Anarchism | I find anarchism the hardest concept to get my head around. Basically, they don’t see a need for states, for government, for policing, for anything that imposes order. We can do it ourselves thank you very much. All of these things, by their nature create hierarchies, specifically people with power and people with no power, or little power. All that is needed is self-discipline and voluntary cooperation. In circumstances where there is a need for an institution to hold power (this would be in order to create an anarchic society, something of a contradiction in terms, but there you go), they would want it to be in the hands of those as low down the hierarchy as possible and outside the political system, for example trade unions. Where will you see anarchists on your course? In Russian history and in the Spanish Civil War. |
Communism | First of all. I would make a distinction between Marxism and Communism: Marxism is the analysis of past and present economic and political systems and the means of getting to Communism. I will deal with Marxism separately. The communist state would be one without classes, without private property, without profit motives. The economy would be totally under the control of the state in what is described as a ‘command economy’. The state will “command” what is to be produced, and how much. There would be equality of status and equality of outcome, i.e. wealth. So, like the anarchic society, without the need to coerce any group or any individual, there would be no need for a state (parliaments, bureaucracies, laws, police or courts) other than for basic organisation, and if communism was adopted world-wide, there would be no need of armies either. But in practice, its never worked out that way and the state has remained very much a presence in people’s lives; the state and the Communist Party. I would add that Communism is an atheist system too, there would be no need for churches (‘Religion is the opiate of the masses’, Marx said). You might come across Communism in any study of the last days of Tsarist Russia and of the Soviet Union, also Weimar and Nazi Germany, perhaps the Cold War, and possibly Mao (I jest). |
Socialism | Socialism is, if you like, a half-way house to Communism. That’s certainly how Marxists would see it, as the last but one step on the journey to the Communist society. However, the majority of socialists see it as an end in itself. The way I distinguish Socialism from Communism is that socialists believe in parliamentary democracy and so are prepared to compete for votes with those who think differently. That’s an important difference, I feel. In democracies, socialists essentially represent the working class, though they would also argue that they are representing all society because a more equal, fairer society is a better society for everyone. They act as something of a watchdog on the worst excesses of capitalism. They call for free welfare provision, or at least provision at a minimal cost, paid for by a redistribution of wealth (through the tax system). But they accept that classes will continue to exist, that there will be the very rich, if hopefully not the poor, and the state will continue in the form we know it, countries will continue to compete (but hopefully cooperate more too), essentially the world will continue to turn as it has always done. Socialism is really a modern phenomenon, post industrialisation and post urbanisation. That is why it is such an issue in pre-WW1 Europe, in Weimar and in Tsarist Russia when it is seeking to modernise at least economically, and in the Spanish Civil war too. |
Liberalism | For liberalism, think democracy, think freedom, think individualism. Government must be representative of the people, open and accountable, and must protect human rights as well as civil rights (a distinction that will be explained in another piece). Society should be so free as to allow individuals to flourish though this they must do on their own merit. But with freedom comes responsibility, for oneself as well as for the community as a whole. Education should be for all, minimal welfare should be for all, justice should be available for all and nobody should be above the law, i.e. everybody should be held accountable. As for freedoms: freedom of speech, a free media, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest peacefully, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom from prejudice, from discrimination are all examples of what liberals passionately believe in. Liberalism is particularly significant when studying Weimar, the Spanish Civil War and all authoritarian regimes which, of course, challenge liberalism. |
Conservatism | Conservatives don’t like change. At every stage at which there has been agitation for change in political systems and in society, conservatives have looked to preserve the status quo. Keep the monarchy, keep the feudal system, keep a limited democracy; don’t change, at least not unless you are absolutely sure it is for the better. Conservatives accept that there is a natural hierarchy, whether based on breeding, class, or education, there are those who should be in positions of power and influence, and those who shouldn’t. In this sense, it is seen as a reactionary force: reacting against change. Yet conservatism will accept reforms, but they have to be carefully thought through, and they have to be practical. Conservatism believes in the individual and individual responsibility. Keep government to a minimum, let the economy run itself as much as possible, tax people as little as possible. So that they are less concerned with community and welfare provision. Think of the conservative reaction in the death throws of Tsarist Russia or the conservative reaction to Weimar, conservatives support for Hitler too. |
Nationalism | Nationalism is about a people with fundamental things in common, like language, culture and history, enough anyway to say we are the same people. In the nineteenth century nationalism was a call for self-rule, for nationhood for states like Germany and Italy who were divided into sub-states and, at the same time, under the control of outside powers: Austria-Hungary and, to a lesser extent, France. They looked at the established states like Britain and France, saw how they were doing very well, and wanted the same. Prior to WW1, nationalism was a powerful force in the Balkan states who wanted independence from Ottoman rule or, again, Austro-Hungarian rule (though we should not forget about Ireland). And then President Wilson enters the stage with his notion of ‘self-determination’. Actually, America, a country with a strong sense of “the nation” is almost the reverse of the European experience with people coming together from very different cultures, histories, and with very different languages, but with the one thing in common that makes them Americans: they came to America. Since WW2, the focus of nationalism swung to the colonies of the European empires as well as the subjected nations of the Soviet bloc, and today, it is back in Europe with the break-up of the Soviet bloc, the break-up of Yugoslavia, with Catalans, the Irish (the issue still not fully resolved), Checks and Slovaks, and others all seeking their own independence. And what is going to happen in Britain post-Brexit is anybody’s guess. |
Fascism | Fascism is a crazy coming together of the Left and the Right. For it encompasses the value of tradition that we find in conservatism (for example, in fascism, the traditional role for women). Whilst it is also a form of extreme nationalism, believing in a strong authoritarian and militaristic state and a strong, dynamic leader. It is also an intolerant ideology: either you’re one of us and you’re with us, or you have to go. Yet it encompasses socialism too in the way it seeks to benefit the working class whilst trying to eradicate the notion of class, replacing it with everyone working for the good of the nation, though not with equal reward. Whilst it even shares some things with communism. Fascism believes in a strong state and in a one-party state, and there would be a large degree of state control over the economy. But fascism accepts capitalism, it would, however, control it by bringing it into the ‘corporate state’, something like the command economy but with private enterprise still operating. The corporate state would also replace parliaments in that representation would be through the different sectors of the economy and the state structure, for example cereal producers, textiles and water, gas and electricity were three different corporations in fascist Italy. As for Nazism, here there is a very strong racial element, a belief in Social Darwinism and eugenics, and there is a stronger reliance on the party rather than the state, whilst there is not the same belief in ‘corporatism’. |