Which ideology believes the government

Today, food scarcity and poverty are pervasive. Whether this was due to socialist policies, a slide back into authoritarianism, or international intervention is an open question. But there is little doubt that the socialist policies alienated many business owners and middle-class professionals in Venezuela.

Socialist and Marxist feminism differ from liberal feminism in that the former see capitalism and private property as a structural basis of patriarchy and gender inequality. For socialist feminists, there is a broader and intersectional oppression of women in both capitalism and culture. As you can see, there is an important difference between Marxist feminism and socialist feminism—where Marxist feminists locate patriarchy and gender inequality in capitalism itself, socialist feminists emphasize the intersectional relationship between economic and cultural forces, or in other words, they are not necessarily committed to the idea that capitalism created patriarchy.

Rather, socialist feminists argue that women must gain some financial independence from men in order to realize greater equality and justice. Robust social policies that close the gap for women in social, economic, and political spheres are, for socialist feminists, the way to achieve this equality.

As the above indicates, socialist feminists do not see patriarchy as the sole form of oppression of women. Instead, oppression emerges from an economic system capitalism and a cultural belief system patriarchy that when combined manifest gender inequality and injustice for women. For liberal feminists, equality often means that women should be equal to men in social, economic, and political spheres.

In this view, women do not need radical structural reform for example, of capitalism itself but rather the same opportunities afforded to men. For example, the liberal feminist may argue that women have a right to enjoy the same prosperity capitalism affords to men, not that capitalism inherently creates inequalities between men and women.

Classical or traditional conservatism emphasizes traditions of the past, a natural law of principled moral order, and the social bonds that hold society together. Custom and convention—the way things have been done in the past—are often regarded as valued ends in themselves for the classical conservative, or traditionalist.

In this respect, classical conservatism is deeply wary of an individualistic view of society. The concept of individual rights, above and beyond the valued traditions and customs of a community, can be regarded as the basis of communal and moral decay.

We can see how classical conservatism is importantly different from classical liberalism in this regard. Classical liberalism has an individualist view of society. Recall that Locke, the father of classical liberalism, held great disdain for the aristocratic classes of privilege and wealth. Historically, traditional conservatism can understood as broadly aligned with the monarchical and religious authorities of Europe that developed over the centuries.

Kings and queens had a divine and absolute right to rule—individual subjects had no basis to question this authority. Hierarchy, authority, and royal custom provided a firm basis of both social and moral order. In this respect, the birth of classical liberalism in the writings of Locke and others represented a radical and progressive attack on this presumptions of authority and hierarchy.

Indeed, the idea of progressivism is usefully contrasted with conservatism, and this is best seen when we look at these concepts temporally, that is, in time. Conservatives often see solutions to present political problems located in the past, and seek to resuscitate or preserve past customs and ways of doing things to bring about a solution to this problem.

For progressives, those same present political problems can only be solved by looking toward a hopeful if uncertain future, thinking of new ideas or practices beyond the horizon of what humans have already done.

The past, for the progressive, is often populated with prejudices and injustices that cannot be the basis of practical political solutions in the present. This distinction is clearly apparent when we look at the ideas of Edmund Burke, considered the father of classical conservatism, and his scathing critique of the French Revolution that emerged late in his life.

The French Revolution, inspired by the American Revolution that had just ended, was a large-scale social and political upheaval that sought to destroy monarchical and church authority in France during the last years of the 18th century. Burke offered a philosophical rebuke of the radical French Revolution, decrying the destruction of order and authority the revolution brought about.

In this attack, Burke provides a theoretical definition of conservatism: an ideological disposition to conserve order, conserve authority, and conserve the traditions that bind a social order together. The words conservation and conservative are etymologically related, and it should be easy to see why. Environmental conservation is committed to the preservation of our natural world; conservatism is committed to the preservation of traditions and customs in our human world.

But he nonetheless believed firmly in the values of tradition, custom, and moral order. A traditionalist view of politics remains to this day. Social conservatives, for example, are seen as more traditionalist, or classically conservative, as opposed to economic conservatives, who are more aligned with classically liberal beliefs of individual self-interest and a non-interventionist approach to market activity. An economic conservative, on the other hand, may not hold much of a position on gay marriage at all, may even be supportive of it, and would instead argue that deregulation of the economy and tax cuts would provide the economic freedom for individuals to prosper.

At its core, modern conservatism is a coalition of social and economic conservatives. As indicated above, social conservatives seek to preserve the social traditions, or past ways of life, that provided and should continue to provide the basis of what is regarded as good social and moral order.

Indeed, social conservatives often view politics through a moral lens—our notions of right and wrong should guide political belief and action. In this sense, religion plays a key role in our lives and communities. Justice, for the social conservative, often means upholding tradition and morality, even at the expense of individual freedom.

The freedom for a woman to terminate her pregnancy or for a man to marry another man should be restricted by moral principle and tradition, for example. Looking at social conservatism through the lens of freedom and equality gives us more questions than answers.

While social conservatives very often value certain forms of freedom and equality freedom of religious worship, for example, or the need for some equality in a traditional community , these concepts are generally less important to the social conservative than moral tradition.

In this respect, as indicated above, there are some similarities between classical liberalism and modern conservatism. One may go so far as to say that economic modern conservatism is a classically liberal response to the growth of the modern liberal state—a neo-Lockean response to the New Deal.

Indeed, modern conservatism in American politics is widely considered to emerge after World War II as an ideological coalition that developed in the Republican Party. In American political parties, the idea that all conservatives are Republicans and all modern liberals are Democrats is actually quite a new phenomenon. As recently as the s and 90s, there were liberal members of the Republican Party and conservative members of the Democratic Party.

But the two major political parties in the U. These party developments have to a large degree shaped the visible contours of modern liberalism and modern conservatism.

In understanding the differences between modern liberalism and modern conservatism, the role of regulation and government intervention may provide some clarity. Both modern liberals and modern conservatives support certain kinds of government intervention and regulation.

It is often said that modern liberals want to regulate the boardroom, whereas modern conservatives want to regulate the bedroom—that is, modern liberals seek greater government intervention in the economy so as to level out socio-economic disparities and inequalities, whereas modern conservatives seek greater government intervention in restraining personal choices that they see undermining social and moral order, such as drug use, abortion, or gay marriage.

But, as seen above, modern conservatism is a bit more complicated than this—economic conservatives are quite often less committed to the traditions and morals of social order than to the value of a free marketplace. For economic conservatism, however, this does not necessarily imply the complete absence of government intervention.

Farm subsidies, bank bailouts, and more generally speaking, monetary policy are also government interventions that have a substantial effect on the economy. The American government has a constitutionally recognized monopoly on the printing and coining of money, as well as the authority to set interest rates for loans that banks take out from other banks. Indeed, monetary policy is the main form of economic intervention by the American government.

The question, therefore, is not whether the government should intervene in the economy or not, but rather what form this intervention should take. Conservative feminism is a contested term, and for many feminists, a contradiction in terms. But if we look to the realm of ethics, we might develop some concepts that may be regarded as both conservative in a social sense and feminist.

Ethics regards the moral principles that suggest the right way for humans to live and behave. This returns us to the concept of justice—an ethical view of justice seeks to define those moral principles as justice in itself. For ethical feminists, being a woman is not some abstract concept, but a lived experience.

The feminist philosopher Jean Bethke Elstain is one of the more prominent voices in ethical feminism. For Elstain, being a woman is an ethical stance based on the unique characteristics than define womanhood. Women, ethical feminists argue, are uniquely different from men. Women should instead advocate for a politics of compassion that is derived from their lived moral experience of being women, and men can and should learn from women in this respect.

Elstain argues that men typically strive for some sense of equality, an intellectual detachment that perceives every individual to be the same on one level or another. For women, it is emotional attachment of care and compassion, not intellectual detachment, that best characterizes their moral compass, according to ethical feminists. As with all these ideologies, it is important for students to be critically engaged with these ideas.

One might counter ethical feminism, for example, by pointing out that not all men strive for some sense of equality—indeed many men have advocated implicitly and explicitly for inequality between the sexes. This too may be considered a liberal view, in the sense that individuals should have the right to choose their own ends and conceptions of a meaningful life.

Indeed, ethical feminism can be sharply contrasted to liberal feminism. Should women be regarded as just the same as men or are women different in ways that are valuable, ethical, and the basis of a feminist political project? For Elstain and other ethical feminists, women and men speak different languages, the former of care and compassion, the latter of rights and abstract rules.

Our political community would be more just if it listened to this unique perspective of women more. For example, Elstain questions the idea that family is a strictly private institution. The well-being of family and the lived experience of family life should in fact be the central topic of politics. What sort of policies benefit the care and compassion necessary for the well being of family life?

In the final analysis, Elstain suggests that we listen more and develop the compassion necessary to accommodate different experiences. Public life, so often dominated by men, can learn this from women. In surveying some broad political ideologies, we first considered the question of justice. For most of the ideologies above, the question of justice is answered, to varying degrees, with the values of freedom or equality. Classical liberalism is an ideology more committed to the freedom of individuals, although the concept of equality is important.

Where modern liberalism places greater emphasis on equality while still valuing freedom, socialism and democratic socialism move much further toward an equality of outcomes. Traditional or classical conservatism regards justice differently—a just society is one that preserves the social bonds of traditions, customs, and moral principles that animate the community. Modern conservatism is best understood as a coalition of social conservatives and economic conservatives. Social conservatives are more traditionalists, closer to the values of classical conservatism, whereas economic conservatives emphasize freedom for individuals in a marketplace and thus are more closely aligned with classical liberalism.

We also looked at three variants of another ideology—feminism—that can give us an example of the broad nature of these political ideas and how we can draw connections to other political ideas. Political ideologies are too numerous to catalog here, but in surveying liberalism, socialism, and conservatism, as well as their feminist variants, this chapter provides three broad ideological systems that often serve as foundations for other ideological beliefs.

All three may very well adhere to the concepts of comprehensive equality and equal opportunity. With regards to equality of outcomes, both liberalism and conservatism seem to suggest this is not ideal although some semblance of equality in outcomes may well be a desirable consequence of redistributive justice in modern liberalism. Many variations of socialism, however, find an equality of outcomes to be a necessary and ideal value in society. For socialists, that we all have some rough equality of goods and resources that is in itself fair, or equitable, and suggests that communities in which we are closer together in terms of wealth and status provide a better sense of justice for individuals.

In the next chapter, we will focus on political institutions and the kind of ideological foundations that inform different institutional arrangements. A concept in which humans judge some actions desirable and others undesirable. Norms in this sense relates to evaluation or value judgement. It distinguishes between 'dominant ideologies' and 'ideologies of resistance', and also between 'restrictive' and 'relaxed' ideologies.

The term 'restrictive ideologies' conjures up the image of rigidity, narrowness and bigotry in the ideological cause. Liberalism, conservatism, socialism, Marxism, fascism and the other ideological traditions and movements all have a recognised body of literature expounding the main tenets of their ideological belief systems. Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times, but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.

Ideology is … a system of definite views, ideas, conceptions, and notions adhered to by some class or political party. Soviet Philosophical Dictionary , Political debate is widespread in society. Whether we are aware of it or not, most of us are, at a very simple level, political philosophers. In democratic societies like the UK and the USA citizens are expected to have opinions on a wide range of issues that either directly as individuals or collectively as citizens affect their lives.

How we think about these and many other subjects will be influenced by the kinds of ideological beliefs we carry around in our heads, the product of our social conditioning, our life experiences and our reflections on them, the nation we live in, our educational level and our social class. We regularly draw on this store of ideological beliefs when we try to make sense of the world. Maps vary in their degree of accuracy.

One can assess their value by comparison with objective reality and debate with others. Ideologies are associated with power structures. Politicians seek power. Their ideology and the social, economic and political circumstances of the time influence what they do with that power when they have achieved it. Indeed, it is impossible to separate the two.

This applies even to those who deny having an ideology. The use of power always takes place in a framework of ideology. Modern politics can only be properly understood by reference to the great ideological movements: conservatism, liberalism, socialism, fascism, and so on.

Ideologies tend to have a bad press. They should be respected as important ways of understanding the world. Is there something about ideological thought that is distinct from other forms of thinking? David Joravsky provides a useful starting point:. When we call a belief ideological, we are saying at least three things about it: although it is unverified or unverifiable, it is accepted as verified by a particular group, because it performs social functions for that group. They will include the creation of a sense of group solidarity and cohesion for members of that group through shared ideological values; an explanation of the past, an analysis of the present, and, usually, a vision of the future with some description of how a better future will come about.

To justify their power and to persuade the people to obey, follow and support them, rulers use ideologies of various kinds. Machiavelli advised, in The Prince , that religion was a very useful tool for the ruler. To Machiavelli the real objective of politics was the getting and keeping of power. Appeals to the welfare of the people were merely part of what we would call the ideological window-dressing, hiding the raw struggle for power.

Machiavelli put his finger on one of the most important roles of ideological belief systems if we may include religion as one of these, for the moment.

Until the last couple of centuries, in most societies the dominant form of belief was religion. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries rational and scientific forms of thought provided a growing challenge to religion.

By the eighteenth century there were sharp and bitter tensions between religious and secular attitudes. One of the features of the Enlightenment was a strong, rational critique of religious beliefs and the perceived baleful influence of religion on politics. It was hoped that one could use reason to discover the laws governing the organisation and functioning of society as the laws of science were being used to discover the workings of nature.

Once religion and other forms of irrational thought were removed from political discourse, it was believed, rational programmes would enable human society to improve dramatically. By the middle years of the nineteenth century industrialisation was transforming the economies, societies and the belief systems of the Western world.

A new way of thinking about society was required. The most influential were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who had a striking influence on the study of ideology. Class interests, in their view, shape ideologies. Take liberalism, for example. Liberalism is an ideology. Marxists believe that this is not the case. Liberalism may make eminent sense to the bourgeoisie, Marxists argue, and it may even convince members of the proletariat, but it essentially serves the interests of the former and helps the exploitation of the latter.

It is worthwhile identifying the interests behind ideological statements of principle by politicians. Lenin, the Russian revolutionary, refined this doctrine of ideology further. In What is to be Done? This is a key development in the study of ideology. Henceforth, all Marxist analysis of ideology would treat it as a tool of class interests, whether working-class or ruling-class. Thus the Soviet Union, created by Lenin and built around his revolutionary party, was governed by people using a socialist ideology as the justification for their rule.

One can understand that ideologies may be perceived as a tool used by dominant social groups to maintain and enhance their established power position in a struggle of ideas.

Dominant ideologies permeate all aspects of society, from popular culture to the education system, from religious institutions to sports. Condemned to perceive reality through the conceptual spectacles of the ruling class they are unable to recognise the nature or extent of their own servitude. However, dominant ideologies do not have the field all to themselves.

Social and political groups in subservient power positions do not always accept the legitimacy of the system in which they live.

Or an ideology might be one of both domination and resistance. It would be wrong to assume that, although ideological thinking forms a part of all our waking thoughts, the experience of it and degree or intensity of commitment to a set of ideological beliefs are the same for all people. No study of conservatism in Britain would be complete without reference to the speeches and writings of Edmund Burke, in particular his Reflections of the Revolution in France Marxism, and its class analysis of capitalist society, is, of course, honoured by its eponymous core thinker and voluminous writer, Karl Marx.

In all these cases it is impossible to think of the movement without also thinking of the ideological tracts that shaped its image along lines formulated by the leader.

It does not necessarily describe some of the great texts associated with political movements. They provide a reference point for thought and action, a sense of identity with, and commitment to, the movement, and often demonstrate a degree of flexibility in practical use that enables ideologies to keep in touch with the world around us and so remain relevant to contemporary concerns.

Indeed, democratic politicians sometimes clearly state their political programme in terms of a struggle of ideologies. Paradoxically unless we stake out our ideological boundaries and defend them against external assault and internal subversion we will not attract to our cause the millions of non-ideological supporters who are necessary for our victory.

A clear statement of our philosophy is essential to our success and perhaps our survival as a major political force. However, all too often restrictive ideologies can become mere excuses for lack of rationality on the part of the ideologically committed.

Ideology becomes a source of narrow-mindedness and unthinking conformity that crushes the originality of the individual adherent. Such beliefs are often not clearly thought out or logical or coherent. They may be indirect and accidental connections of ideology and power. We are all creatures of ideology, even though our ideologies are not necessarily well thought out or logical. These terms are a common shorthand in discussions of politics — so common, in fact, that one often uses them without a real grasp of what they mean.

Delegates were divided into aristocratic members, who sat at the right hand of the king, and the revolutionary and populist members, who sat to the left. The centre has somewhat different political values, involving less inequality, a greater role for the state in helping individuals, a greater stress on freedom, and optimism about the possibilities for improving human nature and society. To the left of the centre the emphasis on the role of the state in creating greater social equality grows, including collective ownership of the means of production, greater emphasis on class rights and a class analysis of society.

It is relatively easy for some voters to shift their support from communist to fascist parties and vice versa. The nature of modern domestic and international politics has raised questions about the continuing validity of the spectrum model of political values and ideologies, which originated in the nineteenth century, for the early twenty-first century.

Green politics, environmentalism, feminism, gay politics and animal rights, as well as religious politics, do not fit very easily into such a conceptual framework.

Yet several writers have argued this, most notably Daniel Bell and Francis Fukuyama. Daniel Bell, in The End of Ideology and later in an article in Government and Opposition , argued that ideological debate was in decline as a means of understanding society. Modern societies are concerned with non-ideological problem solving. They have become more moral, more liberal and only distantly connected with a class analysis of society.

Francis Fukuyama, in The End of History and the Last Man , elaborated ideas he had previously published to argue that the end of the Cold War had shown the triumph of liberalism and liberal democracy to be the ideologies of modern scientific and technological societies. Liberal democracy was of universal application and represented the ultimate objective of mankind. Ideological conflicts arising out of feminism, nationalism, environmentalism and anti-racism are merely representations of the fundamental worth of liberal-democratic values.

Indeed, they take place within a framework of liberal-democratic ideological assumptions. But they have been attacked for being propagandists for American economic and political domination of the planet. They have also been attacked for having ideas that are in fact highly ideological in themselves and for systematically ignoring evidence that challenges their thesis.

We have observed that ideologies arise out of particular social circumstances and reflect the structures of power in society. An ideology, however, is customarily presented as a natural and rational analysis of society.

It will carry with it the assumption, overt or covert, that opposing ideologies are somehow unnatural and irrational. Ideologies claim they are universally applicable to all peoples in all societies and are not the product of a particular time and place. They create a particular language of meaning and explanation to encourage the individual to develop a sense of being a full member of a major movement for social reform. As part of this, criticism of the ideology will be associated with negativity and can be dismissed as such by its supporters.

These points may give the impression that one is talking about the restrictive ideological forms of ideology, but they also apply to the relaxed forms of ideology in society. Ideological assumptions thus affect all aspects of society: family, political parties and pressure groups, local and national politics, and international politics. One must not, however, think that ideologies emerge as part of a conspiracy by a Machiavellian elite to brainwash the public. This would be far too simplistic a view of how ideology develops.

Members of the elite in any society rise from that society and generally share the ideological and cultural values of most of its members. There is an ideological element to most aspects of culture. Nihilists often categorically reject traditional concepts of morality in favor of violence and terror. Russia has had a long association with anarchism and nihilism.

Many prominent members of both movements were Russian, including Mikhail Bakunin, considered the father of anarchism. Russian nihilists engaged in a number of terrorist attacks in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including the assassination of Czar Alexander II in SparkTeach Teacher's Handbook.

Summary Overview What Is an Ideology? Summary Major Political Ideologies.