:: wikimiki.org ::

Left-wing Politics

Left-wing politics

:Left wing is also a term used in several sports; see winger (sport). In politics, left-wing, the political left or simply The Left are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism or social democracy/Social liberalism. In addition it is considered the opposite of right-wing politics. Communism, as well as the Marxist philosophy that many base it on, and most currents of traditional anarchism are often considered to be radical forms of left-wing politics. Many left-wingers, however, reject any association with communism or anarchism. The term comes originally from the legislative seating arrangement during the French Revolution, when republicans who opposed the Ancien Régime were commonly referred to as leftists because they sat on the left side of successive legislative assemblies. As this original reference became obsolete, the meaning of the term has changed as appropriate to the spectrum of ideas and stances being compared, and the point of view of the speaker. In recent times, the term almost always includes some forms of socialism, social democracy, or, in the sense in which the term is understood in the United States, liberalism. The left is often seen to include secularism, especially in the United States, India, the Middle East, and in many Catholic countries, although religion and left-wing politics have at times been allied historically, such as in the U.S. civil rights movement, or in the cases of liberation theology and Christian socialism. Peter Singer (Princeton University, Professor of Philosophy) defines "the left" as being those who place minimizing suffering above other moral imperatives, such as tradition or rights. This definition handles the formation of leftist politics and modern bioethics issues well, but is intentionally over simplified and favorable, and does not handle some historical issues, like state communism correctly. See political spectrum and left-right politics for further discussion of this kind of classification.

History of the term

:See the Left-Right politics article for more detailed discussion of the history and development of the term Although it may seem ironic in terms of present-day usage, those originally on 'The Left' during the French Revolution were the largely bourgeois supporters of laissez-faire capitalism and free markets. As the electorate expanded beyond property-holders, these relatively wealthy elites found themselves clearly victorious over the old aristocracy and the remnants of feudalism, but newly opposed by the growing and increasingly organized and politicized workers and wage-earners. The "left" of 1789 would, in some ways be part of the present-day "right", liberal with regard to the rights of property and intellect, but not embracing notions of distributive justice, rights for organized labour, etc. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, the left had for a long time the meaning of the non-religious side of politics. This gradually changed into the more general European meaning of the word. The European left has traditionally shown a smooth continuum between non-communist and communist parties (including such hybrids as eurocommunism), which have sometimes allied with more moderate leftists to present a united front. In the United States, however, no avowedly socialist or communist party ever became a major player in national politics, although the Social Democratic Party of Eugene V. Debs and its successor Socialist Party of America (in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century) and the Communist Party of the United States of America (in the 1930s) made some inroads. While many American "liberals" might be "social democrats" in European terms, very few of them openly embrace the term "left"; in the United States, the term is mainly embraced by New Left activists, certain portions of the labor movement, and people who see their intellectual or political heritage as descending from 19th-century socialist movements. The New Left refers to radical left-wing movements from the 1960s onwards who claimed to be breaking with some institutions and traditions of the left. Where earlier left-wing movements were generally rooted in labour activism, the New Left generally adopted a broader definition of political activism, commonly called social activism. The New Left has had varying degrees of unity since its rise in the 1960s, losing some of its initial radicalism and mainly existing as loose coalitions of numerous distinct movements, including (but not limited to) feminists, greens, some labour unions, some atheists, some gay rights activists, and some minority ethnic and racially oriented civil rights groups. Many Greens deny that green politics is "on the left"; nonetheless, their economic policies can generally be considered left-wing, and when they have formed political coalitions (most notably in Germany, but also in local governments elsewhere), it has almost always been with groups that would generally be classified as being on the left.

Left-wing issues

The left has historically opposed the preservation of wealth and power, especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally had them. Outside the United States, which lacked an historical ruling class or nobility, this often included at the most basic level demands for democratisation of the political system and land reform in agricultural areas. With the spread of the industrial revolution, left-wing politics became concerned with the conditions and rights of large numbers of workers in factories and of lower classes in general. Partial or full socialism, the welfare state, or trade unionism have been specific ways in which some leftists have tried to advance the interests of the poor. In modern times the left also criticized what it perceives as the exploitative nature of globalization through the rise of sweatshops and the race to the bottom, and has sought to promote fair trade. As civil and human rights gained more attention during the 20th century, the left allied itself with advocates of racial and gender equality, and cultural tolerance. It has also opposed to some forms of aggressive nationalism, such as imperialism and offensive war, which has been seen as a vehicle to advance the interests of capitalism. Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary to advance the interests of the poor and middle class. Advocacy of government or social intervention in the market puts those on the left at odds with advocates of the free market as well as corporations (who oppose democratic control of the markets but not necessarily all control) if they see their interests threatened. Many on the Left describe themselves as "progressive", a term that arose from their self-identification as the side of social progress. Left-wing positions on social issues, such as opposition to social hierarchy and authority over moral behaviour, strict adherence to tradition, and monoculturalism, may make them allies with advocates of right wing advocates of "individual freedom", though their solutions are very different. The above strands of left wing thought come in many forms, and individuals who support some of the objectives of one of the above stands will not necessarily support all of the others. At the level of practical political policy, there are endless variations in the means that left wing thinkers advocate to achieve their basic aims, and they sometimes argue with each other as much as with the right.

Communism and left-wing politics

Despite the important differences from other left-wing ideologies, communism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the left." This is somewhat parallel to the customary inclusion of fascism (and, in particular, that of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) in "the right." Nonetheless, communism differs significantly from other politics that are usually classified as left wing, and most left-wingers (even many far left groups) reject any association with it on the grounds that communism is too totalitarian to be politically humane or egalitarian. The argument that communism should be viewed independently of the conventional left-right spectrum has perhaps been made most eloquently by Karl Popper, through his development of the concept of totalitarianism. There are, however, many communists (most notably Trotskyists and council communists) who regard the totalitarianism of the former Soviet Union to be the result of Stalinism and its betrayals of genuine communist ideology. Likewise, most right-wingers (even many nationalists) reject any association with Nazism and fascism as well. Some say that leftist welfare state reforms in many non-communist countries, such as the establishment of social security and recognition of labour unions helped to stave off communism by alleviating the excesses of capitalism, hence protecting and preserving social support for capitalism.

The Soviet Union

In the days of the Soviet Union, left-wing movements worldwide had different relationships with Moscow-line communist parties, ranging from enthusiastic support to outright opposition. Lincoln Steffens, in 1919, said of having visited the Soviet Union, "I have seen the future and it works", while others, increasingly numerous over the years, loathed the perceived crimes of those regimes and denounced them at every turn. Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, the large social-democratic parties of Western Europe were largely opposed to what they saw as its totalitarianism. A large majority of members of the British Labour Party, the West German SPD, and the French Socialists were never supportive of the Soviet regime, and nor were their respective leaderships. The American Democratic party took a strong anti-Soviet stand, especially at the height of the Cold War. One example of an internal dispute within communism is that most Trotskyists adhere to some variant of Leon Trotsky's view of the post-Lenin Soviet Union as a "degenerated workers' state" and denounce Stalin as a traitor, some even claiming that the Soviet Union was actually a kind of 'monopoly capitalist' state. Others, such as the American activist Hal Draper, argued that the USSR was neither capitalist nor socialist but Bureaucratic collectivist. Large segments of the left never took inspiration from the Soviet model and actually rejoiced to see the USSR's system collapse—as Michael Albert of Z Magazine put it, "one down, one to go" (referring to Stalinism and capitalism).

China

China has undergone a transition from a "Communist" state to in many ways a right-wing authoritarian regime in recent decades. Chinese neo-left-wing politics, embracing postmodernism and Chinese nationalism, and opposed both to democracy and to what they see as a return of China to the capitalist world, arose as a political idea during the mid-1990s.Neo-left-wing politics is seen as being more appealing to students in mainland China today than liberalism, as problems faced in mainland China during its modernisation such as inequality and the widening gap between the rich and the poor are becoming more serious.

The Left and postmodernism

As Barbara Epstein notes, "Many people, inside and outside the world of postmodernism (and for that matter inside and outside the left), have come to equate postmodernism with the left" . While some postmodernists, such as Francis Fukuyama, are widely identified with the right, most postmodernists would describe themselves as on the left. Postmodernism is far from being widely accepted within left-wing political movements; it has been most widely accepted amongst left-wing academics. Left-wing Postmodernism claims to reject attempts at universal explanatory theories such as Marxism, deriding them as grand narratives. It tends to embrace culture and ideology as the battle grounds for change rejecting traditional ways of organising such as political parties and trade unions, instead it focuses on critiquing or deconstructing existing society.

Critiques from within the left

Left-wing critics of postmodernism generally see it as a reaction of the failure of socialist movements of the 1960s (both in Europe and Latin America and the USA) and the disillusionment with the old Communist Parties. They claim that disconnected from any mass movements, and pessimistic about the possibility for any mass activism these academics justified their retreat into cultural studies courses by inflating the importance of culture through denying the existence of an independent reality.

The Sokal Affair

Probably the most famous critique of postmodernism from within the left came in the form of a 1996 prank by physicist and self-described leftist Alan Sokal. Concerned about what he saw as the increasing prevalence on the Left of "a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking… that denies the existence of objective realities, or…downplays their practical relevance…" , Sokal composed a nonsensical article entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", in which a mix of mis-stated and mis-used terms from physics, postmodernism, literary analysis, and political theory are used to claim that physical reality, and especially gravitation, do not objectively exist, but are psychologically and politically contructed. The journal Social Text published the paper in its Spring/Summer 1996 issue, whereupon Sokal publically revealed his hoax. While some saw Sokal as attacking leftism in general, he was very clear that this was intended as a critique from within:

Politically, I'm angered because most (though not all) of this silliness is emanating from the self-proclaimed Left. We're witnessing here a profound historical volte-face. For most of the past two centuries, the Left has been identified with science and against obscurantism… epistemic relativism betrays this worthy heritage and undermines the already fragile prospects for progressive social critique. Theorizing about “the social construction of reality” won't help us find an effective treatment for AIDS or devise strategies for preventing global warming. Nor can we combat false ideas in history, sociology, economics and politics if we reject the notions of truth and falsity.… The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy.

Critiques from the right

Right-wing critics have generally seen acceptance of post-modernism as an indication of the poorly thought-out, fashionable nature of the academic left. Some right-wing critics mirror the idea that left-wing postmodernism is a product of the 'failure' of Marxism to bring liberation. For example Gary Jason claims that "The failure of socialism, both empirically and theoretically, ... brought about a crisis of faith among socialists, and postmodernism is their response."

The Left and Darwinism

The left's relationship with Darwinism has historically been congenial on the scientific front, with the exception of Stalin's support of Trofim Lysenko's Lamarckian views. It has been hostile on the philosophical front because the left was resisting various non-scientific right-wing political theories using evolutionary language, such as Social Darwinism. Today, evolutionary biology is increasingly seen either as supporting left-wing views directly, especially concerning sexual liberalism, homosexuality, and animal rights, or else as providing a much-needed corrective to Marxism. In particular, a number of scientifically literate leftists, such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer, view the iterated prisoner's dilemma as a key in understanding exploitation of the masses by the powerful.

The Left and war

Historically, various groups on the Left have been either enthusiastic supporters or high-profile opponents of various wars. While anti-war movements have never been exclusively left-wing, they have generally been led, inspired, organised by those on the left. While some on the left are inspired by pacifism, most left-wing opposition to war arises from anti-imperialism which leads them to reject specific wars because they see them as being in capitalist interests rather then being morally against all violence. Left-wing opposition to war is also often characterised by the internationalist belief that the world's workers share common interests with one another, rather than with the powers governing their respective countries.

First and Second World Wars

Until the First World War, there was broad agreement among those on the left on opposition to imperialist wars. Few left-wingers supported their nation in conflicts such as the Boer War. The First World War triggered fierce debate among socialist groups as to the right response to take. The Second world war was generally seen as an anti-fascist war and thus supported however some groups saw it as in the interests of capitalism and thus opposed it. These debates about positions on war co-incided with debates about wider political strategy, crudely the debate between revolutionary socialism and social democracy. Part of the driving force of the Russian Revolution was revolt by soldiers against the First World War, epitomised in the slogan taken up by the Bolsheviks "bread, land, and peace".

Spanish Civil War

The Spanish Civil War was seen by many on the left as an important fight between facism and democracy. In response to the outbreak of war, many people joined the International Brigades or other left-wing militias organized by trade unions or political parties. Others campaigned for the democratic countries to impose arms embargoes and to work through the League of Nations to stop the war.

Vietnam and the Post-September 11 anti-war movements

The next large anti-war movement that involved the western left was the Vietnam War, it triggered much opposition beyond the ranks of the left and is generally thought of as part of a growing counter-culture movement that took up many different left-wing issues. The American-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which came in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to new anti-war movements forming. Though various social democratic political parties (such as Tony Blair's Labour Party) supported and sent their countries' troops to participate in these wars, seeing them as appropriate responses to the terrorist threat, much of the organised left, particularly the socialist left, opposed these wars. This opposition was generally based to a large extent on their perception of the wars as imperialist, commonly claiming that oil and control of the Middle East were their goals rather than liberation. Some criticism has been levelled at various left-wing groups for forming anti-war coalitions with organisations that are presented as being conservative or fundamentalist Islamists. The general response has been to claim that such characterisations of all Muslim groups as extremists are racist, and that broad united fronts are positive. There has also been some controversy over the Left's use of the Palestine issue in an anti-war context. The anti-war movement was generally seen as re-invigorating left-wing movements, though there was a large current on the French Left (especially within ATTAC) that saw them as detracting from the economic issues of the anti-globalisation movement. In the U.S. much of the left-wing radicalisation was channelled into Anybody but Bush campaigns, which effectively meant supported the pro-war centrist Democratic Party. In the U.K, anti-war feeling lead to a drop in support for the pro-war Labour Party and gains for the Liberal Democrats. Some of the left-wing groups that had been involved in the anti-war movement sought to harness the increase in popular radicalism through the setting up of a new political party called Respect.

The Left and Anti-Globalisation

The anti-globalisation movement, also known as the Global Justice Movement or alter-globalization movement, is a collection of social movements which are prominent in protests against global trade agreements and the negative consequences they perceive them to have for the poor, for the environment and for peace. It is generally characterised as left-wing, though some activists within it reject association with the traditional left. Certainly it is concerned with what are generally thought of as left-wing issues. From the right, the anti-globalisation movement is often caricatured as an attempt by far-left groups to repackage themselves and it might also be regarded as existing within a broader set of anti-capitalist movements and philosophies.

Political parties on the Left

Depending on the political viewpoint of the categoriser, different groups might be categorized as on the left. One might generally characterize parties as on the political left in their respective countries, though even then they might have relatively little in common with other left-wing groups beyond their opposition to the right. However even this can cause issues. For example, the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of centrists affiliated with the Democratic Party in which former President Bill Clinton was active, is generally considered to be the right wing of the U.S. Democratic Party. Outside of the U.S., the Democratic Party is considered by many to be right-of-centre.

Notes

#[http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/albertold13.htm Revolutions In The East], Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, Z magazine, Date=? #[http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue22/epstei22.htm Postmodernism and the Left], Barbara Epstein, New Politics, vol. 6, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 22, Winter 1997 #[http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue22/epstei22.htm Postmodernism and the Left], Barbara Epstein, New Politics, vol. 6, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 22, Winter 1997 #[http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=59issue=105 Postmodernism, commodity fetishism and hegemony], Néstor Kohan, International Socialism, Issue 105, #[http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html Chomsky on Postmodernism], Noam Chomsky, Z-Magazine's Left On-Line Bulletin Board #[http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies], Alan Sokal #[http://www.physics.nyu.edu/~as2/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity], Alan Sokal, first published in; Social Text, issule 46/47, 1996 #[http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies], Alan Sokal #[http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_06/jason-pomo.html Socialism's Last Bastion], Gary Jason, Liberty

Winger (sport)

In sports, the term winger is the name of a position, including football, rugby union, rugby league and field hockey. It refers to positions on the extreme left and right sides of the pitch (the wings). See winger (ice hockey).

Football (soccer)

In football, a winger is an attacking player in a wide position. Wingers are usually players of great pace or dribbling ability so as to provide cut-backs or crosses from which strikers can score. Their main function is to support attack from the wings. They are a special breed of midfielders who work up and down the flanks, and traditionally, are not expected to track back and defend. However, most modern wingers do defend and track back to repossess the ball, although their primary function lies in attack. Wingers used to be highly prized in the older times, but their importance has dwindled through the years. In the 1966 World Cup for example, England manager Alf Ramsey played without natural wingers in a team known as the "Wingless Wonders". In the modern game, some wide midfielders replace the role of wingers, whose contributions include providing defensive cover for fullbacks. One good example is David Beckham, who played in the position of right wing during his days at Manchester United, but is not commonly regarded as a winger since he functions primarily as a right midfielder and does not use either speed or dribbling ability to support play.

Famous Wingers

- George Best
- Tom Finney
- Ryan Giggs
- Garrincha
- Stanley Matthews
- Chris Waddle
- John Barnes

Current wingers

- Denilson
- Cafu
- Roberto Carlos
- Robert Pirès
- Fredrik Ljungberg
- Luis Figo
- Ryan Giggs
- Cristiano Ronaldo

Rugby union and Rugby league

Wingers or wings play on either the extreme left or the extreme right. They are usually the fastest players on the field and score the most tries. For more information see Rugby union positions and Rugby League positions.

Political spectrum

A political spectrum is a way of comparing or visualizing different political positions, by placing them upon one or more geometric axes.

Determining political spectra

The key assumption of such a spectrum is that people's view(s) on many issues correlate strongly, or that one essential issue subsumes or dominates all others. For a political spectrum to exist, there must be a range of beliefs. Political systems in which most people fall clearly into one group or another with almost no one in between, such as most nationalist controversies, are not well described by a political spectrum. In Iran, for instance, a political spectrum might be divided along the issue of the clergy's role in government. Those who believe clerics should have the power to enforce Islamic law are on one end of the spectrum, those who support a secular society are on the other; moderates fall at various points in between. In Taiwan, the political spectrum is defined in terms of Chinese reunification versus Taiwan independence. Even in issues of nationalism, spectra can exist; for example, in the Basque Country of Spain, Basque nationalists range from the EAJ/PNV, who have engaged in coalition governments with both the socialist PSOE and the conservative Partido Popular, to ETA, which engage in terror tactics and armed struggle against the Spanish national government, which they view as an occupying power. Political spectra can end when one group wins so thoroughly that there is no longer a divergence of opinions. This occurred in the 1960s during the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China in the case between the rightists and the leftists in which the leftists won, or in the late 18th century controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists in the United States. Often in this situation the winners start disagreeing over new issues, and a new political spectrum is created. In some cases, the defeated side can re-appear after several years or several decades, and start the controversy anew. At other times the political spectrum remains, while the issues which define the spectrum change. The controversy over the selection of William of Orange's successor to the English throne helped to define the British political spectrum which exists to this day, long after the original controversy was resolved. In some cases, especially in democratic countries without a "first past the post" system, multiple spectra can co-exist. For example, from its founding in 1901 to 1909, the Commonwealth of Australia had two equally strong policial spectra - Free Trade vs. Protectionism and Workers vs. Bosses (Liberals). However, by 1909 the first continuum had become irrelevent, and the two leading parties of each idea (Free Trade Party and Protectionist Party) merged to become the Liberal Party, in order to better compete with the strong workers' party (Australian Labor Party). This second continuum remained dominant in federal Australian politics until the mid-1990's.

Left and Right

See main article Left-Right politics In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy, and fascism ("the Right") on one end, and socialism, communism, ("the Left") on the other. Free market liberalism is generally considered to be centrist or center-right; new liberalism or social liberalism is generally assigned to the center, center-left or sometimes (when viewed by conservatives) the left. Christian Democracy may be anywhere from center-right to center-left, depending on the country and era. National and cultural differences in the use of the terms left and right are common. In China, left and right have referred to different positions at different times, although the issues were often very different from those in Western nations.

Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis

There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis, and lines often blur among parties. For more detail see the main article Left-Right politics:
- Equal outcomes (left) versus consistent processes (right).
- Redistribution of wealth and income (left), or acceptance of inequalities as a result of the free market (right).
- Whether the government's policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right).
- Support for widened lifestyle choices (left), or support for traditional values (right).
- Whether the state should prioritise equality (left) or liberty (right). Both the left and the right tend to speak in favor of both equality and liberty - but they have different interpretations.
- Whether human nature is more malleable (left) or intrinsic (right).
- Whether the government should promote secularism (left) or religious morality (right).
- Collectivism (left) versus individualism (right).
- Support for internationalism (left), or national interest (right).

Historical origin of the terms

The terms Left and Right to refer to political affiliation originated early in the French Revolutionary era, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. The aristocracy sat on the right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics. Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same. Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and Free markets were counted as being on the left; today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. As the franchise expanded over the next several years, it became clear that there was something to the left of that original "Left": the precursors of socialism and communism, advocating the interests of wage-earners and peasants.

Alternative spectra

Some people feel that it is not obvious how these various concepts are related. They say that it is very confusing to speak of the right or the left without indicating what exactly you are referring to. They believe that one should first establish context by defining the axes upon which different positions will be measured. Many individuals and groups do not fit on such a simple spectrum. While the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum. The design of a spectrum itself can be politically motivated. Another alternative spectrum offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal emphasizes the degree of political control, and thus places totalitarianism at one extreme and anarchism (no government at all) at the other extreme. Another alternative, currently popular among certain environmentalists, uses a single axis to measure what they consider to be the good of the Earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the Earth. In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book The Future and Its Enemies, offered a new single axis spectrum that measures one's view of the future. On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it: stasists. On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control: dynamists. The distinction corresponds to the utopian versus anti-utopian spectrum used in some theoretical assessments of liberalism, and the book's title is borrowed from the work of the anti-utopian classic-liberal theorist Karl Popper. Other axes include:
- Role of the church: Clericalism vs. Anti-clericalism. This axis is not significant in the United States where views of the role of religion tend to get subsumed into the general left-right axis, but in Europe clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left-right spectrum.
- Urban vs. rural: This axis is also much more significant in European as well as Australian and Canadian politics than American.
- Foreign policy: interventionism (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. isolationism (the nation should keep to its own affairs)
- Political violence: pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). In North America, holders of these views are often referred to as "doves" and "hawks", respectively.
- Foreign trade: globalization (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. autarky (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence). During the early history of the Commonwealth of Australia, this was the major political continuum. At that time it was called Free trade vs. Protectionism.
- Trade Freedom vs. Trade Equity: Free trade (businesses should be able trade across borders without regulations) vs. Fair trade (international trade should be regulated on behalf of social justice).
- Diversity: multiculturalism (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. assimilationism or nationalism (the nation should primarily represent the majority culture)
- Participation: Democracy (rule of the majority) vs. Oligarchy (rule by a limited number of people) vs. Republic (a compromise between the two; this is a specialised use of the term 'republic' based on an interpretation of classical history)
- Freedom: Positive liberty (having rights which impose an obligation on others) vs. Negative liberty (freedom from interference by others)
- Change: radicals (who believe in rapid change) vs.progressives (who believe in measured , incremental change)vs.conservatives (who believe in minimal or cautious change), and sometimes vs. reactionaries (who believe in changing things to the way they were)
- Origin of state authority: popular sovereignty (the state as a creation of the people, with enumerated, delegated powers) vs. various forms of absolutism and organic state philosophy (the state as an original and essential authority)
- International action Multilateralism (states should cooperate and compromise) versus Unilateralism (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions).
Multi-axis models
A one-axis model is highly over-simplified, and lumps together fairly different political propositions; in particular, as seen before, there are many ways to define the left-right spectrum, which do not yield the same classifications. Several of the political philosophies that have arisen over the past two centuries do not fit on the one-dimensional left/right line, in particular anarchism and libertarianism. Anarchism is assumed to be "left", while Libertarianism is assumed to be "right". However, on the one-dimensional spectrum, anarchism shares almost the same position as various forms of Marxism, which is obviously inappropriate. Anarchism implies the rejection of government and societal control (as well as private property), while Leninism and other forms of Marxism imply the control by society of many activities. At the other end of the left/right line, Libertarianism finds itself in the same position as fascism, which is equally inappropriate. In order to address these problems, a number of proposals have been made for a two-axis system, which combines two models of the political spectrum as axes. Sometimes these systems are constructed for the specific purpose of placing one political group in a particular position, and associating it with motherhood values (values with 100% positive connonations). These charts are academic in origin, but are not widely used in political science.
Eysenck model
The first person to devise such a two-axis system was Hans Eysenck in his 1964 book "Sense and Nonsense in Psychology." Starting with the traditional "left-right" spectrum Eysenck added a vertical axis that considered "tough-mindedness" (authoritarian tendencies) and "tender-mindedness" (democratic tendencies). The effect of this new axis is that those who have very different views with regard to authority, but have the same "left-right" view (people like Stalin and Noam Chomsky), can be distinguished.
Nolan chart
Noam Chomsky] Main article: Nolan chart A second chart is the Nolan chart, created by libertarian David Nolan. This chart shows what he considers as "economic freedom" (issues like taxation, free trade and free enterprise) on the x axis and what he considers as "personal freedom" (issues like drug legalization, abortion and the draft) on the y-axis. This puts left-wingers in the left quadrant, libertarians in the top, right-wingers in the right, and authoritarianism and communitarians (whom Nolan originally named populists) in the bottom. The traditional left-right spectrum forms a diagonal across the Nolan chart, with communism and fascism both in the ultra-populist corner, an assignment hotly disputed by more liberal-minded communists who do not advocate state control over matters of "personal freedom". The Nolan chart has been reoriented and visually represented in many forms since David Nolan first created it, and has been the inspiration for an endless array of political self-quizzes, perhaps the most famous of these being the [http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html World's Smallest Political Quiz], which places one on the Nolan Chart.
Political compass
populists Largely following the Eysenck method, the model used by the political compass Organization has economic issues on the horizontal axis and issues of freedom on the vertical axis. Possibly the most popular and well-known online political [http://politicalcompass.org/ quiz], it asks a wide-range of questions before placing you on a chart.
Pournelle chart
political compass Main article: Pournelle chart A third, very different, two axis model was created by Jerry Pournelle. The Pournelle chart has liberty (a dimension similar to the diagonal of the Nolan chart, with those on the left seeking liberty and those on the right focusing control, farthest right being state worship, farthest left being the idea of a state as the "ultimate evil") perpendicular to Rationalism, defined here as the belief in planned social progress, with those higher up believing that there are problems with society that can be rationally solved, and those lower down skeptical of such approaches.
Other models
Rationalism Rationalism] In its January 4, 2003 issue, The Economist discussed [http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/library/main_illustrations.asp a chart, proposed by Dr. Ronald Inglehart] and supported by the World Values Survey (associated with the University of Michigan), to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like patriotism, abortion, euthanasia and the importance of obeying the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the traditionalist position on issues like these (with loyalty to country and family and respect for life considered important), while at the top is the secular position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of diversity (including foreigners) and innovation, and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as homosexuality and vegetarianism, as well as willingness to partake in political activism. At the right of the chart is the open self-expressionist position, while at the left is its opposite position, which Dr. Inglehart calls survivalist. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, EU countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone countries on the middle right, Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left, and ex-Communist countries on the top left. In addition to the distinctions between different types of "control" on many of these spectra, there is no clear way to locate philosophies such as feminism or environmentalism, even using a two-axis spectrum. Additional dimensions would be required to accommodate them, and that would make the model far too complex to be of any use. As an example, there are even some three axis models, both based on the Nolan Chart. The Friesian Institute has suggested a model that combines the economic liberty and personal liberty axes with positive liberty, creating a cube. The Vosem Chart splits the economic axis of the Nolan chart into two axes, corporate economics (z-axis) and individual economics (y-axis), which combine with the civil liberty axis (x-axis) to form a cube.

Ab-initio derived models

While multiple axes on the political spectrum had been postulated for a while, statistical analysis of survey data using principal component analysis to verify the theory and establish their existence, number and meaning was not done until recently. A 2003 study in the UK yielded two significant eigenvectors (that is, groups of questions that tend to be answered consistently), one less well-constrained than the other. If one examines the survey questions and tries to assign a meaning to the axes it turns out that one is like the familiar "left-right" axis that mixes economic and social issues, and the other indicates a degree of political pragmatism. The outcome of that study is that the UK political spectrum is most sensibly described with two axes. [http://politics.beasts.org] [http://www.politicalsurvey2005.com/]
Suggested reading
Maximum Liberty by Anonymous. 2003. (ISBN 0974443905) Provides an overview of the different models of the political spectrum. The author proposes a new, universal model for the political spectrum and explains why the various existing models are inadequate. The model separates the scope of government from the form of government, whereas the political spectrum only describes potential levels of government control over society, not forms of rulership and administrative organization. Beyond Liberal and Conservative: Reassessing the Political Spectrum by William S. Maddox and Stuart A. Lilie; foreword by David Boaz. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1984. (ISBN 0932790437) This book emphasises that the world needs a better model of the political spectrum. The authors favor the American libertarian concept of a two-axis model.
See also

- List of politics-related topics
- Nolan chart
- Political compass
- Spectrum (disambiguation)
- Left-right politics
- Syncretic politics
External links

- [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass]
- [http://www.self-gov.org/wspq.html World's Smallest Political Quiz]
- [http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm The Pournelle Political Axes - All Ends of the Spectrum]
- [http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm Friesian Institute]
- [http://www.federalistjournal.com/spectrum.php Alternative Spectrum - American Federalist Journal]
- [http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org The World Values Survey - main site]
- [http://wvs.isr.umich.edu University of Michigan World Values Survey]
- [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/6/14/45425/6208 Vosem Chart] Category:Political parties Category:Elections Category:Politics

Social democracy

Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism. Initially, social democratic parties included revolutionary socialists, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin alongside those who advocated a gradualist, evolutionary approach, such as Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky and Jean Jaures. After World War I and the Russian Revolution, social democracy became exclusively associated with the non-revolutionary approach. Modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable and humane, with the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society either de-emphasised or limited in scope. The term social democracy can also refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. The Socialist International (SI) - the worldwide organisation of social democratic and democratic socialist parties - defines social democracy as an ideal form of representative democracy, that may solve the problems found in a liberal democracy. The SI emphasizes the following principles: Firstly, freedom - not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power. Secondly, equality and social justice - not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities. Finally, solidarity - unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality. See [http://www.socialistinternational.org/4Principles/dofpeng2.html the SI's Declaration of Principles]

Social democratic political parties

Social democratic political parties are a feature of many democratic countries. Over the course of the twentieth century, parties such as the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, the German SPD and many other such parties throughout Europe, Canada (New Democratic Party), Australia (Labor Party) and New Zealand (Labour Party) stood in elections on political platforms that included policies such as stronger labor laws, nationalization of major industries, and a strong welfare state. During the later part of the century, most of the aforementioned parties gradually distanced themselves from socialist-style economics (and socialism in general). At present, social democrats generally do not see a conflict between a capitalist market economy and their goals. A great many social democratic parties have adopted policies of the centrist Third Way, which supports a deregulated economy and emphasises equality of opportunity as the benchmark for social equity. Modern social democrats have also broadened their social goals to encompass aspects of feminism, racial equality and multiculturalism. Whether this modern form of social democracy can properly be described as "socialist" is a matter of dispute. Many social democrats do not see themselves as socialist. Most social democratic parties are members of the Socialist International, which is a successor to the Second International. See also List of social democratic parties

"Democratic socialism" versus "Social democracy"

Democratic socialism or reformism arguably forms a distinct current of thought from social democracy, in that self-described democratic socialists still see themselves as working towards the establishment of a socialist society with a socialist economic system. Many separate parties calling themselves "social democrats" have sought to distance themselves from their democratic socialist counterparts. Naturally, there is some degree of overlap, and some self-professed democratic socialists remain associated with social democratic parties in an effort to render them more avowedly socialist. In most cases, those who merely want to improve capitalism have kept the name "social democrats" while those who want to gradually abolish capitalism through democratic means are called "democratic socialists". In other cases, particular names are used solely by historical accident.

History

Many parties in the second half of the 19th century described themselves as social democratic, such as the British Social Democratic Federation, and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In some cases these were revolutionary socialist or Marxist groups, who were not only seeking to introduce socialism, but also democracy in undemocratic countries. The modern social democratic current came into being through a break within the socialist movement in the early 20th century, between two groups holding different views on the ideas of Karl Marx. Many related movements, including pacifism, anarchism, and syndicalism, arose at the same time (often by splitting from the main socialist movement) and had various quite different objections to Marxism. The social democrats, who were the majority of socialists at this time, did not reject Marxism (and in fact claimed to uphold it), but wanted to reform it in certain ways and tone down their criticism of capitalism. They argued that socialism should be achieved through evolution rather than revolution. Such views were strongly opposed by the revolutionary socialists, who argued that any attempt to reform capitalism was doomed to fail, because the reformers would be gradually corrupted and eventually turn into capitalists themselves. Two key figures within the socialist movement at this time were César de Paepe of the Belgian International Working Men's Association, and Jean Jaures (who led the French Socialist Party until his assassination on July 31, 1914, one day before the general mobilization of forces that began World War I). Despite their differences, the reformist and revolutionary branches of socialism remained united until the outbreak of World War I. The war proved to be the final straw that pushed the tensions between them to breaking point. The reformist socialists supported their respective national governments in the war, a fact that was seen by the revolutionary socialists as outright treason against the working class (since it betrayed the principle that the workers of all nations should unite in overthrowing capitalism). Bitter arguments ensued within socialist parties, as for example between Eduard Bernstein (reformist socialist) and Rosa Luxemburg (revolutionary socialist) within the SPD in Germany. Eventually, after the Russian Revolution of 1917, most of the world's socialist parties fractured. The reformist socialists kept the name "social democrats", while the revolutionary socialists began calling themselves "communists", and soon formed the modern communist movement. (See also Comintern) Since the 1920s, differences between social democrats and communists have been constantly growing (although it should be noted that the communists themselves are far from doctrinally unified on the best way to achieve socialism). Following the split between social democrats and communists, another split developed within social democracy, between those who still believed it was necessary to abolish capitalism (without revolution) and replace it with a socialist system through democratic parliamentary means, and those who believed that the capitalist system could be retained but simply needed adjustments and improvements such as the nationalization of large businesses, the implementation of social programs (public education, universal healthcare, etc.) and the (partial) redistribution of wealth through a welfare state, in order to make capitalism more humane. Eventually, most social democratic parties have come to be dominated by the latter position and, in the post World War II era, have abandoned any real commitment to abolish capitalism. For instance, in 1959, the Social Democratic Party of Germany adopted the Godesberg Program which rejected class struggle and Marxism. In response, supporters of the former position - that is, those who wish to abolish capitalism rather than merely "improving" it - have taken to calling themselves democratic socialists and have either split from the social democratic parties or formed dissenting factions within them. Since the late 1980s, most social democratic parties have adopted the "Third Way" - either formally or in practice. Modern social democrats are generally in favor of a mixed economy, which should be mainly capitalistic but with governmental provision of certain social services. Many social democratic parties have shifted emphasis from their traditional goals of social justice to human rights and environmental issues. In this, they are facing increasing challenge from Greens, who view ecology as fundamental to peace, and require reform of money supply and safe trade measures to ensure ecological integrity. In Germany in particular, Greens, Social Democrats, and other left-wing parties have cooperated in so-called Red-Green Alliances. A number of the policies advocated by social democrats have become permanent in the countries where they have been implemented, in the sense that they are now supported by all mainstream political parties. Such policies include the progressive income tax and publicly funded medicine. Other measures, however, (such as tuition-free university education) have sometimes been overturned, occasionally by social democratic governments themselves. Social democrats have, for the most part, also abandoned the concept of nationalization and have instead fully or partly privatised state owned industry and services. These changes have been seen in the governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in Australia, that of Tony Blair in the United Kingdom, Gerhard Schröder in Germany, Göran Persson in Sweden, and the Rogernomics of David Lange and Finance Minister Roger Douglas in New Zealand. In general, these reversals in policy are supported more by the party leadership and far less by the average members of social democratic parties and their voter base. Many have claimed that the present leadership of the social democratic movement is corrupt and has abandoned social democracy in practice; to which 'modernizing' social democrats counter that their 'new' social democracy is an adaptation of those historic principles to the reality of the modern world. When discussing the recent reversal of social democratic policy it is important to bear in mind that what many people refer to as 'traditional' social democracy is now generally regarded to have been possible only because of the prevailing international climate - the post-war Bretton Woods consensus. What is of interest to contemporary social democrats, therefore, is why this consensus itself collapsed, whether it would be possible to rebuild it, and how. Some social democratic parties have at some point in their history been supporters of free trade, on the grounds that limiting international trade harms the poor by raising prices and reducing incomes: for example the Labour Party first came to government in the UK in 1924 after their opponents had lost the 1923 election by proposing protectionism. See also History of Socialism.

Views of Social Democrats today

In general, contemporary Social Democrats support:
- Regulatory systems over private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and small enterprise.
- A Social Market Economy over a Free market.
- Advocacy of Fair trade over Free trade.
- An extensive system of social security (though usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialists or other socialist groups), notably to counteract the effects of poverty and to insure the citizens against loss of income following illness or unemployment. (See welfare state)
- Government-owned or subsidised programs of education, health care, child care, etc. for all citizens.
- Moderate to high levels of taxation to fund government expenditure and a progressive taxation system.
- A system of industrial regulation (statutory minimum wages, working conditions, protection against arbitrary dismissal).
- Environmental protection laws (although not to the extent advocated by Greens).
- Immigration and multiculturalism.
- A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree. Some social democrats support gay marriage, abortion and a liberal drug policy, while others are either non-committed or openly opposed to these policies.
- A foreign policy supporting multilateralism and international institutions such as the United Nations.

Criticism of social democracy

Most criticism of social democracy comes from the right wing. Conservatives typically argue that social democratic systems are too restrictive on individual rights, particularly economic freedom, and that individual choice is not as great in systems that provide state-run schools, health care, child care and other services. Social democrats usually retort by arguing that their policies are in fact enhancing individual rights, by raising the standard of living of the vast majority of the population and eliminating the threat of extreme poverty. Economic conservatives and classic liberals argue that social democracy interferes with market mechanisms and hurts the economy by encouraging large budget deficits and restricting the ability of entrepreneurs to invest as they see fit. Social democrats might respond to this argument by observing that right-wing governments have also built up large budget deficits in recent years, notably the Reagan and Bush, Jr. administrations in the USA and the Thatcher government post-1987 in the UK. The modern liberal critique of social democracy is centred on its willingness to restrict the political and legal rights of the individual in favour of a perceived social good. For example, the debate over detention of terrorist suspects without trial in the UK in 2004-05 pitted the Liberal Democrat party, who supported the right to a fair trial, against the Labour government, who argued that curtailing human rights was justified if it served a social end. However, this critique assumes that the British Labour Party has remained true to it's social democratic ideals, see the following paragraph, and ignores similar terrorism laws introduced by the Liberal Party of Australia in late 2005. There is also extensive criticism against social democracy coming from many segments of the Left. Democratic socialists and revolutionary socialists criticise social democrats for being so dependent on the capitalist system that they become indistinguishable from modern liberals. Many social democrats explicitly renounce the label "socialist" and the goal of achieving a socialist state. This willingness to work within the capitalist system rather than trying to overturn it leads many on the left to accuse modern social democratic parties of betraying their principles out of corruption and a desire to placate business lobbies and other interest groups. Left critics allege that some professed social democrats, such as Tony Blair, Göran Persson and Gerhard Schröder, end up doing the work of the capitalists by implementing tax cuts, cuts in social programs, privatisations, industrial deregulation, and a rolling back of the welfare state rather than extending it.

Social democrats

- Karl Ast
- Paul Axelrod
- Tony Blair
- Fedor Dan
- Toomas Hendrik Ilves
- Jack Layton
- Mihkel Martna
- Julius Martov
- Aleksandr Martynov
- Georgi Plekhanov
- August Rei
- Vera Zasulich

External link

- [http://www.socialistinternational.org/ Socialist International]
- [http://www.socialdemocrat.org/ Socialdemocrat.org] Category:Political parties by ideology Category:Political theories Category:Social democracy ja:社会民主主義

Social liberalism

Social liberalism is a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from market liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Additionally, it also means Social progressivism, usually when contrasted with Social conservatism. Social liberalism (also called new liberalism) is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions, rather than the threat and use of force, to solve political controversies. Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens. Social liberalism was a development of liberalism in the early 20th century that originated with the writings of liberal thinkers such as Lujo Brentano, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, Thomas Hill Green, John Maynard Keynes, Bertil Ohlin and John Dewey. Rejecting both radical capitalism and the revolutionary elements from the socialist school, modern liberalism emphasized positive liberty, seeking to enhance the freedoms of the poor and disadvantaged in society. Social liberalism, also called new liberalism, is very different from the ambiguous term neoliberalism, a name given to various proponents of the free markets and also to some conservative opponents of free markets, such as mercantilistic conservatives, in the late 20th century's global economy. The ambiguous term neoliberalism has been used to describe the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, since it advocates positions contrary to many of those taken by social liberals. The use of the term social or "new liberal" has fallen out of favor in recent years. For more context, see Liberalism. category:Liberalism category:Political theories

Communism

:This article is about communism as a form of society and as a political movement. For issues regarding Communist organizations, see the Communist party article. For issues regarding Communist Party-run states, see Communist state. Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production. As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society. A major force in world politics since the early 20th century, modern communism is generally associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, according to which the capitalist profit-based system of private ownership is replaced by a communist society in which the means of production are communally owned, such as through a gift economy. Often this process is said initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie (see Marxism), passes through a transitional period marked by the preparatory stage of socialism (see Leninism). Pure communism has never been implemented, it remains theoretical: communism is, in Marxist theory, the end-state, or the result of state-socialism. The word is now mainly understood to refer to the political, economic, and social theory of Marxist thinkers, or life under conditions of Communist party rule. In the late 19th century, Marxist theories motivated socialist parties across Europe, although their policies later developed along the lines of "reforming" capitalism, rather than overthrowing it. The exception was the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party. One branch of this party, commonly known as the Bolsheviks and headed by Vladimir Lenin, succeeded in taking control of the country after the toppling of the Provisional Government in the Russian Revolution of 1917. In 1918, this party changed its name to the Communist Party; thus establishing the contemporary distinction between communism and socialism. After the success of the October Revolution in Russia, many socialist parties in other countries became communist parties, owing allegiance of varying degrees to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (see Communist International). After World War II, regimes calling themselves communist took power in Eastern Europe. In 1949 the Communists in China, led by Mao Zedong, came to power and established the People's Republic of China. Among the other countries in the Third World that adopted a Communist form of government at some point were Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Angola, and Mozambique. By the early 1980s, almost one-third of the world's population lived under Communist states. Communism never became a popular ideology in the United States, either before or after the establishment of the Communist Party USA in 1919. Since the early 1970s, the term "Eurocommunism" was used to refer to the policies of Communist Parties in Western Europe, which sought to break with the tradition of uncritical and unconditional support of the Soviet Union. Such parties were politically active and electorally significant in France and Italy. With the collapse of the Communist governments in Eastern Europe from the late 1980s and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, but around a quarter of the world's population still lives under Communist Party rule.

Marxism

Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the exploitation of workers. But whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform, Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to socialism. According to the Marxist argument for communism, the main characteristic of human life in class society is alienation; and communism is desirable because it entails the full realization of human freedom. Marx here follows G.W.F. Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of constraints but as action having moral content. Not only does communism allow people to do what they want but it puts humans in such conditions and such relations with one another that they would not wish to have need for exploitation. Whereas for Hegel, the unfolding of this ethnical life in history is mainly driven by the realm of ideas, for Marx, communism emerged from material, especially the development of the means of production. Marxism holds that a process of class conflict and revolutionary struggle will result in victory for the proletariat and the establishment of a communist society in which private ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community. Marx himself wrote little about life under communism, giving only the most general indication as to what constituted a communist society. It is clear that it entails abundance in which there is little limit to the projects that humans may undertake. In the popular slogan that was adopted by the communist movement, communism was a world in which 'each gave according to his abilities, and received according to his needs.' The German Ideology (1845) was one of Marx's few writings to elaborate on the communist future: :In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm] Marx's lasting vision was to add this vision to a positive scientific theory of how society was moving in a law-governed way toward communism, and, with some tension, a political theory that explained why revolutionary activity was required to bring it about. Some of Marx's contemporaries, such as Mikhail Bakunin, espoused similar ideas, but differed in their views of how to reach to a harmonic society with no classes. To this day there has been a split in the workers movement between Marxists (communists) and anarchists. The anarchists are against, and wish to abolish, every state organisation. Among them, anarchist-communists such as Peter Kropotkin believed in an immediate transition to one society with no classes, while anarcho-syndicalists believe that labor unions, as opposed to Communist parties, are the organizations that can help usher this society.

The growth of modern Communism

Soviet Marxism

In Russia, the modern world's first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale, following the 1917 October Revolution, led by Lenin's Bolsheviks, raised significant theoretical and practical debates on communism among Marxists themselves. Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur where capitalist development was the most advanced and where a large working class was already in place. Russia, however, was the poorest country in Europe, with an enormous, illiterate peasantry and little industry. Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the communists, according to Marxian theory, to create a working class itself. Nevertheless, some socialists believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the west. For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks had opposed Lenin's communist Bolsheviks in their demand for socialist revolution before capitalism had been established. In seizing power, the Bolsheviks found themselves without a program beyond their pragmatic and politically successful slogans "peace, bread, and land," which had tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War and the peasants' demand for land reform. The usage of the terms "communism" and "socialism" shifted after 1917, when the Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies. The revolutionary Bolsheviks broke completely with the non-revolutionary social democratic movement, withdrew from the Second International, and formed the Third International, or Comintern, in 1919. Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy. Ultimately, their program held, there would develop a harmonious classless society, with the withering away of the state. In the early 1920s, the Soviet Communists formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire. Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Communist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline. In 1918-1920, in the middle of the Russian Civil War, the new regime nationalized all productive property. When mutiny and peasant unrest resulted, Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP). However, Joseph Stalin's personal fight for leadership spelled the end of the NEP, and he used his control over personnel to abandon the program. The Soviet Union and other countries ruled by Communist Parties are often described as 'Communist states' with 'state socialist' economic bases. This usage indicates that they proclaim that they have realized part of the socialist program by abolishing private control of the means of production and establishing state control over the economy; however, they do not declare themselves truly communist, as they have not established communal ownership.

Stalinism

The Stalinist version of socialism, with some important modifications, shaped the Soviet Union and influenced Communist Parties worldwide. It was heralded as a possibility of building communism via a massive program of industrialization and collectivization. The rapid development of industry, and above all the victory of the Soviet Union in the Second World War, maintained that vision throughout the world, even around a decade following Stalin's death, when the party adopted a program in which it promised the establishment of communism within thirty years. However, under Stalin's leadership, evidence emerged that dented faith in the possibility of achieving communism within the framework of the Soviet model. Stalin had created in the Soviet Union a repressive state that dominated every aspect of life. After Stalin's death, the Soviet Union's new leader, Nikita Khrushchev admitted the enormity of the repression that took place under Stalin. Later, growth declined, and rent-seeking and corruption by state officials increased, which dented the legitimacy of the Soviet system. Despite the activity of the Comintern, the Soviet Communist Party adopted the Stalinist theory of "socialism in one country" and claimed that, due to the "aggravation of class struggle under socialism," it was possible, even necessary, to build socialism in one country alone. This departure from Marxist internationalism was challenged by Leon Trotsky, whose theory of "permanent revolution" stressed the necessity of world revolution.

Trotskyism

Trotsky and his supporters organized into the "Left Opposition," and their platform became known as Trotskyism. But Stalin eventually succeeded in gaining full control of the Soviet regime, and their attempts to remove Stalin from power resulted in Trotsky's exile from the Soviet Union in 1929. After Trotsky's exile, world communism fractured in two distinct branches: Stalinism and Trotskyism. Trotsky later founded the Fourth International, a Trotskyist rival to the Comintern, in 1938. Though some follow Trotskyism today, Trotsky's theories were never reaccepted in Communist circles in the Soviet bloc, even after Stalin's death; and Trotsky's interpretation of communism has not been successful in leading a political revolution that would overthrow a state. However, Trotskyist ideas have occasionally found an echo among political movements in countries experiencing social upheavals (such is the case of Alan Woods' Trotskyist Committee for a Marxist International, which has had contact with President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela), most parties are active in politically stable, developed countries (such as Great Britain, France, Spain and Germany). It is noteworthy that Trotskyists groups that contribute with pro-capitalist parties have not escaped criticism as opportunists from other Trotskyists which are loathe to do so (see Trotskyism).

Cold War years

As the Soviet Union won important allies by victory in the Second World War in Eastern Europe, communism as a movement spread to a number of new countries, and gave rise to a few different branches of its own, such as Maoism. Communism had been vastly strengthened by the winning of many new nations into the sphere of Soviet influence and strength in Eastern Europe. Governments modeled on Soviet Communism were formed in Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Romania. A Communist government was also created under Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia, but Tito's independent policies led to the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Cominform, which had replaced the Comintern, and Titoism, a new branch in the world communist movement, was labeled "deviationist." By 1950 the Chinese Communists held all of China except Taiwan, thus controlling the most populous nation in the world. Other areas where rising Communist strength provoked dissension and in some cases actual fighting include Laos, many nations of the Middle East and Africa, and, especially, Vietnam (see Vietnam War). With varying degrees of success, Communists attempted to unite with nationalist and socialist forces against Western imperialism in these poor countries.

Maoism

After the death of Stalin in 1953, the Soviet Union's new leader, Nikita Khrushchev, denounced Stalin's crimes and his cult of personality. He called for a return to the principles of Lenin, thus presaging some change in Communist methods. However, Khrushchev's reforms heightened ideological differences between China and the Soviet Union, which became increasingly apparent in the 1960s and 1970s. As the Sino-Soviet Split in the international Communist movement turned toward open hostility, Maoist China portrayed itself as a leader of the underdeveloped world against the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, with Maoism gaining recognition worldwide as a new branch of Marxism.

Collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism today

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union and relaxed central control, in accordance with reform policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). The Soviet Union did not intervene as Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary all abandoned Communist rule by 1990. In 1991, the Soviet Union itself dissolved. By the beginning of the 21st century, Communist parties hold power in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. President Vladimir Voronin of Moldova is a member of the Communist Party of Moldova, but the country is not run under one-party leadership. However, China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy; and China, Laos, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. Communist parties, or their descendent parties, remain politically important in many European countries and throughout the Third World, particularly in India. Theories within Marxism as to why communism in Eastern Europe was not achieved after socialist revolutions pointed to such elements as the pressure of external capitalist states, the relative backwardness of the societies in which the revolutions occurred, and the emergence of a bureaucratic stratum or class that arrested or diverted the transition press in its own interests. Marxist critics of the Soviet Union referred to the Soviet system, along with other Communist states, as "state capitalism," arguing that Soviet system fell far short of Marx's communist ideal. They argued that the state and party bureaucratic elite acted as a surrogate capitalist class in the heavily centralized and repressive political apparatus. Non-Marxists, in contrast, have often applied the term to any society ruled by a Communist Party and to any party aspiring to create a society similar to such existing nation-states. In the social sciences, societies ruled by Co

Left-wing politics

History of the term

Left-wing issues

Communism and left-wing politics

The Soviet Union

China

The Left and postmodernism

Critiques from within the left

The Sokal Affair

Critiques from the right

The Left and Darwinism

The Left and war

First and Second World Wars

Spanish Civil War

Vietnam and the Post-September 11 anti-war movements

The Left and Anti-Globalisation

Political parties on the Left

Notes

See also

Left-wing Ideologies

Left-wing issues

Organizations

Related political topics

External links

Winger (sport)

Football (soccer)

Famous Wingers

Current wingers

Rugby union and Rugby league

See also

Political spectrum

Determining political spectra

Left and Right

Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis

Historical origin of the terms

Alternative spectra

Multi-axis models

Eysenck model

Nolan chart

Political compass

Pournelle chart

Other models

Ab-initio derived models

Suggested reading

See also

External links

Social democracy

Social democratic political parties

"Democratic socialism" versus "Social democracy"

History

Views of Social Democrats today

Criticism of social democracy

Social democrats

See also

External link

Social liberalism

Communism

Marxism

The growth of modern Communism

Soviet Marxism

Stalinism

Trotskyism

Cold War years

Maoism

Collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism today