List: Idea

{| cellspacing=5 width=100% English - Українська
 * align="left" valign="top" style="background:#efefff; padding:8px" colspan="4" width=100%|
 * align="left" valign="top" style="background:#FFFFFF; padding:8px" colspan="3" width=100%|
 * align="left" valign="top" style="background:#FFFFFF; padding:8px" colspan="3" width=100%|

This article covers the “meat” of any ideology – the actual ideas and principles behind it, as well as all the names people like to attach themselves to. The ideologies listed must be created before 1930’s at the very least. Additionally, we’re going to divide these ideologies based on their core principles, not by their left-right divide.

Anarchism
The core tenet of anarchism is the idea of “statelessness”: the establishment of self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. It opposes authority or hierarchical structures in the conduct of all human relations and advocates for either a violent revolution against them or voluntary removal of oneself from such hierarchies. As expected, what constitutes “statelessness” and how to achieve it is a subject of long and bitter debates between various branches of anarchist thought, as well as left and right-wing commentators in general.

Some regions of the world also have a “de-facto anarchy” of a collapse of a centralized government and the realization of the Hobbesian concept of “war of all against all”.

Needless to say, anarchists themselves don’t like to be compared to such regions, while critics regularly cite them as the result of “anarchism in practice”.

Platformism
Platformism, aka Makhnovism, is an anarcho-communist ideology that seeks unity from its participants, having, as a defining characteristic, the idea that each platformist organization should have a core set of ideals and goals the group decides to work towards, while ignoring or setting aside differences to prevent infighting

Based on the experiences and ideas of Nestor Makhno during the Russian Civil War and the crushing defeat of anarchists by the Bolsheviks and combined Cossack-Ukrainian nationalist forces, this ideology was developed by a combination of surviving Russian and Ukrainian anarchists in exile as an answer to the chronic disorganization of anarchist movement which was considered to be the main reason for their defeat.

As an ideology, platformism stresses the need for tightly organized anarchist organizations with a unified policy that is able to influence the working class and peasant movements. Platformism (mostly) rejects the model of the Leninist Vanguard and instead uses class consciousness and collective responsibility to unite people with anarchist ideas tactically and theoretically so that they could lead the class struggle into organizing a unified federal executive committee.

The main critique of platformism effectively boils down to the coercive nature of such movements and their enforcement of a unitary line above all. Opponents of platformism accuse them of wanting to establish an anarchist warlord state or just a centralized authority overall.

Centrism
Like "communism", the term "centrism" is a loaded one, the exact definition of which differs from person to person.

When people refer to “centrists”, what they usually mean is that the person is a “moderate”, someone who avoids political extremes and promotes a moderate, pragmatic, maybe even realist approach to politics. Sometimes by “centrism” they also mean a consistent lack of strong beliefs or even general apoliticism – rejection or avoidance of politics altogether. All of these definitions have one thing in common though: the desire to find and support the “middle ground”, even if it means going against everyone.

And thus in this category, we describe ideologies that are entirely and unapologetically “non-committal”. To maintain the stability of a nation's political sphere, they oppose or avoid political changes which would result in a dramatic shift strongly to the left or the right...or reject them altogether, preferring to rule with practicality, whatever that would imply for them.

Populism


The distinction between “the people” and “the nation” is a very broad one, so broad in fact, that many don’t even make it in the first place. After all, what is a nation, but a broad collective of people? But it wouldn't be wise to equate “nationalism” and “populism” into the same group, because, for starters their main target groups are different. A nationalist cares only about the nation and the people that the nation serves. A populist, on the other hand, cares about the people in general and their wishes first and foremost. And it is exactly this “broadness” that makes populism distinct and “centrist”.

Populism is not a coherent ideology, instead, it’s best described as an umbrella term for movements that emphasise the wisdom and honesty of the common man and his struggle against...anything. More often than not it’s the struggle against the “elites”: the virtuosity of everyday men is compared to the supposed wickedness and dishonour of the powerful, laying the blame for the ills of society and the failures of government on those who have more money and connections than they do sense and decency.

Sometimes, the enemy of the common people is not elites, but specifically people from other nations or large business ventures. They oppress and brutalize the poor common people while gathering riches and taking them away from the poor. It is not noble then to oppose such tyrants and take back what rightfully belongs to the people?

Sometimes, the enemy of the common people is “progress” itself, for it is the common person that gets chewed by it first. What difference do long-term promises of stability and wealth make for an average man, when he is hungry and can’t find a job? What difference does GDP or other measurements make, when the common man’s sweat is replaced by machines or cheaper immigrant labour? What difference does progress in general makes, when you can’t afford it? If modernity leads to crisis, then what is the point of it?

What to do about it depends on their other political affiliations, for a populist is rarely guided solely by the will of the people: while left-wing populism may often emphasize the economic element, right-wing populism may focus on social and cultural elements instead. Sometimes the sole goal of a populist movement is to facilitate change desired by the people, sometimes the goal is to return to an idyllic past. Some think that true populism can emerge with the help of a strong, stable, watchful government that can anchor policies below the national level based on direct democracy, decentralization, subsidiarity, and above all, solidarity. Some think that true populism can emerge only in what is essentially an ochlocracy (mob rule). Some just ride the wave of popular support to follow their own political goals as well.

This broadness is why some use the term “populist” pejoratively. The main critique of this movement is the simple fact that more often than not masses themselves don’t know what they want due to a lack of knowledge or care. Because of this to listen to them is to willingly self-destruct your community.

Communism
Communism is an all-encompassing system of beliefs that seeks to:
 * economically create a society centered around common ownership of the means of production and free distribution.
 * socially establish a classless, stateless, moneyless and humane society.

Communism and socialism have been very polarizing ideologies, owing to the simple fact that even communists and socialists themselves can’t agree on what term is best to use. In both our and that world, the proponents of both used these terms nearly interchangeably with distinctions only arising when there was a need to segregate themselves from other communists/socialists one ideologically disagrees. This stems from the movement ultimately agreeing on the end goals and (arguably) common enemies, but disagreeing about the means to this end.

Another thing worth noting is that Marxism does not differentiate between "socialism" or "communism" very much, calling them "lower-stage Communism" and "higher-stage Communism" respectively. The different names for those stages, while not new, have started to mean different things only after the Russian Revolution, when “communism” started to refer to socialists who support the theories of Bolshevism. What is consistent, however, is that both communism and socialism are stateless and classless.

Thus to spare me and the readers the tedious and, frankly, pointless endeavour of trying to differentiate socialist ideologies from communist and vice versa, it is best to organize them based on, in my opinion, one of the main differentiating principles between various left-wing schools of thoughts – expansionism or a belief that their revolutionary/communist aims ought to be realized on a global scale, rather than at a purely national or local level.

Those who choose to only establish a communism/socialism within one state, will be mentioned as “progressive” ideologies to differentiate them.

Vanguard Socialism
Colloquially called “Leninism” or “Bolshevism”, vanguard socialism is based on Lenin’s interpretation and development of Marxism. Leninism argues that to achieve a communist society, a close-knit group of individuals pulled from the working class (proletariat), known as the revolutionary Vanguard, needs to gather in the great portion of the working class in a unified political party, known as the vanguard party.

The party will then be used to organize the working class and educate them about class contiousness. This would help bring a popular revolution which would then establish a dictatorship of the proletariat - a society and government where the working class and the state are synonymous. The main objective of such a state is to transition the society to higher-stage communism and eventual abolishment of class. This would mean that political power is collective, therefore there's no need for a limited body with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (i.e. no state)

To maintain a coherent and unified front against the counter-revolutionaries and other classes, the vanguard party must be led by the most class-conscious revolutionaries, whose main goal would be to both develop and control the main party ideology and goals. The entire party must then reach a consensus and follow that ideology to the letter (democratic centralism).

Another feature of Leninism was its response towards the question of nationalism and self-determination. Generally speaking, they oppose imperialism and support national self-determination...but only insofar as to combat the rising ethnocentrism of various minorities and their oppression by the imperialist majority.

It should be remembered that vanguard socialism is an internationalist ideology based upon the notion of class struggle. Ideas of nationalism, religion and ethnocentrism are considered distractions from that. Because of this, vanguard socialists acknowledge people's right to self-determination and right of secession but do not acknowledge any other ideology other than themselves.

Vanguard socialism is commonly criticized as an undemocratic interpretation of socialism, but perhaps a more damning accusation is that of hypocrisy: seeing that Lenin himself had to deviate substantially from his own ideas by disbanding the soviets to centralize political power in the hands of the Vanguard party, and installing the NEP, what is seen by some left-wing activists as backsliding. Another common criticism is their stance on national self-determination. Internationalist socialists deny this outright, claiming that national identity is secondary to class and should be ignored or suppressed. Nationalists, especially the ones from the former Russian Empire, also cite hypocrisy, seeing their violent attempts of establishing allied socialist governments in nations such as Finland, Kryvia, Ukraine, etc. as contradicting their pledge to respect the right of secession of former parts of the Russian Empire.

Trotskyism
Alternatively called “Bolshevik–Leninism”. Trotskyism is a rising branch of vanguard socialism based on Leon Trotsky’s ideas and interpretations of Marx and Lenin’s body of work. He supports the principles of founding a vanguard party of the proletariat, which would help them in establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, and would then export the revolution to other places via proletarian internationalism.

However, he believes that this new socialist state should be ruled by the proletariat alone (as opposed to the peasant-worker state of the USSR) via the principle of council democracy as opposed to the centralized bureaucracy of Zinoviev and Stalin.

The main two principles behind Trotskyism are the idea of a “permanent revolution” and a “degenerated worker state”, though as of the end of Keine Zeit, only the former is fully developed.

The theory of “permanent revolution” is an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved advanced capitalism. According to Trotsky, in countries (such as Russia), where the capitalist class is too weak to advance the development of an industrial proletariat, the existing proletariat should take matters into their own hands and take control over the country with the help/in alliance with the peasantry. The resulting popular revolution would grow directly into a socialist revolution and thereby become a permanent revolution.

The principle of “degeneration” would be developed in 1937 and onward by Trotsky as an addition to the permanent revolution theory and a reaction to the state of the Soviet Union. According to it, a dictatorship of the proletariat may develop a powerful caste of state bureaucrats, which will seize the power from the workers. Such a state will be unable to progress further towards higher-stage communism, and without any political revolution to overthrow the bureaucracy, it will eventually slide back to capitalism, highlighting the necessity of a permanent revolution.

As of 1930 the term “Trotskyism” is mostly a pejorative term, used by the Bolsheviks as a way of discrediting the principles of the Left Opposition in the USSR. Only with the establishment of the Fourth International in 1938 shall it become a full-fledged ideology.

Zinovievism
Zinovievism is a rising branch of vanguard socialism based on the ideas and interpretations of Marx and Lenin’s body of work by Grigory Zinoviev, the current leader of the USSR. He supports the principles of founding a vanguard party of the proletariat, which would help enforcing a dictatorship of the proletariat with the help of a centralized administrative body. Additionally he also believes in a the concept of “Socialism in One Union”, “command centralization” and the principle of “creeping internationalism”.

“Socialism in One Union” is less of a principle and more Zinoviev’s answer to the USSR’s economic and ideological isolation, as well as a rebuttal of the idea of “Socialism in One State”. The argument was that instead of centralizing the territories into one large state with one centralized plan, the state should instead decentralize based on some arbitrary characteristic. In the case of Russia that characteristic was ethnicity, though Zinoviev himself never really specified and likely based his judgment on Lenin’s writings. These new states would automatically become a member of a larger socialist federation and would contribute their economies and workforce into a common socialist market. That way, instead of competing with the capitalist countries, the socialist USSR would instead create its separate “market”, independent from the rest of the world. This would also strengthen the overall economic health of the union, as instead of a general central plan coming from Moscow, each member-state would create its own central plan and agree it with the federal capital.

To ensure the cohesion of the local and federal government, all controlling elements were to be under a centralized command structure aka united into a unified bureaucracy that would effectively control and plan the economic and sociopolitical life of the federation. This union would be commanded in the style of the military to ensure swift unitary control and punishment of counter-revolutionaries and traitors. Ideally he plans for this bureaucratic apparatus to switch to one unitary language that would stand separate from various national languages as the true language of socialism.

The idea of “creeping internationalism” before was mainly used to explain Bukharin’s ideas of market socialist economics under NEP, but after his exile Zinoviev used this term to explain his ideas of USSR’s global politics, the crux of which were the support and eventual assimilation of local socialist and communist groups into the centralized command structure of the USSR and once they’ve established control over their territories – incorporate them into the USSR proper for protection and integration into the socialist economics. This way he would support the liberation of oppressed minorities from capitalist and colonialist forces and ensure the realization of “world communism”, one region at a time.

Conservatism


Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that orientates itself around the ideals of tradition, preservation and refining societal and cultural institutions according to accepted societal norms. Like progressivism, the conservatism of Keine Zeit is a broad spectrum, whose sole defining characteristic is the opposition to change. This opposition can range from violent to peaceful, radical to moderate.

They can advocate for slower, steady reforms rather than the dramatic changes purposed by progressives and communists. They can advocate for a total rejection of modernity and return to a desired past state of things, and that past may not necessarily even be a real and historical thing. They may advocate for a free market or they may advocate for an economy controlled by the state.

Be as it may, what makes conservative a conservative is a simple notion that the current society is good as it is, and, maybe outside of some ideas that would be good to bring back, things should just keep on going on the way they’ve been going. After all, a present familiarity is always preferable to a future unknown.

Identitarianism
The term “identity politics” is a relatively new invention, coined only in the late 1970s and yet it is an incredibly useful tool, the usefulness of which I feel not many people realize, in part because of its modern controversial status.

Its usefulness starts to be clear the moment you give a simple explanation of what “identity politics” is: it is an encompassing term for various systems of beliefs and modes of political organizing revolving around the interests of a specific identity. The identity in question can be anything: race, sex, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, etc. And while a person can hold multiple identities at once, to be an identitarian, you need to think of oneself through the lens of a specific identity and that putting stock in this identity is desirable. Such ideas are a stark contrast to the internationalist ideas of classless societies and because of that – they take a separate category.

Additionally, there are cases where the identitarians emphasize their chosen identity as among the most, if not the most important. In our world, these people are called in many ways: “radical”, “supremacist”, “terrorist”, “jihadi”, etc. But for the sake of brevity, we shall specify these subsets of identitarian beliefs with a prefix “ultra-”.

Nationalism


Nationalism is an extremely broad subset of identity politics, but it is that broadness that makes it so persistent. In the most generalized terms imaginable, the main goal of a nationalist movement is to represent and promote the interests of a particular nation-state and to protect the interests of people belonging to the said nation. If the movement doesn’t have a nation – it must forge it. If the people they represent don’t have a strong sense of national identity – they need to build it. And the question of nation-state and national identity is what makes nationalism so diverse.

National identity can be based on anything: culture, skin colour, geographic location, language, religion, tradition, oppression, currency, opposition to other nations, etc. The more two distant people from different cities have in common, the more they can relate to each other and thus the more solid that identitarian bond becomes. And if there are enough people who feel the same, think the same and behave the same, they need to be represented broadly. The nationalist solution to this is to create a nation-state – a country dedicated to serving and promoting the interest of this specific group of people. The “nation-state” can be called in many different and specific terms, like “ethnostate”, when the state exists to serve a certain ethnicity or “Islamic state” when it serves Muslims under Islamic law. In the case of civic nationalism, the citizenship of the state itself becomes the sole common ground and the state exists to serve them no matter the creed or affiliation.

The common practical criticism of nationalism lies in the question of representation and tolerance of people who are not a part of said national identity, be they other people or even simply a subculture. Nationalists are...divided on what to do about them, but only in terms of tolerance. No matter the rhetoric, that position can be usually boiled down to “assimilate or get out”, something other people living in that nation-state may oppose.

Internationalists critique nationalism for its inherent divisiveness, as instead of focusing on the common aspects of human experience, they draw upon and highlight perceived differences between people, separating them and sometimes even hating them. To an internationalist, especially a left-leaning one, nationalism is but a tool for the ruling elites to oppress the masses, destroying and submerging individual identity within a national whole.

Ultranationalism
Ultranationalism upholds the “nation” as the ultimate good, believing that the vitality and survival of the nation-state are more important than the people who comprise it. Ultranationalists see their nation as superior to all others, regarding foreigners and foreign ideas with disdain. It should be noted, that it is not necessarily authoritarian, as the idea of the nation is above everything, even the leader of the state or the gods themselves.

Mixed ideologies
Like with religious ideas, humans have also taken political ideologies and merged them together to form new ones or rethink old. That’s probably the greatest feature of human creativity – no matter how derivative it may be, it will always create something new based on nothing but the sum of experiences and views of the author being injected into the mix. Because of this it would be silly of me to not include here both rules on how we mark these mixed ideologies, as well as the most common current ones.

To create a mixed ideology, you need to remember that two ideologies rarely mix perfectly equally. If they did – this wouldn’t be a mixed ideology, but rather its own thing. Instead, one component of the mix is always more dominant then the other, give it its “unique taste”, so to say. To showcase this, always put the dominant ideology first in the new name. Anarcho-monarchism is first and foremost an anarchist ideology, that then wants to have a monarch as its leader.

Social-Nationalism
Also called “Left-Wing Nationalism”, is a mixture between the traditionally left-wind ideas with representative democracy, and nationalism. A typically progressive ideology, social-nationalists proclaim improvements to the people’s material and social conditions to be their main goal, while also trying to maintain/implant a sense of a common national identity into its population. This national identity is proclaimed to be above distinctions (or prejudice) based on wealth, class or faith.

Social-nationalism typically espouses anti-imperialism, abolitionism and often rejects the concept of ethnic nationalism, though the latter two are far from a typical characteristic of it and is usually seen as a side effect of the state having to house multiple ethnicities and/or races

As an idea, social-nationalism has its roots in the republican movement of the French Revolution and became popularised among many national independence movements retaliating against foreign imperialism. It has also naturally emerged in countries that either previously didn’t have a unified political or national consciousness, or as an aftermath of a vicious political struggle between radical movements as a “neutral” ideology.

That “neutral” position is its main strength, as social-nationalists are not particularly tied by any ideology and can mix and match different political and economic ideas, so long as it generally benefits their goal of social justice and upholding a national identity. However this is also the main point of critique against such ideology, as both the left and right-wing movements argue that social-nationalism is not doing enough to achieve their stated goals and it’s also destined to either fall into populism or be subverted by a charismatic strongman into a dictatorship.

Progressivism
In the age of social and political revolution, there will always be those who want to improve their current societies in a way more substantial than simply giving them better tools. These ideologies are represented in Keine Zeit as “progressive”: a broad spectrum of various left and right-wing ideas that strongly support the expansion and acceleration of certain scientific, economic or techno-social processes to generate radical social change, no matter the cost.

It should be noted, however, that progressivism is not always positive and certainly not global in the same way communist ideologies are. While communists advocate for an ultimately global stateless world, progressives don’t have a unified opinion on the matter. Many of these ideologies tend to be hard nationalists or regionalists, preferring either grassroots cooperation or isolation from the larger world entirely. As far as progressives are concerned, the socialist revolution doesn’t accelerate the world fast enough and in the correct direction.

Progressivism can be seen as the direct opposite of conservatism; while conservatives desire to retain or return to a past state of being, progressives desire to push society forward into the future, rejecting the past.

Stalinism
Alternatively called “Creative Leninism”. Stalinism is a rising branch of vanguard socialism based on the ideas and interpretations of Marx and Lenin’s body of work by Joseph Stalin. He supports the principles of founding a vanguard party of the proletariat, which would establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. Where he differs from other nascent schools of vanguardist thought is his adherence to the idea of socialism in one state and the principle of “praktika” or “creative Marxism”.

The position of “Socialism in One State” was born out of necessity, as the expected Western European socialist revolutions were either defeated or turned against the Bolsheviks ideologically. It was thus proposed that instead of waiting for or facilitating a world revolution, the USSR (and other communist states) must instead focus on strengthening themselves and building their socialist infrastructure as opposed to launching armed revolutions around the world. The goal of a world revolution is thus “postponed” and will be realized when the chain of socialist revolutions eventually happens again.

The concept of “praktika” was fully developed by Stalin during his exile, but one he always had even when Lenin was alive. Ousted from power by a person he considered to be nothing but a demagogue and a spoiled emigre, Stalin developed a contempt for dogma, proposing that Marxist ideology shouldn’t be bound by the ideas or beliefs of one individual, but instead be “creative” or “practical”: adapting socialist theory to the situation on hand, rather than blindly bending everything in service of a vague goal. “Praktika” doesn’t mean a full-on rejection of the theoretical parts of Marxism, as Stalin was still basing his theory on Leninism and described himself as a loyal Leninist. Rather it argues to think critically about the chosen dogma, discard the elements of it that are counterproductive while adopt and merge useful elements from other Marxist interpretations.

From 1929-1931 his views on power grew more radical, in part as a reaction to what was happening with the socialist revolutions all over the world. In his writing he would coin the concept of “aggravation of class struggle” (pejoratively called “class total war”): as the proletariat continues to grow, their enemies would grow weaker and would resist their annihilation more violently, using any means at their disposal. Therefore repression and even extermination were necessary to prevent them from succeeding in their presumed goal of counter-revolution.

He would also write that decentralized, democratic socialism was weak specifically because it relied on the fickle will of the people. Instead, a strong socialist state required a strong, central figure the people can rally around and dedicate their life towards, even if they were sceptical towards the larger socialist goals.

Lists:

 * Introduction to Politics
 * List: Land
 * List: Economy
 * List: Ruler