowadays they tend to be centrist. Tony Blair could be defined as a Christian Democrat, although the party he led was not.

16. Religious Conservatism / Theocracy

This concept is much different from religious democracy as it rejects modernity. It posits that the state should be run through traditional and ancient religious hierarchies. Although these hierarchies have elements of democracy as far as the congregations are concerned, religious conservatives are anti-democratic in their efforts to exclude heretics, infidels and atheists, and their need to maintain a qualified clergy. The Vatican and the Islamic Republic of Iran are examples of theocratic states. The Iranian government tends to lean toward a leftist economic policy.

17. Imperialism

Imperialism grew out of western Europe’s attempt to exploit new trade routes in the sixteenth century, and the unexpected ‘discovery’ of lands hitherto unknown to Europe and easily exploitable. The concept comes in two parts. Firstly, it is the anti-thesis to internationalism – it is impossible for the world to co-operate in an equitable manner, therefore the most powerful states must compete to dominate it, or at least be partners in dominating it. Secondly it insists that Western societies are more sophisticated and superior to others, and that they must educate, guide and civilise these others – usually through conquering their territory. The heyday of imperialism was in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, by which time most of the world had been divided up between European powers. The two tier system of the West and ‘the rest’ meant that the imperialistic powers could be quite flexible with their political ideas at home, often embracing liberalism or even socialism. But in their possessions overseas they usually created white supremacy regimes where the mother-country appointed the top governors. With the rise of humanitarianism and a general push for equality, these ideas now seem very old fashioned, but they still exist under the surface and operate in a much more subtle manner.

18. Neo-Imperialism

The first precept of imperialism is still very much in fashion with this ideology – the quest for world domination has not let up since the Second World War, although nuclear weapons have made conflagrations between major powers extremely unlikely. But the concepts of national self-determination and anti-racism have grown in power since that time and made straight-forward conquests very rare. However, the cold war proved that superpowers could wield power over other nations without the need for direct annexations. The American ‘empire by invitation’ operated by weak states asking for superpower protection and having to accept the Americans’ economic exploitation in return – therefore ceding their military, diplomatic and economic independence whilst technically keeping their sovereignty – and enriching their elites. Since the end of the Cold War Russia, Europe and China have joined this scramble for ‘soft power’ in the world, and on occasion intervened militarily in order to guarantee it.

19. Popularism

Not really a political theory - more of a political tool - but held up as a ‘movement’ by some of its adherents. Obviously, popularity has always been useful if not downright necessary in any form of modern politics. But popularism advertises a new, simplistic, often dishonest or contradictory way of maintaining popularity with phrases, posts and sound-bites. Partially evolved due to attention suppressing methods of communication – such as social media – and partially a misinterpretation of the theories of post modernism that maintains we are in an era of ‘post-truth’. Popularism has caught on with the right as confidence in the neutrality of the media and ‘experts’ has waned, and was instrumental in Donald Trump’s victory in the US election of 2016. It apeals to those who feel left out of the political settlement made by elites - and can have the useful function of re-setting the agenda away from the status quo. But it is mostly a politics of spectacle with little substance behind it, it has spawned various conspiracy theories (such as ‘QAnon’) that have attracted followings.

20. Nationalism

Nationalism gains its power through popularising patriotic feeling and advertising the exceptionalism of the nation. It often harks back to a mythological ‘golden age’ of the nation and is in many ways anti-progressive. Although it began in the eighteenth century as an attempt of the nation to speak through its people rather than a hereditary monarch, it later became suspicious of democracy due to the exaggerated power democracy gives to elites relative to others. Modern nationalism seeks to ostracise and undermine minorities who go against the ‘norm’, it is obsessed with defining who is and who is not a part of the ‘nation’, and accuses aliens of undermining the nation. It operates by divisive propaganda, ensuring the enthusiastic support of its adherents against supposed ‘enemies’. It is anti-globalisation, anti-immigration and sometimes racist. Despite being anti-leftist – accusing such ideologies of being tyrannical – it often embraces elements of socialism. It can be democratic and moderate, as with the Scottish Nationalists, but often seeks to undermine democracy. The current Tory government in the UK has embraced both nationalistic and oligarchic agendas.

21. Fascism

This could be described as ‘ultra-nationalism’. As well as embracing most of the ideas above it is fiercely anti-politics and insists on a ‘rationalistic’ military dictatorship. It is revolutionary in that it accuses the traditional elites of compromising too far with the left. It is racist, militaristic, imperialistic and it glorifies war and the power of the state. In some instances it is extremely violent towards unwanted minorities. The most obvious examples of fascistic leaders are Hitler and Mussolini, but modern leaders have embraced some elements of the concept: The ‘War on Terror’ provoked by 9/11 advertised the apparent supremacy of Western ideals and asserted that Islam was evil and inferior, and that Muslims should be punished. Although its leaders were democrats it glorified in military conquest. President Trump was well known to favour an anti-political dictatorship, though more interested in isolationism than expansionary wars.

22. Religious Fundamentalism

This is much like fascism, but instead of basing its brutality on nationalistic ideas it chooses religious ones, and is therefore somewhat internationalist. Like fascism it does not accept the ‘liberality’ of the status quo, and is highly revolutionary. In its Islamic form it is anti-racist but brutal towards infidels and heretics. Fundamentalism is similar to religious conservatism in that it rejects modernity – but the two groups don’t get along as traditional religious hierarchies tend to be vaguely pacifistic. Unlike fascism, religious fundamentalism does not wish to subjugate its enemies, but to convert them to its own beliefs. Christian fundamentalists are not so motivated in this, as they believe the unbelievers will be wiped out in the ‘last days’. Physical threats are not efficient evangelically, and though the movement is persistent, it has had little success. In the Middle East this persistence is due to the long term exploitation of the region by the West – and the apparent failure of both liberalism and communism as viable ideas.

Martin Gooding