Ideologies

The Ideologies of Red Flood. From left to right: Accelerationism, Anarchism, Vanguard Socialism, Popular Socialism, Revisionist Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Polyarchy, Despotism, and Reactionary.

The Great War not only killed millions and rent an entire generation, it also shattered the faith in traditional religions, faiths and beliefs, leaving the world traumatised and lost for direction and purpose. The traditional establishment lost its legitimacy and was now forced to find a way to restore it. In this vacuum, ideologies have become more important than ever before, with them providing a codified set of ethics, morals, policies and guidelines for nation-states and peoples to follow. They give governments, rulers and other groups the power to command men to act in their name and to compel free men to fight for them, their beliefs and their visions, in addition to providing a legal basis for administering entire societies and a justification for their actions. Having a cohesive and comprehensive ideology to follow is paramount to ensure that the people, the government and the nation-state as a whole has a guiding principle of life to follow, to weather the storm as the world descends into madness and chaos.

 Accelerationism

Accelerationism in Red Flood started as a pejorative, a negative label ascribed to movements by socialist theorists of the Second Internationale, attacking global phenomena for a myriad of reasons; from the Vpered faction attempting to "accelerate" Russia past capitalism directly into socialism, to those who critically support Ludendorff "accelerating" the collapse of capitalism, to the March on Rome and Fiume merely "accelerating" capitalist contradictions rather than addressing them. Still, the word became a badge of pride and vigor for many - although not all smeared by the moniker accepted the label - and by 1936 it is an accepted term. Generally united by ultramodernist values and technophilia, it includes movements that identify as right, left, and beyond such concerns.

Of course, while the term in-lore may have originated as an insult hurled by members of the Second Internationale, we cannot ignore the real world terminology; the actual ideology of accelerationism and the Red Flood one, while linked, are not a 1:1 copy. The ideology's name in Red Flood - in an out of lore context - comes from a variety of sources, ranging from Nick Land, who without Artaud would not have invented his own philosophy, to Benjamin Noys, who classified people like D'Annunzio and Marinetti as accelerationists in his coining of the term. However, it is important to note that neither the real life ideology of accelerationism nor the one expressed in Red Flood can be simplified to a mantra of "make thing bad so good thing happens."

 Fiumanism

The old order: the geriatric men who delight in glad-handing and favours; the politically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt. A nation simply cannot achieve its destiny, cannot strive towards its moral purpose, with such foul fossils in control. Distilling a people from the muck of democracy requires those who not only simply wish to experience a full and free life, but have the energy to seize it, too.

Gabriele d'Annunzio was one such man, and the song that the Viceroyalty of Carnaro proudly sings has had profound reverberations. In spite of his claims of imminent national and international revolution being swiftly proven false, his efforts remained a beacon to whose guiding light many around the world flocked.

Illuminated by the Fiuman torch-light, the ethos of the city-state and its followers coalesced around principles unconstrained by the traditional political sphere. Revolutionary nationalism, anti-imperial rhetoric, single-party ruling coalitions, and class collaborationist economics play a prominent role, of course, but of equal — if not greater — importance was the mindset embodied by the enigmatic poet-king. Renewal of a country's body politic cannot occur only in the houses of government, but in the theatres, poetry clubs, and coffee houses too.

To lead a people into a better future requires vibrant souls; it requires men who take life by the throat. The romantic appreciation of a Dionysian life, the thirst for its greatest adventures, and the courage required to pursue it, necessitates those who wish to fly amongst the highest heights — not every man off the street has the élan required for such an existence. Those that do, however, shall be the heralds of the coming new world — and it shall be beautiful.

 Futurism

Velocity. Technology. War. In the smoldering tension of the 1900s, a furious engine began to roar in Italy, and its war cry would be heard around the world. From the pen of Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, his 1909 manifesto would grow into an artistic school, but also into a totalizing political and philosophical ethos that sought the remodelling of life from the dinner table to the battlefield. At the same time, as it drew interest in Italy, Europe, and beyond, its application came to defy simple political classification, other than "anti-traditionalism". Arguably the first of the modern ideologies that make up the core of Accelerationism, the world is only now reckoning with the legacy of Futurism.

Marinetti's precepts were at war with the past, viciously attacking bourgeois morality and tradition. They trumpeted militarism, youth, and innovation from the automobile to the aeroplane. At the same time, there was an elitist sensibility to the founder's rhetoric, exhorting superior men to heroism and convention-defying deeds. While frequently at odds with socialism, and while the 1920s drove a wedge between the League of Fiume and the Second International, it became far more than a rightist tendency almost immediately. At first it seduced nationalist socialists, then anarchists who also sought to upend public order. In Russia, futurism would even join arms with the communists, seeing in it a society-scale project to liberate and uplift the masses. This utopian drive would survive the Great War, forever elevating the image of the heroic pilot or ardito shock-trooper, and ensuring the new states in Fiume and Kavkaz would be built, in part, by revolutionary futurists.

Futurism's immediate novelty has worn off, but the task before it remains, with a whole world left to revolutionize. But how will the globe be reshaped, and under whom? Time in government has produced a wide range of economic models under its umbrella, from producer-directed capitalism and syndicalism to state-managed corporatism and communism. Will the motor carry its rider into ecstacies of total war, or visionary utopia? Is either extreme truly opposed? Can Futurism maintain its dizzying momentum? Or, in the end, will gravity always win?

 National Rejuvenatism

The rise of the National Rejuvenation concept is a story of success in the wake of the Great War — of D'Annunzio, of newly won independence — but also of failure. In Russia, the victors of the civil war failed to inspire much international sympathy standing atop the ashes they won. In France, the Orléans Restoration floundered on repealing the Law of Exile. In Italy, the burgeoning fascist coalition self-destructed trying to ally with conservative interests. But most importantly, in a newly reborn Poland, the forces of the traditional right sullied their hands working with the tsarist oppressor in exchange for autonomy. The new states of Europe watched and understood: the nationalism of the future would have to be explicitly modern in its outlook, or it would perish.

It would be Warsaw that served as the laboratory of the ideology. Free from German and Russian domination, but also inheriting a disunited populace to make into Poles, the state's approach to nation-building would prove instructive to other nationalists adrift in the world. The avant-garde nationalism of the League of Fiume would also prove instructive as the new tendency took shape, uniting dissident leftists and rightists just as D'Annunzio and Piarais had done. Having carved out its own regional bloc, the emboldened Sanacja regime of Marshal Piłsudski soon gained admirers and theoreticians who would run further with the concepts, promising a new sense of meaning and pride in the postwar malaise.

Collected under the label of Accelerationism, the "Rejuvenationist" model is as eclectic as its peers, and often broadly applied. There are, of course, common traits that define it. The nation requires a strong hand to awaken it, and this necessarily produces an authoritarian government. Said government exerts a strong influence on the economy. Above all else, National Rejuvenation seeks to inculcate a new national identity and mythos in the population — through all of its policy — and it is a mythos they must all recite together on the march ahead.

 Neo-Folkism

Where there is a people, there is a folk, and where there is a folk, there will be the folkish. But while the Völkisch movement of Germany exists in a liminal space between a romantic past and the industrial present, there are those that embrace the scare of modernity, willing the gears of history to grind onward. Ancient myths and folk beliefs are brought to life and given a second baptism, as under the aegis of Neo-Folkism, the carriage of the past is saddled to the runaway horses of the future.

This new face of folkism was born out of the crisis of modernity, as many countries either succumbed to the siren song of cosmopolitanism or closed themselves off in reactionary shells. The Neo-Folkists rejected those answers, they chose the impossible; they embraced the rapture of modernity, wielding it as a sword against the apathy of traditionalism and the egotistical march of internationalism. Seeped in the ink of authors such as Jan Stachniuk and the Carnaliste group of Marc Augier, Neo-Folkists took up arms against those to their left and right, cutting a path forward to secure an existence for their people and a future for their children.

Turning their eyes towards their own people, Neo-Folkists tend to shine a new light upon old ideas. Many of them throw out Christ, Jehovah, and other messianic figures in favour of a rejuvenation of the pantheist - or pagan -  faith inherent in their blood and rooted in their soil. Yet whether they wish to do away with all alien religion or simply mould it into a visage of the people, all Neo-Folkists embrace a vitalist view of faith, worshipping life itself and all that springs from it. As such, Neo-Folkists tend to embrace the collective destiny of a people based on aspects such as a shared creative energy, leaning towards socialized means of economic management, yet without succumbing to materialist worship of the international worker. It is due to this same collective destiny that democracy is often shrank down to the local level, if not trampled entirely; after all, the will of the people can manifest itself best without parliamentarians splitting it apart.

There are thousands of peoples, and there are thousands of folks; Neo-Folkism, drawing upon local roots, differs wildly from nation to nation. Yet above all else, they are united by one truth: the primordial gods and heroes of the past are alive yet still, and soon they shall find themselves fighting to defend the homeland once again.

 Technocracy

The pace of the modern era accelerates with each year. New inventions, new factories, new breakthroughs — society drags behind like a bag of sand tied to the steel horse of industry. Governments of old still fail to understand and manage the modern world. Still guided by archaic ideas, they fall into economic crisis, into anarchy. Order seems to wane with every revolution, every crash, and every one of the countless wars of the last decades.

Yet, there is a solution. A new order, brought by the brightest minds of mankind: Technocracy. These iron men wish to formulate a technical-scientific form of government, a world where not the voice of the mob will count, but the plans of a capable, rational state, suited for the challenges of modernity. Corrupt politicians, deceiving demagogues, greedy captains of industry, all are to be done away with and replaced by the rule of capable experts, knowledgeable scientists, talented engineers, and true visionaries: an elite able to conquer the modern world and forge a bright future out of it. Despite these lofty ideals, the Technocratic movement is still in its nascency. Though the idea of an unelected intellectual elite reaches as far back as Plato, and while a scientific form of government was described by Auguste Comte, the first true technocrats only appeared in the early 20th century. In America, economists and engineers discussed viable technical solutions for the kind of malaise only touched by philosophers; and in Russia, the Cosmist movement weaved utopian visions of a society that completely mastered technology and science, for the rebirth of mankind itself in a perfect form.

Where industry has triumphed, so has Technocracy spread: it has made successful appeals to European engineers, suited the tastes of British intellectuals, and even found echoes in the Far East. As the world enters a new age, the Technocrats are here to make sure this will be an age of order and progress; a true new Enlightenment, shining ever so brightly over the darkness of past centuries.

 Surrealism

The line between the living and the dead is thin, a shimmering silver thread between this reality and the next. In the Aboriginal cultures of Australia, the land itself was birthed from this thread, in what they called "the Dreaming." It is from this very seam - this dreamlike crack between worlds - that Surrealism was birthed from.

Despite what he might wish to be the truth, Surrealism did not spring from the mind of André Breton fully formed. A term coined by Guillaume Apollinaire of later Escadron fame, Surrealism was first used to describe the music of Erik Satie; a reality beyond reality. From this, the eponymous artistic movement began to take shape, but the Surrealist Pontificate would not be headed by Apollinaire, but rather by the aforementioned Breton - his dual manifestos would define the form as it would come to be known, as the Twin Testaments of the Surreal.

Yet it was only in 1927 that Surrealism would take the leap from the artistic to the political, as the expulsion of the Surrealists from the nascent SFIO over participation with the Artaud mayorship would lead to them creating their own vehicle; the Parti Surréaliste Français. Quickly, the PSF would become dominated by its leader, and Surrealism began to take form as a bastard child birthed from the incestuous rutting between utopian socialism of the 19th century and avant-garde sensibilities of the 20th.

While some on the left have simply denounced Surrealism as "Bretonistic revisionism" propagated in a Bismarckian fashion to fill the proletariat's head with lies, the movement itself branches far beyond what words fall out of the open maw of its founder. The power of modernity to bring forth the primaeval, the superiority of the unconscious over the conscious, the triumph of the metaphysical over the dialectical, the rending of reality; these are concepts shared by many, and executed in a plethora of divergent methods - the Surrealist bouquet has many blossoming flowers. After all, in a world where the logic of two and two makes industrial slaughter, who can blame the men who dare to dream of something beyond the real?

 Vperedism

In the eyes of a European observer, Communism and Accelerationism are usually seen as eternal enemies. Yet — noticed by many reactionary and moderate critics — there exist deep similarities between their doctrines: the bold impulse to completely reorder the world and bring forth a new mankind. That similarity is what lies at the roots of Vperedism, a movement that embraces both the socialist proletarian revolution and the avant-garde project of a new modernity.

Vperedism owes its name to a split among the Russian Social Democrats — between the Vpered faction of Alexander Bogdanov and the followers of Vladimir Lenin — over the question of revision of Marx in certain epistemological issues. While the former came to assert their dominance in the Party, Lenin remained influential in the Second International, and the Vperedists had to pay a bitter price for their heresy. Bogdanov was officially denounced at the 9th Congress of the International, pushing Vperedism even further to the margins of the communist movement. Yet, Lenin was not without critics. Many comrades banded together in defence of Bogdanov, forming the dissident Third International: a place for those too radical and unconventional for the doctrines of Orthodox Marxism.

While the Third International doesn't enforce a clear theoretical line, two ideas are usually defining for Vperedist movements: the primacy of the struggle of humanity against nature over social struggles, and the pivotal role of culture. Together they create a radically Promethean vision of the revolution, not only of an end to capitalist oppression, but also a transformative event for humanity itself — an unshackling of the collective will from internal struggles, now united to fight together for a glorious future. A socialism for the 20th century cannot stop at the promise of comfortable life for everyone, but should demand more: the abolition of death itself, the unending war against still matter, the collective realisation of what was once thought to be mysterious sorcery. And above all socialism has a duty to achieve the ultimate destiny of mankind: to claim the stars and spread life in the Universe, to reach dominion over the whole Cosmos.

Are such dreams too bold for a harsh reality? Or are the mainline communists mired in ideas belonging to the 19th century? No matter how dark things may seem for the war-scarred humanity, the Vperedists continue to believe there is a wondrous future waiting to be claimed, brighter than anything one can imagine.

 Anarchism

Anarchists have one simple belief: power begets parasites. Whether the man with power wears a suit and owns your workplace, waves a red banner and calls himself a revolutionary, or runs for office and campaigns for your vote, he is a parasite and a tyrant who must be fought.

 Individualist Anarchism

Since time immemorial, Man has felt the yoke of domination around his neck. Feudal barons, absolute monarchs, and modern parliamentarians have all had their turns placing their grim irons around the bodies and souls of their subjects, restricting them to such meagre existences that they can no longer even dream to be free of their shackles. Even among so-called revolutionaries, the miserable slide back towards slavery at the behest of State is a concession that far too many make. What good is revolution if the base unit of society — the individual — is still shackled? To break those chains  requires a commitment found not in the fight for an abstract idea, such as party or nation, but for man's most intimately known thing: himself.

Most closely associated with the works of Max Stirner, and hence the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzche, Individualist Anarchism finds its most potent expression not in the trite pamphlets of the unions nor the honeyed words of the parties, but in the actions of heroic individuals, each determined to push back the encroaching miasma of the State. As such, while many other ideologies have essential issues and political doctrines that they rally behind, the core principles of the individualist can be embodied in manifold ways. While not fully rejecting traditional social organisations — the power of the masses does not escape them, for better and for worse — they are simply a means to an end, a tool to wield in the destruction of the state, and then, as the revolution gains hegemony, it must be destroyed in turn; each of these successive layers that choke the individual must be discarded with the utmost militancy. From the followers of Stirner, to illegalists like Jules Bonnot, and the market anarchists of the Boston School, each person finds their own path to liberty, birthed from their own soul, and they seek, with great vigour, to achieve it — by any means necessary.

 Mystical Anarchism

Many agitators proclaim that revolution and social progress must go deeper than the political sphere in order to effect lasting change. Some delve into the cultural and social minutia, arguing over the best policies and dynamics. A few Promethean souls however, plunge into the domain of the soul. Mystical Anarchism preaches that spiritual revolution is just as critical, if not more so, than the social one. It is the vehicle by which the collective soul of mankind can be truly emancipated. By tearing down the antiquated structures of the past and liberating the masses from heedless servitude to institutions and ideas that corral the human spirit, an ultimate liberation is possible.

What might be described as "orthodox" Mystical Anarchism is formed from a synthesis of mainstream anarchist theory, while its praxis and mystic philosophy is produced by Symbolist groups, including such figures as Dmitry Merezhkovsky and Georgy Chulkov in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Others claim far earlier sources of inspiration, such as the medieval writings of Marguerite Porete, and even ancient gnostic works. It has since spread further afield, coalescing with similar conclusions across the globe, consolidating it into something greater. Mystical Anarchists can be broadly identified apart from their anarchist cousins by several factors, the first of which is a spiritual broadmindedness, uncompromising moral values quite often of a vaguely Christian character, though some veer off this road in favour of more occult or oriental pursuits. Secondly, a faculty of mystical perception, an ability to recognise spiritual aspects in one's environment and in metaphorical texts. Finally, a profound urge towards the ultimate principle of the Universe.

Indeed it can be said that fundamentally, the emancipation of society is but a means to an end. The "new man" must be liberated internally also, unleashed from bondage to the world as it appears. Some Mystical Anarchists connect this worldview with the Christian Apocalypse, whilst others are of a more esoteric persuasion, and some blend of the two. Individual liberty itself is to be surpassed in favour of a "supra-individualism", a transcendental oneness, for all men share in the Divine - a mystical transformation, self-realization in its truest sense. The way forward is clear. The revolution must be twofold, or it is nothing.

 National Anarchism

Anarchism has rarely made a pleasant bedfellow of nationalism. Much like their socialist cousins, the historical anarchist perspective is that nationalism is an obstacle to the brotherhood of men, the accelerant of militarism, and perhaps goes hand in hand with the formation of the modern state itself. For the majority of the cause, this is uncontroversial. Curiosities existed — the future anarchist luminary Mikhail Bakunin spent the revolutions of 1848 as an ideologue who would not be entirely out of line with the League of Fiume, advocating for a mass cooperative uprising of nationalist movements to destroy the great empires of Europe.

Yet like it did for so many other schools, the Great War and its aftermath upset the old balance. Mirroring some socialist parties supporting the war effort of their homelands, a number of prominent anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin and Jean Grave publicly favoured an Entente victory over the Central Powers, which they saw as an obstacle to revolution. While not a formal unity of ideologies, it demonstrated how anarchist principles could interact with national interest. More vivid was the Futurist doyen Marinetti's erstwhile alliances with Italian anarchists, which he advocated based on a shared desire to destroy bourgeois politics and morality. Perhaps it was opportunism and provocation, but was it entirely contradictory?

National Anarchism, to cover the wide array of movements grouped under it, can be described glibly as anarchism stripped of its humanist precepts - anti-state, but patriotic, even ultranationalist. A number of their organizations have gained increased cachet by harnessing strident right-wing critique of the postwar order. For some, the government as they know it is an obstacle to the elitist or heroic national ideal they stand for, and it must be decentralized into more autonomous units. Others seek the destruction of the country altogether and its disintegration into homogenous communes reflecting more primordial identities. One thing is for certain: when the centre falls, the people's hands will be freed to do what is right and necessary.

 Social Anarchism

The end goal of the communist project as outlined by most theorists is a society without classes, money, or state. In short, one might argue, anarchism.

As one might imagine, this has been a bone of contention on the political left for the better part of a century. From the early years of trying to create an international socialist movement, the socialists and the anarchists found themselves at odds over the methods for reaching that final utopia. What can be termed Social Anarchism today began with — if not past egalitarian movements such as the Diggers — Mikhail Bakunin's "collectivist anarchists," a grouping that stridently opposed Karl Marx's road to communism as authoritarian and riven with half-measures. The dictatorship of the proletariat, he argued, was the means by which a worse tyranny than a Tsar would arise.

He would not be the last to stake a position for the libertarian left. Where Bakunin advocated collectivized means of production, anarcho-communism went further in advocating for all that was produced to be held for the common use, all the better for man to pursue his flourishing. Others would cross-pollinate with syndicalism, seeing the unions as the preferred unit of self-governance. For some, officially joining a party or movement was missing the point of the cause, and the masses could be inspired to liberate themselves through bold acts of revolutionary violence.

Whether serving as a conscience for the political left regarding the use of state power, or being the romantic image of the revolutionary, the Social Anarchist remains a presence on the border of political possibility. The ongoing crisis of modernity, while it has produced mass movements in service of dictatorship, has also turned more and more people against the state and market that have failed them. And of course, while the aftermath of the Great War seemed to grant the state socialists their laurels, the old debate is far from settled. If Marx himself could grow sceptical of revolutionary centralization of power after the Paris Commune, history should have many more lessons to teach.

 Statelessness

Statelessness is a loaded word where anarchism is concerned — but then again, so is anarchy itself. The end goal of the anarchist project, after all, features the abolition of the state or overall hierarchy and its replacement with some other voluntary order. Its oldest definition, however, is the pure absence of government, something described as more of a condition to lapse into than an aspirational political goal. Nonetheless, there are three non-state conditions that are collected under the label of Revolutionary Anarchism for lack of better classification.

The first represents conditions of collapsed public order. While bureaucratic and increasingly centralized states have risen to dominate the bulk of the world, the fear still remains that all of this can be swept away into the Hobbesian "war of all against all." Due to disaster or war, a territory now lacks a discernible political authority beyond what people can reach at arm's length.

Second, far away from capital cities and colonial outposts, there are polities that have never truly been administered as conventional states. While authority may exist on the basis of strength, seniority, or spiritual significance, the clan, tribe, or band tends to lack the same concrete borders as conventional states. They may even be a migratory or nomadic people that shrugs at lines on a map.

Finally, Statelessness may result from the total realization of anarchist principles. In this case, presumably, society has returned to highly localized units without an overarching body to coordinate them. Whether this is a liberatory road forward, or a return to Rousseau's free state of nature, depends on whose dream it is.

 Stratocratic Anarchism

The historical record is replete with visionaries seeking alternatives to unjustified hierarchy and exploitation. They amass followers in the name of the betterment of man's conditions, of personal liberty, and sometimes separate themselves from wider civilization to live autonomously according to their values. The historical record is also replete with examples of these visionaries being suppressed by the organized armies of the state, capable of leveraging military production and coordination as a force multiplier against the masses. In the face of the incinerating pressure inherent in conducting a revolution against entrenched authority, a new form of organization occasionally emerges: that of Stratocratic Anarchism.

While there are arguably quasi-military organizations in the past that might serve as an inspiration, such as groups practicing social banditry, the conflicts at the end of the Great War provided examples of how revolutions may be conducted. In the Russian Civil War, one of the prominent revolutionary military leaders was Nestor Makhno, a committed anarchist. Before his desperate alliance with the socialists, and before the retreat into the Caucasus, he helmed an army of insurgents that alternately protected and governed a network of communes in Ukraine. The morality of their means was debated for years to come, and yet…

Stratocratic Anarchism, then, is the answer to the question of how the movement expects to protect itself and its gains. It is the revolutionary élan of libertarian struggle welded to the vessel of military structure. The order of the day varies from location to location, whether the army is a democratic body, or how mobilization of the population occurs, but the results can prove surprisingly effective on the battlefield. Of course, it is nothing if not controversial among fellow anarchists — even if military discipline is necessary for victory, can it be trusted to relax after the guns fall silent? In a world where the forces arrayed against true freedom have grown more vicious, however, let no one say the anarchists have not risen to the challenge.

 Vanguard Socialism

Vanguard Socialists view the immensely difficult task of constructing socialism as needing a leadership which is capable of said task. Differing from its neighbor, Popular Socialism, it believes that the people can’t or shouldn’t lead, and so dedicated revolutionaries must aid them.

 Leninism

The Leninist school of communism, introduced to the world through the Hungarian revolution, stands firm on the left flank of the international socialist movement. Formulated first by the eponymous former leader of the RSDRP, the ideology favours a harsh, doctrinaire interpretation of Marxism, a fundamentalist reading that decries others as compromised revisionism. The core principle is that of vanguardism: the revolution brought about by a group of disciplined professional revolutionaries, who are meant to form the first guard of the proletarian army in the final battle with bourgeois forces.

To truly understand Leninism, one has to understand its history. Lenin was not a prophet in his own country; outplayed by Alexander Bogdanov and the Vpered faction, accused of an attempt to take dictatorial control over the RSDRP, and forcefully expelled from its ranks. Yet in the West, his ideas found a fertile ground plowed by the Great War. The fiery orator gained followers in Germany and Hungary, always being there where the most radical of the socialists gathered, and in recognition for his work during the Eurasian Revolution he was appointed foreign minister of the new German government. It was his continued criticism of not only other international socialists, but also the German ruling party itself, that gave him a global audience - apostles of revolution who saw the SPD as turning away from the goal of communism. By the final rupture of the cabinet in the late 1920s, Leninism had a corpus of theory and flock to follow it.

With a wedge thus driven into social democratic parties the world over, Leninism has become an international vanguard of its own — castigating those on its right as renegade, and those on its left as infantile. Binding a strictly materialist ethos to an ironclad party, state-managed economy, and policy of national self-determination, it has created a doctrine of loyalty to the science of Marxism, unwilling to let the goal of communism be besmirched by petit-bourgeois falsifiers. With the apparent stagnation of the world revolution in the 1920s, many disillusioned workers may soon hear the call, deciding to take history into their own hands.

 National Vanguardism

From the first articulation, communism held that the worker had no country. For all that Marx and Engels appreciated the revolutionaries of the 18th and 19th centuries for destroying the feudal system, the nation that the bourgeois had created was an obstacle to international working-class cooperation. Though this ideal influenced the broad spectrum of leftist politics, not every adherent abandoned nationalism completely. Some, like Vladimir Lenin, would argue communism needed to be a liberator of the small nations. Others conceived of their people as inherently proletarian when compared to the more powerful empires.

The outbreak of the Great War would prove the ultimate test of solidarity for the European working class, and for the most part, it failed. The revolutions of 1918 were also not solely led by revolutionary social-democrats — in Germany, it would elevate all manner of dissident voices against the Kaiser who did not follow the orthodox social-democratic line, even some who saw a wartime sense of national community replace the false promise of international brotherhood. While it remained a marginal and fractured tendency in the aftermath of the war — consider 1922's failed proletarian-nationalist putsch in Italy — the nationalist movements within socialist states had time to refine their theory and agitate within new bounds.

No party has claimed adherence to a singular doctrine of National Vanguardism, but it is noticeable enough to be given a name by observers, just as they once did Accelerationism. Decades after the German Revolution, it remains uncertain whether the Spartakist model is what will overthrow the rot of international capitalism. As the counterrevolutionary regimes gather strength, a new and assertive breed of communist declares that if the revolution is to survive, it must use all means at its disposal to rally the proletariat, from the militant vanguard party to lead the workers, to the national ideal that will bind them together. Will this prove an invigorating force for socialism? Or will it be the gravedigger of its soul?

 Social Republicanism

The word Republic derives from the Latin phrase Res Publica, meaning public affair. Yet for so many so-called \"republicans,\" the states they construct are not truly of the people, but simply a license for license. A freedom to be left alone. What a farce! How can a citizen be free when their neighbor, their city, their nation, and their world is enslaved? This is the downfall of the \"civil republic,\" which, in reality, is nothing more than machinations of capital and false liberty.

Social Republicanism emerged out of a dissatisfaction with the notion of a civil republic, as well as the cosmopolitan stain it left on socialism as a whole. The term finds its origins in the revolutionary left of 1848, those brave Communards and patriots who pushed back against the liberal wings of the revolutions across Europe. These often maligned heroes were those who stood valiantly against the states of yore, attempting to set up a republic truly made of and ruled by the peoples of a nation, not one of a nation ruling the peoples.

Opposed to the simple application of universalist principles, Social Republicanism emphasizes the need to look at the traditions of liberty among a national body, following the thread of justice through the fabric of time. A social republic is not a state, nor a polis of Plato, but the organization of the entire national demos as rulers of themselves. Because of its ties to particular histories and nations, its manifestations are as numerous as countries, yet all hold common principles such as a commitment to democracy, a focus on national romanticism, and the need of a vanguard of, by, and for the people to guide the republic. Nevertheless, in all cases, it weaves a story of liberation and anti-domination throughout the ages, one in which the living are no more privileged than the dead, and which the flame of the ancestors is brought forward, leaving the ashes of the past behind.

 State Socialism

The struggle does not simply end once the revolution is victorious. For regimes recognized as practicing forms of State Socialism, they know that to relax the control of the party at this crucial juncture would jeopardize everything — to economic backwardness, bourgeois deviationism, or worse. Cannot the growing administrative state, having become more sophisticated over the years, be used for good before it is discarded?

In a sense, and though Marx and Engels would decry him as disconnected from the proletariat, these statist forms of socialism have a resemblance to the theory of Louis Auguste Blanqui. His model of change involved a revolutionary organization taking power, then forming a transitional dictatorship to construct the conditions of socialism. While "Blanquism" became a pejorative in his lifetime, there was a certain pragmatism to the concept. And so — whether as a reflection of the militant group that carried out the revolution, or due to a lack of a mass socialist party in the area it controls — there are forms of socialist governance that revolve around a centralized, authoritarian state, one that wields its bureaucratic capabilities to build the road to communism.

State Socialism exists as a catch-all term for socialist governments that are of the vanguardist persuasion, without being directly connected to a recognized global tendency such as Leninism or Vperedism. There is a vanguard party that controls the government, and the government controls the economy toward the ultimate ends of communism. Though sometimes decried as entrenching a new hierarchy, the ability of the state bureaucracy to make real material improvements and modernizations can give it legitimate popular appeal.  In short, the State Socialist model treats a revolution like a cure, and like any cure, it must be administered even if the patient objects. After the proletariat is raised up from the mud and educated for the task ahead, and when the machinery of the means of production gleams in the night, the people can walk the road ahead themselves.

 Stratocratic Socialism

The socialist revolutionary and the state's military are traditional enemies — the purging of the Paris Commune, the defeat of the left in the Russian Civil War, and the myriad socialist-aligned revolts sabered down by colonial garrisons have left their scars. However, under certain conditions, an avowed socialist finds themselves in charge of the army and the state at the same time, often due to the collapse of the civilian government's authority. Whether political power has passed to the army, or a warlord has ambitions of governing a socialist republic, the regime that emerges is characterized as Stratocratic Socialism.

To some extent, the Great War provided a theoretical pretext for this political arrangement. Even though the concept of "total war" was being explored and glorified by Prussian general staffers who sought a complete militarization of society, similar ideas were discussed in the civil wars of the late 1910s, including by socialist officers in Russia. Elsewhere, such as in revolutionary Mexico, some generals would struggle in the battlefield while implementing land and social reforms in the territories they controlled. Somewhere between social banditry and military junta, the avowedly red military commander has ultimate authority over an area and governs accordingly.

Under this particular form of socialism, the vanguard party is either subordinate to the military, or the military itself serves the same purpose. At times, military buildup and warfare prioritizes an outsized amount of the state's focus and resources. At others, the army is an effective, if forceful, means of clearing the ground for socialist policy via putting immediate force to state designs. Many of the advantages traditionally ascribed to a conventional military dictatorship apply here, but it is open to fears that the Red Army, or People's Militia, or whatever governs the state becomes an end in itself rather than a means — a Red Prussia governed by a privileged in-group of officers. Still, they would counter — with some justification — that when the revolution must go to war to survive, there is nobody better suited for the task.

 Popular Socialism

Popular Socialists have absolute faith in the masses in the construction of socialism. They are widely seen as the mainline tendency of international socialism, stemming mostly from the German Revolution and subsequent movements, although not all socialists in this category follow Berlin’s lockstep.

 Folk Socialism

Karl Marx, with his model of historical materialism, theorized an evolutionary process from the feudal and capitalist modes of production toward communism. While he cautioned against using it as an iron law of history, the first successful Marxist revolution occurred in a country at the peak of capitalist development, ostensibly vindicating him. So what, then, do we say to the parts of the world groaning under a less sophisticated capitalist or feudal mode of production when they seek liberation? Surely the existing socialist movement in the urban centers, however much Marx and Engels they read, is not going to wait for ideal conditions to emerge.

The concept of Folk Socialism is not an explicit tendency within the international socialist movement, but instead describes attempts to adapt the Second International's line to places not as industrialized as Western Europe. While they still pursue a socialist republic, the lack of an industrial proletariat and the dominance of rural producers - especially agriculturalists - defies repeating the path of the German social democrats. The Orthodox Marxist approach practiced in Europe, of creating a working class party that will tie itself intimately to the urban workers' movements, must adjust its remit to entrench itself in a landscape that does not remotely resemble the Germany of 1918.

For this reason, the umbrella of movements under Folk Socialism tends to occupy countries outside of Western Europe or the capitalist core of North America. While maintaining their connection to the official socialist orthodoxy, they have adapted themselves to local circumstances with the tacit consent of the Second International. Though the ultimate objective is to create a socialist system, the road there takes many twists and turns. In places where capitalism has not yet fully destabilized the pre-capitalist modes of production, these socialists seek a lath to the future via the peasant class, sometimes through skipping the bloodshed and exploitation of the capitalist period entirely.

 National Syndicalism

While the term "syndicalism" is sometimes used interchangeably with its more leftist school, it would ignore the other tendency which has gone on to have an enduring effect: National Syndicalism. Like its sibling, it originated in France before the Great War, then went on to have an outsized influence on the other Latin countries of Europe. Frustrated by the political limits of the legal socialist parties, the unions — syndicats, in French — were beginning to self-organize into non-parliamentary organizations capable of striking and agitating for their own goals. In fact, it was reasoned, the governance of the state could one day fall into the hands of the unions themselves should they unleash a suitably large general strike.

However, in syndicalism's native France, the radicals on the left and right who opposed the Third Republic were beginning to cross-pollinate ideas with one another. Georges Sorel, perhaps the chief theoretician of syndicalism, was enamored with revolutionary violence against the perceived corruption of the liberal state, and this brought him close to the monarchist Action Française of Charles Maurras. The unintuitive alliance of the two currents, united largely by opposition to democracy, was exemplified by episodes like Maurras' appreciation of explicitly undemocratic socialism alongside Sorel's brief embrace of integral nationalism. They were not alone — in Italy, too, similar connections were being made between syndicalist leaders who embraced patriotism and nationalist anti-liberals such as the ANI.

In practice, National Syndicalism has come to occupy a middle ground between the more leftist syndicalists and some of the syncretic accelerationist camp. While a number of anti-Marxist syndicalists have been siphoned off by the Fiumean example, it has left a core of fighters who believe in class struggle just as they believe in revolutionary nationalism. Motivated by more than naked materialism and lofty theories, they seek a new order of proletarian vitality, undoing the aimlessness of the liberal-bourgeois consensus and restoring meaning to life and work. Internally, however, National Syndicalist views on the specifics of government and economics can be eclectic, with some favouring the pure union-based model and others looking fondly on corporatism to unite the nation.

 Spartakism

Spartakism, as it is referred to internationally, is the orthodox ideology of the German Socialist Räterepublik following the overthrow of the German Empire. It has been upheld as a model to emulate by revolutionaries around the world, and levied as a charge against opposition in the very same places. And yet, despite how widespread the terminology has become, and how influential the German social democrats have been to the evolution of world socialism since 1918, it can sometimes be difficult to separate the historical circumstances of the German Revolution from what Spartakism refers to now.

The roots of the ideology are chiefly in the Orthodox Marxist tendency, which was already dominant in the Second International prior to the Great War. Its core tenets aim to establish Marxism as a total, scientific system for understanding the world — the interests of different classes being opposed, economic circumstances influencing the culture and politics of society, and inevitable revolution resulting from destabilization of capitalism. A political party and organized workers' movement would be cultivated in preparation for the coming crisis, fighting for economic and political reform in the meantime.

While the German Revolution had its origins in a parliamentary party, Spartakism as a name comes from an unofficial grouping of far-left Social Democratic Party members in exile, known as the Spartacus League. This faction became the most prominent of the party wings during the Revolution, leading the state in the aftermath. Today, despite the many compromises made to establish the system in its native Germany, Spartakism refers to the same Second International socialist tendency it sprouted from: parliamentarian, but engaging in constant class struggle for when the time comes to overthrow capitalism and establish the socialist republic. Although it has been pressured from the right by anti-revolutionary reformists, from the left by the hardline revolutionaries, and orthogonally by the new accelerationist camp, it remains the primary standard-bearer of international socialism.

 Revolutionary Syndicalism

Though the first socialist state would largely be led into reality by a parliamentary party, it was not a given that this would be the first model of revolutionary action to succeed. In the decades immediately before the Great War, chiefly in the Latin countries of Europe, the tendency of Revolutionary Syndicalism would shake the foundations of bourgeois states. In greater and greater numbers, the unions themselves were organizing to agitate for rights and concessions, even uniting into nationwide bodies independent of political parties. The question was raised: from there, could governance of a country pass into the hands of the unions themselves?

The origins of political syndicalism lie somewhere in the orbit of anarchism. Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin laid out a plan of retreat from electoralism and the mobilization of worker organizations to take power in strike action. Further influenced by American industrial unionism, the wave of militant union organizing would crash back against European shores before the end of the 1800s, flooding into a rapidly shifting industrial landscape. In countries such as Italy, where the main parliamentary socialists were seen as timid reformists, men on the front lines of the labour struggle spurned party politics and theoretical argument for direct action. Atop their work, philosophers such as Georges Sorel began to outline higher-minded theories of anti-parliamentary socialism, or of class warfare and violence as creative, liberatory acts.

Today, whatever the marching orders emanating from Berlin, the syndicalist current remains alive and well. It cannot not be forgotten that the unions breaking ranks with the government and launching a general strike was what forced France out of the Great War, both for the principle and the power it represents. As other leftist movements entrench themselves and compromise on their initial hopes, the stirring image of class struggle separate from bourgeois parliamentary corruption continues to inspire, even outside the traditional confines of socialism. With the old machinery of states and parties coming up against shortcomings both new and old, the workers themselves wait in the wings to begin the battle they alone are best suited for, without halfway-war or cowardly pity.

 Revisionist Socialism

Revisionist Socialism, while still accepting the fundamental premise of socialism, differs from the mainline movements in one or more critical ways to such a degree that they constitute their own branch. The disputes are mainly in regards to the need for revolution, the principle of atheism and secularism, or the focus on industrialism.

 Agrarian Socialism

The Industrial Revolution in Europe was so transformative, from how it altered structures as grand as the relations of production, to how it changed familial structure under wage labour and urbanization; that it would be bizarre if it did not similarly impact political philosophy and discourse. Was mass industrialization an aberration, or the next proper stage of civilization? The Marxist current of socialism, with its interpretations of and responses to the shocks of the new world, would come to predominate in Europe and spread across the world — but it did not entirely replace its forebears. Especially where the Industrial Revolution was slow to start or arrive, the peasants and reformers had more time to develop a concept of mass socialism adapted to their local conditions: an Agrarian Socialism.

While many socialist movements have looked toward the example of Berlin, others have derived different conclusions from the problems of the day. The final striving towards communism from industrial socialism, or the creation of an urban party to organize the workers for the revolution, may seem outright alien in parts of the globe where the bulk of the population are still farmers. Some have adjusted the Spartakist model to raise the peasantry as a revolutionary class and to plan an alternate route to Marx's goals, but others have remained focused on the practical realities of their situation. A small farmer, here, technically owns the means of production — but is he bourgeois? Does he hoard surplus value?

The Agrarian Socialist tendency thus trends toward reform to ameliorate rural conditions. It still aims for social control over the land and means of production, but primarily focused on the most old and storied means of all: that which feeds. Like the Social-Revolutionaries in Russia who remained a parliamentary party despite their consideration of Marxism, they tend to be willing to work within the existing political system rather than chase the future revolution. In other contexts, however, these currents may not even be united by a political party, but have demands and a political program to present to the government. Let it not be said that those whose lives have been treated as a transitional stage to utopia or as a mass of unthinking loyalists are content to have no voice of their own.

 Democratic Socialism

Nowadays it is easy to forget that, for all that the end goal was, and for all General Ludendorff did to force them to arms, the Social Democratic Party was a mainstream political party in the German Empire. It was not a clique of militants meeting furtively in basements and drawing up lists of people to purge, but a public organization that campaigned for concessions from the bourgeois state and support from the public it claimed to represent. If there was no turning point forced by their illegalization, what would the SPD of the 1930s have looked like? Perhaps, in practice, it would be a bastion of Democratic Socialism.

The tendency is far from novel. In Britain, where the proletariat was especially advanced, the Chartists of the 19th century sought public demonstrations of support for reform to move the levers of power in Parliament. This, rather than insurrection, was the method of the day. As political franchise expanded in democratic countries, it became more possible to take a democratic approach to what was once thought of as a revolutionary struggle. If socialism claims to represent the common man, after all, it should be able to earn their support in a fair campaign.

Democratic Socialism is thus an approach to proletarian struggle mediated through the system of representative government in its host country. Recognizing that illicit and violent struggle tends to forge an authoritarian political movement, it chooses to work within democracy to reform it, gaining control over state institutions and the economy via the ballot box. Though decried as gradualist and corruptible in some quarters, the publicly sunny face of these movements can broaden their appeal to the general population, and ideally discourage their suppression by the state. But equally important, a democratic socialist party can be removed peacefully should it lose the confidence of its base. However much bourgeois politics can corrupt, the authoritarian entrenchment that has occurred in some countries, backed by bayonets, is absent. The road to socialism will still be walked — voluntarily, with the support of the people.

 Esoteric Socialism

Many secular belief systems have been derided as a would-be religion. It is a time-worn bit of rhetoric to look at the practice of an ideology or movement and describe it in such a way, as equally dogmatic as the most hidebound sect. The jab is all the more amusing when it lands on an avowedly materialist or atheistic worldview, and the socialists and outright communists know it well. However, as the search for meaning in the modern world produced all manner of cults and scholarly groups, it was inevitable that some would synthesize socialism with a niche spiritual vision. When such an organization finds itself with political power, the resulting form of governance has been termed Esoteric Socialism.

Whether because one's strain of socialist thought is primarily non-materialist, or simply goes hand-in-hand with a spiritual or millenarian vision, the result is something altogether unlike a conventional socialist movement. Rather than a vanguard or parliamentary party, the Esoteric Socialist model may rely on a a religious or secret society as its main center of political power, perhaps initially functioning within an existing party. While the structure of this organization is often undemocratic and hierarchical, the rituals by which a member is initiated can serve to ensure their solidarity with the group and commitment to its political principles. However fallible man is in the quest for equality, giving his work a spiritual dimension can strengthen his will, whether to care for his brother in arms or for the uninitiated masses.

Largely theoretical as the world entered the 1930s, it remains to be seen what tendency will predominate — be it an offshoot of Marxism first, or a more spiritual worldview that comes to similar conclusions. Whether a perversion of socialism, or a means of granting it greater meaning, Esoteric Socialism defies easy categorization. Yet so too does a world wracked by the pained spasms of modernity. If the people demand liberation from their travails and unease, the messenger argues, let us liberate their souls as well.

 Nationalist Socialism

A lasting solidarity is hard to find, especially in conflict with other solidarities. While frequently decried as an anti-patriotic force, not all who wave the red flag have forgotten the one of their country, and see their interests in alignment. Is it out of insufficiently-developed consciousness? Or would to deny one's homeland be to march out of step with its own working class? For the socialist parties that chose the latter, they came to define the ideology of Nationalist Socialism.

This phenomenon is the culmination of a few trends in the early twentieth century. Generally, in less developed countries, it is another manifestation of the nation-building project. In this case, its adherents see state-directed economic policy as a tool of development, for fostering productive growth and national solidarity among the masses. In Europe, the outbreak of the Great War would also make many socialists choose their fatherlands over international brotherhood, some even coming to view the directed war economy and sense of collective unity as similar to their goals. Even before then, a number of Italians saw the expansion of their empire in Africa and entry into the Great War as a revolutionary task — against the wealthy empires of the world, was Italy not comparatively a proletarian nation?

Nationalist Socialism as a doctrine is far from concrete. Some of its adherents were drawn to Accelerationism, or to more authoritarian forms of socialism, leaving it sometimes defined by what was left behind. These movements are still generally parliamentary and socialist, but have stopped well short of embracing the old Marxist line that the worker has no homeland. This tends to place them in opposition to parties avowedly of the Second International. Additionally, whether for practical developmentalist reasons or out of a sense of solidarity, these socialists tend to be much more accommodating to "patriotic bourgeoisie" who can contribute to the socialist task with their industry and wealth. Decried as revisionist in text and spirit, it is nonetheless a reminder that the Social Democrats of Berlin do not speak for all proletarians with their sensibilities.

 Religious Socialism

Before sociologists and socialists put a name to it, solidarity still existed. Community and charity had their place in the community of the faithful and its good works. The revolutionary politics of the 1800s in Europe and the Americas would often take on an anticlerical tinge, or outright irreligiosity, but within the socialist movement, there were still many who were at least comfortable with organized religion even if their politics were not avowedly religious. Not for nothing is it joked that the Labour faction of British politics owes more to the tenets of Methodism than Marx. Eventually, someone would cut the Gordian Knot in appealing to the downtrodden who were supposedly not yet ready to put down the "opiate of the masses," formulating an explicitly Religious Socialism.

Certainly, it is not the only movement trying to navigate home from the individualism of the Enlightenment paradigm, but the significance to the workers' movement is obvious. Many who would be otherwise susceptible to socialist appeals were immediately turned away by the specter of the God-killing radical, regardless of its veracity. Where promises of land reform might not suffice to win over the countryside, suspicions may be allayed by articulating just how much their old traditions could have in common with socialism. For all that the established hierarchies of the church could still decry these trends as heterodox, it is difficult to forget Pope Bonifatius X's decision to recognize the German revolutionaries. Could religious and class solidarity be a necessary synthesis to replace a shaky old order?

Naturally, the interpretations of Religious Socialism vary by school, as does the extent of the faith's influence on all policy of the movement. Some have their home in political parties, others in church or peasant organizations. Whether emphasizing rhetoric of Christ, Buddhist anti-materialism, the Muslim notion of Zakat, or any other religious tenet that has resemblance to socialism, the common factor is that its conception of social and economic justice is rooted in the faith - a basis more enduring than any manifesto.

 Utopian Socialism

In a world ravaged by war, there are still a few daring to dream of a better future. A socialism that is untainted by the violent cynicism of Marxists and Accelerationists— a true brotherhood of mankind, a joyous communion of all Earth. For despite what historians in London may preach, and contrary to what the theoreticians in Germany will tell you, the idea of Utopian Socialism is not yet dead: it is just waking up.

What is referred to as Utopian Socialism in fact comprises many doctrines, from the libidinal phalansteries of Charles Fourier, to the whirring industrialism of Henri de Saint-Simon, and many more. Yet despite this diversity, all of them are united in a single vision: the perfection of humanity itself. Utopians generally have a positive view of human nature, rarely advocating for violent revolutions, and instead believing in the power of diligent labor to overcome the injustices of capitalism while stressing the importance of strong moral principles necessary to build a new world. The detractors of utopianism like to call this sentiment naïve, these dreams impossible, tested by the steel trial of modernity. Yet, the high ideals still garner followers.

The visions of a new spring for humanity, freed from petty greed and living in perfect harmony with each other never cease to captivate readers, drawn to a flickering hope of overcoming the crisis of modernity. As stormclouds gather across the globe, the peoples of Earth ask themselves: is Utopian Socialism really destined for the dustbin of history? Or will its dreams cease to be mere phantasms one day, as mankind walks gracefully into a new age of peace and splendor?

 Progressivism

Progressivism, while not fully embracing socialism, has serious criticisms which they wish to ameliorate through greater state involvement in the economy for the purpose of protecting the people’s livelihood, as well as ensuring that the society as a whole is taken care of.

 Left Wing Populism

Plenty of men on the campaign trail will tell you they are "for the people." Sometimes, even when not in front of a microphone, it will be true. Yet the hopes of many reformers have been dashed by "politics as usual," as compromise and corruption inevitably sully hands and swallow ambition. As the grievances of the common man grow and a system interested in its maintenance alone proves unable to respond to them, someone and their movement may step into the political arena to harness the public will. Where their program and rhetoric bears a resemblance to socialism or progressivism, it can be categorized as a form of Left Wing Populism.

Populism as a label is unfathomably vague, but in this context, some traits are common. The populist movement can begin outside of a conventional political party, starting as a protest or other public campaign, before it forms a party of its own or becomes an internal faction of an existing one. When they are described as left-wing, it tends to be because of an economically redistributionist agenda or an advocacy for egalitarian social reforms. Often started behind a charismatic leader or specific grievances, this tends to produce a less doctrinaire, even syncretic, political program than ones that would normally be categorized as socialist.

Left Wing Populist movements, for all they might swim upstream against entrenched political interests, have a number of innate advantages. An energetic and authentic leader can have a broader audience than established candidates, being able to make appeals across party lines and to the politically-apathetic. Furthermore, a personality with a lack of scruples or investment in the status quo can be as forceful as they wish against their political obstacles. Never predictable, it remains to be seen whether the contradictions of a populist movement will be its undoing, whether it will be co-opted by the establishment it criticizes, or whether it will prove democracy still has the capacity to renew itself.

 Liberal Socialism

A deep divide looms between the heirs of 1789 and those of 1918, the scions of the liberal individualistic tradition and the collectivist socialists. Yet the victorious German Social Democrats worked within the parliamentary system until it became impossible for them. Eduard Bernstein, the head of the SPD's right, would even define socialism as a form of organized liberalism. The task of reconciliation between the two sides' ambitions may fall to the theoreticians of Liberal Socialism.

The foundations of the tendency generally begin with English reformists, though not entirely. John Stuart Mill, ostensibly the leading light of British liberalism in the nineteenth century, wrote on the ideal of democracy as the principle of social organization, but also held that means such as economic redistribution and worker-owned cooperatives would be required to realize this. Later on, the Fabians would expound on a moral economy, committed to social justice, that cuts out the exploitative rentier class. Proudhon's extolling of worker self-management and Sombart's writing on mixed economies would also sow the seeds on the European continent. Immanent political concerns saw the ideology expand further, as those who joined the German and Hungarian revolutions adapted to their new reality, in the case of the liberals, or chafed under the mobilization and state terror required to secure their gains, in the case of some of the socialists.

Thus was realized the present state of Liberal Socialism. In practice, it generally seeks an order of decentralized power, principles of egalitarianism and voluntarism, and a mixed private-public economy. Whether to secure the allegiance of a revolutionary middle class or to achieve the ambitions of freedom that the bourgeoisie frustrate at every turn, it has thus remained a dissident current in some parts of the world despite political polarization. In the name of justice and liberty, socialism!

 Progressive Corporatism

The lightning unleashed by the French Revolution in 1789 proved alarmingly difficult to put back in the bottle. Though it was far from a linear or universal process around the world, and though many would try to reverse it, throne and altar lost much of their temporal authority in the age to follow. Obvious critique of the new liberal state of affairs came from the traditionalists, but they were not the only ones. By the middle of the nineteenth century, a new alternative had emerged, that of Progressive Corporatism.

The concept of corporate organization of mankind is an ancient one. Even Plato and Aristotle could envision a model where people were sorted into bodies according to their role in society. The great guilds of feudal Europe that organized themselves by profession are an example of this in practice — but they would not remain an ideal for the traditionalists alone. As industrialization and class tensions intensified, and the breakdown of traditional social relations like the family and guild led to alienation, sociologists and philosophers would begin to advocate for new organizations to rebuild solidarity between people.

Into this world of Saint-Simon and Durkheim stepped Catholic social teaching. Pope Leo XIII commissioned studies of corporatism, and in 1891 published the encyclical "Rerum novarum," which stressed the need for an economy based on justice and dignity, blessed the trade unions, and empathetically called for collaboration between capital and labour. While not every successor to the Throne of St. Peter was of the same mind, the Vatican's search for a course between capitalism and socialism — without rejecting the Enlightenment itself — inspired many.

Whether anchored in religious distributism or guild socialism, Progressive Corporatism still navigates between the anomie of liberalism, the dehumanization of militant modern politics, and reactionary atavism. The state, having granted rights to collective organizations and classes as a whole, pushes them to collaborate for broader societal betterment and harmony. In a world riven with conflict, it stresses there is still time for devotion to one another.

 Progressive Democracy

As the machinery of industry grew at the turn of the century and reshaped life around it, the issues that social reformers had been pointing to for decades became impossible to ignore for most of the general population. Unsanitary living conditions and the spread of disease; labour abuses and the militancy they engendered; all of this demanded action, even by those who were reluctant to upend the whole of society in bloody revolution. With the growth of government administrative capacity, and with new tools of statistical measurement and scientific study, the question was asked: Can we not apply these to improving the state of our people? The resulting tendency has been identified as that of Progressive Democracy.

Even when it is simply identified as "Progressivism," the ideology represents a root belief in the cause of bettering man and society. As the empiricism of the Enlightenment discovered the causes of disease, or its debates upheld the value of education and inalienable rights, a broad sense emerged that there was a universal ideal to strive for, opposed to barbarism. Obstacles to progress toward this ideal were identified in issues such as poverty, poor public health, and illiteracy — and as awareness of them grew, would-be reformers took their causes to the world of mass politics.

Progressive Democracy, therefore, tends to uphold the value of progress and use the means of the democratic state to pursue it. Of course, progress itself has contested definitions, much like liberalism and conservatism do, and these have historically evolved over time to meet the issues of the day. On one hand, the value of public health has led to the application of germ theory to urban sanitation, and on the other, the application of heritability to eugenics programs. Values of education and secularism have justified public schools and the colonial civilizing mission. But above all else, as a political phenomenon, it holds that the state, when faced with these great societal ills, can and should ameliorate them through a national effort

 Social Nationalism

The rote Marxist approach views the nation as a bourgeois construction, opposed to worker solidarity transcending such borders. Others may see the dangers inherent in harnessing nationalism, where demagogues wave the flag to gin up attacks on enemies both foreign and domestic. And yet, despite these caveats, there are places where left wing politics, representative democracy, and nationalism work in tandem, where progressivism and nationalism are deliberately united in a political movement. Especially as countries have achieved national independence since the Great War, this tendency has been formally described as Social Nationalism.

It cannot be forgotten that the ideal of the nation was once directly opposed to tradition and reaction. Republican nationalism tore down the vestiges of feudalism in much of Europe, from the privileged position of clergy to the demenses of minor nobility that divided the fatherland. Furthermore, while the revolutions of 1789 and 1848 are primarily considered liberal in character, a number of participants were recognizably from the political left, from the Conspiracy of Equals to the founders of communism itself. In countries where mass political mobilization is made more difficult by the aftermath of an independence struggle, a still-entrenched feudal power system, or a period of domination by another nationality, national identity is still a powerful tool to build collectivity across the country. Lest we forget the aftermath of Italian unification: "we have made Italy, now we must make Italians."

Social Nationalism by definition is a progressive ideology, with all that entails for the improvement of the people's material and social conditions. It differs from its contemporaries in its preoccupation with inculcating a national identity through the population. The conditions that give rise to it — newly won independence, or feudal backwardness — tend to lead to its growth outside of the established world powers, especially in their imperial possessions. With the global balance of power shifting, and political consciousness growing on the global periphery, the Phrygian caps of yore may be donned by men once more.

 Liberalism

Liberalism, although born from a revolution, has tapered out a bit, and usually prefers to progress society through more reformist means. While still holding dear to the values of individualism, they tend to respect the democratic process, and differ on what freedom really means.

 Classical Liberalism

It is difficult to overstate how much the philosophical and political tides of 1600s and 1700s Europe influenced the modern understanding of politics. The traditional centers of power of the king's throne and priest's altar, as well as traditional social relations of feudalism and guilds, had their inviolability explicitly and implicitly questioned by treatises on the nature of mankind and government. Through contact with the rest of the world, aided by the printing press and increased public literacy, much of global political thought — from the most basic ideas of liberalism and conservatism — has existed in the shadow of this European Age of Enlightenment. It is only now, centuries of development later, that a delineation can be made around Classical Liberalism.

At the roots of the Enlightenment liberal thought were a number of principles. Thinkers like Locke and de Condorcet would expound on natural human rights — of the individual rather than the collective — that a person could become aware of and exercise. While the extent of the political changes they desired varied, the hope was to have a government representative of its people, whether a monarchy limited by constitutionalism or an outright republic. The mercantilist, state-controlled paradigm of commercial trade was also challenged by this new tide of bourgeois intellectuals, who saw virtue and potential in canny individuals being able to make their fortune themselves.

But the aforementioned principles are a common heritage to liberalism as a whole. Classical Liberalism has become a recognizable tendency in opposition to others that were differentiated over time, chiefly over how to respond to economic questions raised under the new order. In some respects, this school is the old guard of liberalism, hewing to principles of individual freedom when others see a place for an expanded role of the state. It must be remembered, however, that in many countries liberalism entered the scene through dramatic upheaval. In parts of the world where the feudal order remains, the old liberal creed still holds revolutionary promise for those who dare to know.

 Libertarian Capitalism

Karl Marx wrote that the bourgeoisie had played a revolutionary role in casting aside feudalism, and yet immediately the question became how to survive what replaced it. When the individual supplanted the collective, how would they endure their newfound freedom? The solution to the Enlightenment and its discontents lies not in retreating from the gains of liberalism, nor does it hinge on defending what has been achieved. No, the solution is recognizing that the work is not yet done. Capitalism is not a necessary evil or the least-bad of available options, but a positive, productive ideal, the most perfect and just means for humanity to thrive. While the unprepared may balk at the conclusions, others choose something more bold: the path of Libertarian Capitalism.

The intellectual background of this tendency is most obviously an evolution of liberalism. It emphasizes the ability of individuals to act rationally in their interest, and hews to a quasi-fundamentalist reading of universal human rights — especially property rights. Some, however, explicitly look to anarchist explanations of hierarchy and the inherent violence of state power. While the results can vary considerably, the ultimate goal is a liberal government that governs the least — sometimes characterized as a night-watchman chiefly concerned with national defence and law enforcement. Others may hold that, while free expression is a core value, certain principles should not be a matter of political debate, lest the masses vote themselves into new shackles.

In contrast to the encroaching statist trend of the world, Libertarian Capitalism presents something heroic, untamed. Decried on one hand as the final degeneration of the liberal state, and on the other as its purest exploitative expression, it has nonetheless gained some credibility in conventional liberal parties since the end of the Great War. Whether out of self-interest or as a roar of defiance against the authoritarian tide, its adherents believe in its promise: Limitless potential awaits for the daring, those who would reshape the world to its foundation. What right do tyrants have to stop man from seizing it?

 National Liberalism

While the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars would spread the Enlightenment conception of liberalism across Europe, it also carried the idea of the nation with it. After all, the Republic had consciously emphasized the French people as a whole, rather than their divided ruling houses. In the aftermath of that tumult, when the old order sought to reassert itself, both ideals had their aspirations frustrated, and in some cases would become a united cause against the kings and empires atop them. Additionally, through the latter half of the 1800s, some liberal movements that already had a voice in government grew more concerned with the national interest. What resulted came to be called National Liberalism.

The ideology can seem a tangle of contradictions at first glance. Where national independence had come late, preoccupation with a united population and a state strong enough to preserve its independence led to compromises on the standard liberal upholding of individual rights and free economic activity. Protectionism and state subsidy to support local industry was no longer taboo, and a powerful central government was a necessary trade-off for national mobilization or maintaining control of a population with major divisions of identity. As such, it became a dominant strain of liberalism in places that were long subservient to large empires, but also in the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires that were seeking to clamp down on regionalism in the first place. An ocean away, the Progressive Movement in the United States would also include liberal reformers who pursued a more assertive foreign policy and aggressively tried to subsume regional and immigrant identities into a united American nationalism.

But what will be the legacy of this National Liberalism? Does it illustrate the limits of the Enlightenment foundations it claims? Is it a muscular rejoinder to an age of "big stick" diplomacy and industrial warfare, a liberalism that marches alongside the vigorous national state? Whatever the truth, the pragmatism of the ideology makes it an effective collaborator with other parties of the centre. Let the opposition maintain their lofty principles — they will be able to thanks to our work.

 Social Liberalism

Just as monarchism had become variegated into different stripes of absolutism and constitutionalism, the liberal tide would inevitably split into currents of its own. Once the Phrygian caps were put back in the closet, the questions of what freedom and rights meant ceased to be purely theoretical. Outside the salons that hosted philosophers and revolutionaries, there was a wider society that the great liberal experiment was acting on, and their material concerns remained pressing. In response, a new tendency could be differentiated that came to be called Social Liberalism by the end of the 19th century.

The differences within the liberal school developed early on. Adam Smith, the doyen of free-market economists, characterized property as a social rather than individual institution. Parliamentarian and philosopher James Mill would also develop Enlightenment liberalism along the lines of effective governance and expanded franchise, and his son John Stuart Mill only went further in examining the desired limits of liberty and authority. Perhaps, some wondered, the state has an affirmative duty to sustain the conditions where every citizen can learn and use their rights. It was under these theories that Liberal parties of the world began to construct the first welfare states. With immediate material needs better addressed, and with the tools to develop oneself within reach, the individual is thus empowered to utilize what is guaranteed by their natural rights.

Social Liberalism is still a creature of the Enlightenment. Whatever social reforms it might raise, and however it might intervene to smooth the relations of labour and capital, it still does not conceive of the state as the ultimate manager of society. The individual still holds their fate in their hands, but their government coordinates the societal good and security that better cultivates those individuals. Despite the past century of challenges to the liberal hegemony, there is still hope yet that it is not merely a status quo overdue for destruction, but a conscious, ongoing choice.

 Conservatism

Conservatism thinks society is pretty good as it is, and things should just keep on going on the way they’ve been going. While some might lean more reformist or more traditionalist, in general they wish to keep following the good and high road, for it’s the right way to do things.

 Liberal Conservatism

Political labels are a moving target. The terms liberal and conservative, left and right, revolutionary and reactionary, have had the specifics change from the heyday of absolute monarchy and oaths on French tennis courts. What these stand for, in the middle of the twentieth century, must be assessed by what status quo they exist in reference to. This is especially important when describing an ideology bearing the name of two shifting ideals: Liberal Conservatism.

The philosophers of the Enlightenment never embodied a unified tendency. There were a number who, while hesitating before certain liberal or republican ambitions, were still broadly in favour of the rise of private capitalism and the concept of individual rights. Burke in England and de Tocqueville in France were representatives of a trend that could be characterized as reformist, in contrast to events such as the French Revolution they decried. When the questions of feudalism were no longer as pertinent, what their heirs were cautioning against or partially adopting changed as well, to new reformers and radicals.

Liberal Conservatism, at the present political moment, has come to accommodate the Enlightenment project. The free market, representative government, and the like are settled questions. But at the crossroads of belief in individual rights and traditional values, some have framed their approach as the principle of individual responsibility. While public morality is something worth upholding, wealth redistribution and social engineering are looked upon with a more jaundiced eye. Skeptical of collectivist radicalism that could upend the whole system, or of overbearing government intervention, it has continued to function as the sober second thought of liberal democracy. Where Edmund Burke stood in opposition to the bloodshed unleashed by the first French Revolution, his scions prepare to meet a similar storm.

 National Conservatism

In the past, the vanguard of the nation was more likely identified with liberalism, extolling the rights of the citizenry over arbitrarily-drawn feudal polities. The risings of 1848 stirred under slabs of vestigial duchies and creaking empires, placing a revolutionary core that was often more bourgeois and urban against loyalists who were often more faithful to the church and throne. But the passage of time changed the political questions of the day, and with the rise of mass politics, the face of the status quo and mainstream conservatism would shift along with them. Did the national interest factor into the machinations of global capital? Would the rise of socialism wash all nations away in a red tide? The world as we know it demands a National Conservatism.

The priority of this tendency, put simply, is the preservation of the national identity and interest by what democratic means are available. While that interest will vary from place to place, it tends to manifest as the same recognizable hallmarks of tradition, be it the family, cultural practice, or identity of a people. Of course, conservatism is nothing if not adaptable, and the pressures upon the nation may demand a greater toolkit than once thought appropriate. Where some conservatives emphasize the protection of the traditional social order, the National Conservative strain is more willing to see an active and creative role for the state for higher-minded goals, from simple corporate regulation and industrial subsidy to outright corporatism for the sake of national strength and stability.

Just like its liberal cousin, National Conservatism has evolved as a collective response to the travails of the modern age. It is the assertion that, in the face of global crisis — one that ignores lines on maps — a strong hand is required to shelter one's home and people. Even so, to raise certain weapons in anger would inherently risk the same status quo it seeks to preserve, and so the ideology has remained separate from the more authoritarian responses to the faltering world.

 Right Wing Populism

Popular revolt is not solely a leftist or rightist phenomenon, nor is it always a call to bring about a new order. The historical record is full of attempts to undo a change that was underway, from rural revolts in the name of the King to militant outcry against new methods of production that disrupted old livelihoods. It would also be a mistake, however, to categorize all of the rightist agitators as atavists, retrograde obscurantists. Sometimes it will come to be that a political movement becomes wrapped around a charismatic figure and the grievances they voice, and that voice may speak in familiar language of old values, national pride, and strong leadership while being committed democrats. Where conservatism arrives in this guise, intent on shaking up a hidebound political establishment, it can be identified as a form of Right Wing Populism.

Like its leftier counterpart, this tendency at times begins in a movement external to political structures, before it becomes a party or a faction of an existing one. Similarly, starting outside of the established political theatre can lead to political platforms that are eclectic or syncretic. Like other conservatisms, its economic agenda could skewer a regime of high taxes and restrictions, or seek to wield the regulatory state to preserve old and domestic industries. What defines it as right wing tends to be a greater emphasis on traditional order - and if the common man generally hopes that tomorrow will be not too dissimilar from today, is crypto-socialism from a party elite or economic elitism from the capital really representative of the people?

Right Wing Populism can prove surprisingly effective despite all of the obstacles against outsiders. A sense of authenticity, and occasionally shared priorities, can expand the voting base and electoral alliances available to the movement. Likewise, being unafraid of upsetting the political balancing acts of the past can allow a leader to reshape the nation more quickly than expected. By reclaiming the title of tribune, conservatism need no longer be seen as merely the status quo, but a returning of power to the people's hands.

 Social Conservatism

There are underlying trends and processes that wear away at the world as we know it. Mass literacy brought the ideas of the Enlightenment to the masses. The primacy of the king and church was questioned, even oceans away. A new era of capitalism undid the old guilds that united professions. Industrialization and attendant urbanization broke up old professions and family relations.

Erosion, too, is a process. One that demands foundations be shored up before everything is swept out to sea. Even before the advent of liberal governance, there were philosophers concerned about the effects of unmooring society from what had served as its bedrock for ages, at least not without careful consideration. Now, to varying degrees, they claim vindication.

If there is a unifying feature of Social Conservatism between states and cultures, it is the desire to uphold and secure traditional social structures — the aforementioned forms of labour, family, and culture. What separates it as an ideology from a more conventional reactionary movement is that it is willing to work within the structure of liberal democratic politics. Inside these boundaries, faith over secularism, and the collective wellbeing over the individual, can be promoted and supported by a state that wields the law to promote public morality. A conservative government's economic programme can differ between parties, however. Some will propose increased spending, subsidy, and protectionism to reduce the world's disruptions to families and local industries, while others favour austerity to discourage indolence and deviance where they can.

Despite the disagreements on how to get there, the comforting embrace of how things once were holds ample appeal around the world. While it need not destroy the Enlightenment's heritage of individual rights and representative government, the Social Conservative promise is of community grounded in the things that are known to bring the people together. Where the promises of modernity have run up against their consequences, and the disaffected are seduced by bloody-minded radicalism, it may be time to seize what we still have and carry it close to our hearts.

 Polyarchy

Polyarchy or “Rule by many” in some shape or form, not quite democratic but not quite despotic either. A rough middle ground between singular and mass rule, they often manifest themselves as pragmatic approaches to material conditions, rather than an idealistic way of rule or something strived for.

 Anocracy

Republic against kingdom, reactionary against revolutionary, liberal against authoritarian. It is tempting to simplify the ideological struggles of an age into two clearly defined camps. In the aftermath of the Great War, with the new international movements that have flourished, it is still possible to try to demarcate the line between "free" and "unfree" when discussing governments — yet some still defy easy categorization. The forces unleashed by that war and the instability that followed would occasionally produce states that, while not adhering to a totalizing ideological programme, were neither representative nor simply pedestrian military dictatorships. It is these regimes, hybrids of autocratic and democratic systems, that are classified as Anocracies.

Naturally, a wide range of governments would fit under this umbrella. Arguably Napoleon III's Second French Empire would qualify, with the legitimacy of its throne backed by occasional referenda, and with the state and economy liberalizing under pressure from different interests. At times, an Anocracy may be constitutional and representative in word, but in deed a single party is dominant through control of state institutions and patronage networks, or the legal opposition only exists in a narrow acceptable range. At others, the regime is authoritarian by definition, but has democratic features to direct the political consciousness of the population, such as internal party elections and public votes on some matters. The hybrid regime may not be the original intended design of the government, but a state of affairs that it evolved into over time due to internal and external pressures.

There is little idealistic or doctrinaire about the concept of Anocracy. There is no Anocratic International purporting to unite the semi-autocracies and dominant-party democracies of the world. When managed capably, however, the system can deliver stable, decisive governance like any other. The quality of leadership will determine whether it will be a regime of evolution, or of stagnation.

 Colonial Government

Even something that is so apparently self-evident as colonialism has evolved with time. Some features seem eternal: the justifications of seeking land, markets, and resources, or extending the breadth of one's faith and empire, and so on. But as the claimed land has expanded, and technology and administrative expertise have grown with it, the systems of governance have become more sophisticated as well. The means of control always bear investigating when examining a Colonial Government.

A colony is not an integral part of its patron state. This may be an eventual goal of the colonial project, and direct settlement could be encouraged for that very reason, but the same governmental system typically does not apply an ocean way. Instead, the government of the day tends to answer to the imperial capital, even submitting laws and governing statutes for approval. However, as settlement dwindled over centuries, and greater spans of populated territory were claimed for economic and strategic reasons, administration had to become more complex to ensure stable rule and resource extraction. On one hand, even colonies that were not given a say in the affairs of the home country were increasingly given powers of local government, sometimes an appointed or advisory body of notables who could ostensibly bring local concerns to the administration's policies. On the other, preexisting authorities — kings, chiefs, and so on — were increasingly integrated into the colonial system, being given some autonomy in the system so long as they leveraged their station and connections to bring taxes and recruits back to the capital.

Colonial Government is thus more than lines painted on a map for a foreign country to tap. The relationships, both political and commercial, that make it possible to administer these lands without a tide of settlers and an expensive garrison are deceptively complex. Overall, there has been a trend towards greater self-government for colonies, especially with the costs of the Great War and the sociopolitical tensions it produced. Whether the remaining colonies of the world are headed for a dramatic breaking point like the late British Raj, or a continued rethinking of the imperial relationship, is anyone's guess.

 National Democracy

Whatever the idealists have said, the competition between nations is a zero-sum game. The Great War was proof enough. To forget that essential truth, to ignore the ongoing struggle, would be to risk everything. The dissolute liberalism that has been the midwife of national confusion and political gridlock typifies this. However, the concept of representative democracy, the people having a voice in their government rather than out-of-touch aristocrats, is not inherently flawed. The citizen democracies of Athens and Rome once intimately tied the franchise to patriotic duty and military service. Shorn of its liberal trappings — weaknesses — a purified and strengthened execution of the concept emerges: that of National Democracy.

But what defines this tendency other than a vague notion of illiberal republicanism? Arguably, the first theoretician to coin the name was the Polish nationalist Roman Dmowski. While his credentials were marred by accommodation with the Russian Empire, his Endecja organization advanced the concept of a democratic, yet anti-pluralist and centralized Poland. The short-lived far-right government in post-war France, while chiefly associated with monarchism, also had a republican wing equally vociferous in denouncing the factionalism of the Third Republic. While some of their heirs would abandon democracy entirely, others saw that the unity of the people and nation could be expressed through the political party and democratic process, sometimes with the leader as the embodiment of the demos.

In practice, National Democracy favours stronger government powers. If the leader or the party embody the people, then they should be able to discard certain limitations that liberal constitutionalism places on the majoritarian will. Thus empowered, the regime is capable of marginalizing the deemed threats to national unity, political and cultural. While this sometimes places the two halves of the ideology's name in competition with one another, the label refers to governments that still maintain democratic structures within the party and without, however opposition might be discouraged. Freed of the structural rot of liberalism, they would counter, this ideology allows for the only kind of representative government that will not fall into the pages of history.

 Oligarchy

The oldest form of organization in human history, Oligarchy is remarkably simple conceptually: the banding together of certain men, tied amongst themselves through blood, status, wealth, or mission. This basic principle of government of the few over the many has been a constant throughout every era, with its refinements and clarifications when need be.

This apparent vulgarity hides a richness in variety, form, function, and all the intricate developments this phenomenon has undergone until reaching our current generation. It was considered by Greek philosophers to be the golden mean of regimes, the equidistant point between monarchy and democracy, and thus its virtue was in its ability to both effectively rule a state and its inherent constraint in the application of laws. In times of great peril, local potentates confederated in order to defend their demesne and ensure the continuation of the rule of law in absence of legislators, as it happened in Greece itself or with the juntas of the Peninsular War in Spain. In these cases it was thus a natural and regional response to the needs of governance, and even today oligarchy has strong connotations with local elites. These systems may resemble, in the modern world, factions of wealthy business owners, groups of quasi-feudal caciques, strong partitocracies, or perhaps authoritarian but decentralised regimes, among others.

Oligarchical regimes, whether openly elitist or made up of unspoken cliques, boast intricate webs of ever-evolving needs, alliances, grievances, and interests among every involved party. An oligarchy is a complex machine with uncountable moving parts, and therein lies its weakness and its strength: the great statesman may make use of them for his own ends by keeping its precarious balance or destroying it for a greater purpose, but these hidden interests are also very likely to federate against any encroachment on their power, which provides a fair warning against excesses in rulership.

 Praetorian Oligarchy

The military has been, with all its faults and glories, one of the cornerstones of human civilization and a key political player throughout all of history. It has served as a wheel of fortune for regimes and entire nations, and even today it is an indispensable tool for all states worthy of the name. A dark truth of this reality is that, on occasion, this proximity to power only creates an insatiable craving for it.

Whether out of necessity or ambition, the "army with a state" archetype is both a possibility and a danger. It may be that a determined political goal is pursued through the force of arms, which necessitates the creation of a militant organisation. Before long, the movement discovers itself uniformed and marching to the beat of war-drums, their organs following strict discipline and chain of command, their leaders greeted now with a stern salute, and their mythos transformed into a soldier's creed. It may also be that a civilian government, perhaps incapable of fulfilling their responsibility towards the state, is swiftly replaced by a military authority. In other words, the last line of defence for the nation simply fulfils its purpose. It could just be that the state, placing their trust on their military, has granted it exceptional use of imperium over a given territory for a variety of reasons. It can be temporary or indefinite, but the homage owed to the men at arms is indisputable.

Do not confuse these moments with the dashing charisma of caudillos and other despots — this is not a one man job. What you are witnessing is the submission of the whole political system not to a generalissimo, but to the army as an institution. A guild with their own rules, their own society within society, their own symbols and stories. Whether through juntas or through a single dictator, this is the fulfilment of the natural prerogative of the warrior to lord over the clerks and merchants by the virtue of their caste.

 Plutocracy

The crowns and vestments of monarchy were never the only markers of status. In the medieval merchant republics of Europe, the post-revolutionary liberal states, and even the old Roman Republic, there existed a class of men who, rather than by a noble birth, owed their stature to their fortunes and the influence this provided. The great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and so on — criticisms of this monied aristocracy's influence on politics have dogged them wherever they have gone. While oligarchical systems of power are hardly unique, and hereditary rulers may find themselves amassing wealth through their inherited holdings, a Plutocracy is control over the government by an elite purely selected by their wealth.

But what makes a mere flawed democracy or authoritarian regime into a plutocratic one? It is rare that there is a council of men directly appointed due to their wealth, selecting a first-among-equals from their ranks to dictate the government's affairs with an eye for profit. Rather, it is in the subversion of a pre-existing system that Plutocracy grows, whether by leveraging the influence of its elite class or becoming elected officials themselves to represent their interests. Alternatively, like the Dutch East India Company - which had diplomatic, judicial, and currency-minting powers of its own - a board of investors may outright pull the strings of government, perhaps due to a collapse of the state.

Plutocracy has been used as a pejorative label in the vast majority of cases. From the left, the right, or even the population at large, a suspicion exists that the priorities of this system align only with the direct interests of this class. This can mean that material benefits accrue at the top to the detriment of the bottom, or privilege international investments over domestic ones. However, at its most charitable, the financial elite have a vested interest in maintaining the stability of their investment, bringing their own interests into synchronicity with those of the country. In this circumstance, a mercenary eye for material gain can be a valuable asset.

 Provisional Government

On occasion, the old world dies and a new world is born. Independence is achieved by political or armed struggle. A government is overthrown by its people. The need for constitutional reform becomes so dire that the system willingly takes itself apart to rebuild, renegotiating the terms of its agreement with itself or former political outsiders. However it was accomplished, the rough beast of the future slouches toward power to be born, and the abstract questions of the future give way to the practical realities of "what now." In this interstitial period, what administers the new state is often a Provisional Government.

Less an ideology and more of a compromise, this term describes a temporary system that maintains the day-to-day functions of society while the first structures of government are drawn up. The reality of politics is that a movement for grand change rarely has a unified vision of what life after this change should look like, especially on the finer details of administration. Some machinery must be put in place to manage debate and keep public order in the interim, one that generally involves appointed or collective leadership. After the transitional period ends, power is then ceded to the government it fostered the creation of, often with an inaugural election.

The contradictions of a Provisional Government are many on its surface. However democratic the eventual plan of government is, the means of safeguarding it often leave little room for public input. Stability of the process is paramount, but it is also designed to be dismantled when its time has passed. Is a strong hand to watch over the proceedings a sign of approaching dictatorship? Would loosening the grip too early risk a collapse of the government's careful negotiations? For a time, in this liminal state, everything is possible. But one should be aware: in politics, there is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.

 Despotism

Despotism is the iron-fisted rule of one singular figure over society, be it granted through blood, steel, or paper. Tending to stay out of international affairs unless they have something direct to gain, these regimes range from non-ideological to a worldview simply guided by a very firm grip.

 Absolute Monarchy

In nearly all its modern iterations, monarchy has survived in a diminished, liberalized form more accurately described as "crowned republics." Most royals are now restricted by checks and balances like constitutions and democratically elected parliaments, and kings and queens are but figureheads of their kingdom. However, the old maxim "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is not yet forgotten.

Absolute Monarchy is the accumulation of all powers and prerogatives in the realm into the hands of a single man, who, usually by birthright, is entitled to rule and administer the land his predecessors conquered and lorded over before him. This is but the result of centuries upon centuries of a fierce struggle against the nobility and bourgeois alike, ultimate confirmation of the incarnation of the whole country in the King himself. The monarch is intermediary between his subjects and the divine in any form it may take, and the health and holiness of the royal body politic is the health and holiness of the whole of society. For the more traditional-minded, in the royal firmament the king is the sun, and every celestial body orbits and is attracted by its power and majesty. The term "absolute," however, may be deceiving. Even if the monarch can interfere in all spheres of his domain, he is still limited by a series of restrictions. Among them, it may be that he cannot contradict the fundamental laws of the realm that he himself is subject to. He could also neither go against morality nor challenge the natural law whose principles govern the positive laws of the realm. His "absoluteness" also does not imply omnipresence, and a cohort of administrators to govern in his stead are a given.

Most of the last old-fashioned monarchies have been dethroned after the Great War, replaced by republics of all kinds and colors. This is far from a death blow to the idea of monarchy. The great houses and their supporters still stand proud in enclaves and fortresses across the world, waiting for the right time to strike back at revolution. Learning from the mistake of giving commoners and oligarchs even the slightest opportunity to gain power is the first step towards the reclamation of their divine right — through any means at their disposal.

 Constitutional Dictatorship

There are times, and there is no shame in admitting it, when a system is simply not strong enough to withstand the full weight of its challenges. This would usually be ripe time for opportunists and revolutionaries to strike like vultures devouring carrion. However, rather than letting the country fall to these insidious forces, the state might save the day by appointing a Constitutional Dictator until the country is healthy enough to stand on its own again.

A constitutionally-appointed dictator is a figure that in exceptional times is temporarily clothed with special powers, through the authority of the legitimate government, in order to overcome certain political or military crises. The precedent has been found even in the Greek world, but is most popular thanks to the ancient Roman Republic. From Rome, we can draw useful similes that will illustrate the many forms this peculiar institution may take. It could be that a given dictator is a Cincinnatus, a man committed to the principles and legality of the system who will attempt to surgically fix the issues that threatened the country and who will step down after his mission is completed, restoring a state of normalcy with unbroken continuity. Perhaps he is rather a Sulla, a vigorous leader who, nonetheless still committed to the values of the institutions that empowered him, will enact a number of reforms to remove the cancerous rot that weakened the system in the first place. After him, a new, healthier but still recognisable state of affairs becomes the norm. In unfortunate cases for the system bestowing power in the dictator, it will anoint a Caesar. A Caesar is an ambitious and shrewd politician who has turned the due process of a system against it, and will use these extraordinary powers to build a realm after his own image and overcome the constitutional and legal limits of his current mandate.

The exact limits of a dictator's jurisdiction and abilities varies in accordance to the trust and needs of the government who bestows them, but generally there are certain safety clauses placed to ensure no lines are crossed. The danger of such a decision is absolutely apparent — among the many uncertainties lies the question of, if the dictator is not willing to step down, whether he will be followed by a Brutus or by an Octavian.

 Constitutional Monarchy

If we consider history as a linear progression, we can see a clear view of the evolution of political institutions. From the god-kings of antiquity to Roman oligarchy, passing through feudal vassalage and enlightened absolutism, we reach the zenith, the climax, the height of perfect rulership in the modern world: the Constitutional Monarchy.

Also ambiguously called "parliamentary" or "democratic," this form of monarchy is a testament to the indisputable triumphs of liberalism understood in its widest definition. It represents an overcoming of the antiquated despotisms that dominated Ancien Régime Europe and much of Asia up until the 19th century — oppressive anachronisms that wouldn't and couldn't recognise the new era approaching: that of efficiency, moderation, long-term continuity, and professionalism. Yet it acknowledges the horror of tyrannies of the majority, of excessive republicanism, of rabble-rousing populists unable to understand the subtle limitations of democracy and enthroning it in its most savage ugliness. It uses both written and traditional constitutions, as well as representative democracy, as the trustworthy allies of savvy politicians who must work within the respect of individual freedom to achieve the reforms needed to prosper. Like de Tocqueville, Constant, and Locke foresaw, civil society can only exist in a healthy mixture of limitations and liberty, giving a voice to the people but never letting their worst impulses take control, keeping the kings and queens as warrants of liberty rather than threats to it. It has triumphed in the United Kingdom, Italy, and the Netherlands among others, and even westernizing nations elsewhere have recognized its strengths as the only path towards a safe and free future that doesn't wait for anyone.

Elsewhere, however, the tale isn't as sweet, and the democratic limitations placed on monarchs aren't a frame to exercise power but a prison that ambitious royals strive to break and escape from by any means necessary. And yet, isn't this proof of its versatility as a tool? Isn't the sound of oppressors gnashing their teeth a sign that it works? Without naivete, common-sense and rationality march across time incarnate in constitutional monarchs, to the horror of radicals of all camps!

 Military Dictatorship

Force is a simple thing to understand. In a period of perceived loss of legitimacy, a state may find that heavy weaponry and the organization to use them effectively outweighs generations of civic norms and traditions. Whether heeding an invitation from beleaguered civilian leadership, or launching a coup in response to a national crisis, power thus passes into the hands of the hierarchy of the armed forces. As the collective junta is formed, or with a clear generalissimo leading the charge, so begins the period of Military Dictatorship.

This form of government has been documented for over a millennium in human history, such is its versatility, and such is the enduring presence of military authority throughout time. It is flexible enough in form and character to theoretically encompass the feudal shoguns of the Far East, the personalist caudillos of Latin America, or even the highly religious rule of the 1600s Commonwealth of England. Frequently, whatever their underlying ideology of the generals, the dictatorship will declare its non-partisan nature, and that its overall goal is to avert a dire threat to the country. The bureaucratic reality of modern military rule also varies, at times being a top-down emergency government, and at other times creating a political party out of willing civilian collaborators to support their agenda.

A Military Dictatorship in practice introduces a state of exception into society's ordinary affairs. The usual system of rights and guarantees is reshaped or suspended outright, with militarized police in the streets and secret police in the shadows. Though non-military officials and politicians exist, their decisions are subject to the ruling clique's veto. Finally, while the regime often frames itself as a temporary measure, the duration of "temporary" is subject to their whims — after all, the remaining lifespan of a general or two is still temporary. Despite this, emergency measures to avert disaster will always have justifications, and as the clouds of war gather again, a military-first government may be the proper means to prepare for mobilization.

 Personalist Dictatorship

Power is a complex, brittle, appealing thing. The ambition and corruption of men have provoked that thus, power is organised and ordered according to a variety of principles such as inheritance, religious authority, military command, or the people's democratically elected representatives. In truth, this is just a mirage. Power is destined for those who dare conquer it.

German sociologist Max Weber, in his dissection and analysis of the sources of power in society, saw that in certain cases there existed what he called a "charismatic authority," as opposed to legal authority and traditional authority. In these situations, much like for Archaic Greek tyrants, power is not owed thanks to due political process, but to the perceived or real unique attributes of a leader who goes on to take the reins through exceptional means. The way such a headman exerts his authority is rarely through the trust and codes of formal institutions, but rather they make use of the loyalty that they inspire in their followers, whether because of love or because of fear. This strictly personal conception of fealty between masters and subordinates is why regimes like these are denominated Personalist Dictatorships. Such phenomenon is universal and found all across the globe, although due to their strange births these forms of government rarely last for long.

Personalistic dictators are nearly always eclectic and their rule convoluted, with a scarcely consistent ideology accompanying a strong cult of the leader. In its synergy lies its best qualities, however, and they are highly adaptable and pragmatic regimes able to rise to changing internal and external challenges in the blink of an eye. Its most obvious downside is that men who take power in such ways are susceptible to vices and untold luxury, because as Lord Acton wrote, "absolute power corrupts absolutely," and earthly pleasures provide excellent distractions from efficient statesmanship.

 Revolutionary Nationalism

The years of bloodletting and revanchist disappointments of the Great War bred radical political responses. Some, like the German model of socialism or the crystallization of the Polish and Fiuman regimes into accelerationism, sent shockwaves through the ideological sphere. But not every reaction would make it to the end of the decade with a host of converts and imitators. Before Accelerationism was an official label, other syncretic nationalist movements rose and fell in the 20s — most dramatically in Italy. Situated between the rejuvenationists and reactionaries, and without a core tendency to unite them, these groups and their followers are collected under the name Revolutionary Nationalism.

Despite the failure of the Italian example, the attempt to bring romantic nationalists, anti-parliamentarians, and dissident socialists — even futurists — into one camp has been instructive. The political tensions in Europe before the Great War, followed by five years of disaster that seemingly satisfied nobody, led to a number of dramatic rejections of the liberal parliamentary status quo. Even in Red Germany, the eastern soldier councils proved this rejection could include bellicose, nationalistic sentiments — led by men who were ready to overthrow the Kaiser to reinvigorate Germany.

But what tenets constitute Revolutionary Nationalism? In some respects, its groups are defined by what they are not, an illiberal vanguardism that is not as disdainful of modernity as the reactionaries, nor as anti-traditional as the common accelerationists. Rejecting parliamentary politics as too corrupt to answer to the public and too divided to have clear vision, they produce an authoritarian government by design, capable of taking decisive action to reshape the country. Though their economic orthodoxy varies, they favour state intervention or coordination in the economy for the national interest and stability, such as corporatism. It remains to be seen what the fate of these political outsiders will be: though Fiume became a cause célèbre of the revolutionary far right, the men who were left behind are still awaiting their turn to shake the world.

 Theocracy

Set aside all questions of electoral merit and court gossip, and ask: Who can rule wiser and fairer than the men of the Divine? Who can know justice better than those who dedicated themselves to the study of the sacred? For Theocracy, there is no answer — as there is no divide between spiritual and temporal power.

Despite the onslaught of modernity, a few places in the world still are home to states traditionally ruled by the representatives of a local religion. Be it a powerful hierarch of the clergy, a scheming leader of a heretical sect, or a charismatic prophet, all theocrats draw their power from the mandate of faith, their state being the realisation of divine will on Earth. Despite the usual associations, this will can take many shapes. Generally conservative, and far from co-religionists who preach for a great levelling of society, theocrats still do not necessarily see progress as an evil in itself. Freed from the petty concerns of dynastic maintenance, financial acquisition, and class theory, a number of religious priorities resemble a call for social reform. Furthermore, is it not cloistered monks, sages, and other holy men who ensured the passage of knowledge down through ages of strife? This form of government is doctrinaire, certainly, but not necessarily regressive - and many faiths have been spread far and wide through adaptation.

Many say that in the storm of the modern world God has died, that all wonders have mundane explanations, and that Theocracy should be banished to the history books. Yet this bond between men can transcend the gulfs of class, nation, and politics, and no creed has ever been without doubters. The awe of spirituality, of great designs and greater truths, will continue to humble the proud.After all, is it not said that faith alone can move mountains?

 Reactionism

Reactionism, in a single phrase, is the idea of returning to tradition. The how, what, and why is where these groups tend to diverge, although all of them hold a distaste for the modern world and a will to bring the world back to the good ol days, by peace or by sword.

 Aristocratic Reaction

Civilization's long march brought about more sophisticated forms of stratification. Upper castes of martial strength were joined by those of knowledge and stature, justified by divinity or breeding. The notion that the masses should steer the state was solely the provenance of heretics and brigands — a perspective that largely endured until the late Enlightenment.

Alas, man's appetite grows to match what he consumes. In what was the blink of an eye in historical terms, populism and the specter of egalitarianism upended this social order. Now, astride the ocean of blood spilled for such ideals, there is the uprising against the errors of modernity: rather than meek acceptance of a throne, the active counterargument of Aristocratic Reaction.

Underpinning this tendency is recognition of the inequality of man and an understanding of its consequences. Where can the politics of the mob lead but the Great War and the Revolutions of 1919? What does representative democracy privilege if not beguiling and planning that only extends to the next election? Accordingly, they prescribe an elitist regime, court politics conducted by an aristocracy prepared to rule, to lead and protect their subjects. The involvement of the public is accordingly limited to officially sanctioned channels — the festival, or the pogrom — and suppressed elsewhere.

Aristocratic Reaction represents an old ethos meeting modern problems. A world after the guillotine, industrialization, and levée en masse has broken with the past, but the past can be reconnected forward through the creation of more durable traditions. For instance, what this model rests on is not necessarily an aristocracy of unbroken lineage to past kings, but traits of nobility such as culture, faith, and blood. Additionally, despite the aversion to hallmarks of the French Revolution, the necessity of national defense still tends to produce centralized states rather than feudal ones. And of course, the unwashed masses must come to understand the appeal of this ideology again after such a long dormancy. So it approaches on horseback, promising an end to the disintegration of your world, and a return to principles once recognized as natural.

 Reactionary Esotericism

Some creeds simply defy political organization as we know it. Could a populist tide rallied by demagogues hope to understand complex truths? Would a vanguard of materialists or a decayed aristocracy redeem themselves and their country despite all past evidence to the contrary? Can mankind put its faith in religious institutions that have grown fat and weak after papering over primordial truths with their doctrine? What is the answer, then, to the collapse of meaning, to the degradation and degeneration of order? For the man striving backwards, seeking a similar enlightened elite to march alongside, there is the school of Reactionary Esotericism.

Secret societies in search of hidden spiritual knowledge are an age-old feature of civilization, but where this form differs is its yearning for the past. Certainly, in all hemispheres, there have been organizations that dabbled in taboo spirituality, often well outside of the mainstream of local religion or syncretic with foreign faiths. The breaking of the Ancien Régime in Europe, and further disruptions to the traditional social order around the world, may have produced conditions where private orders could be aligned against a new status quo of liberalism, secularism, and empiricism. After all, what was the worth of the Enlightenment, for example, if it separated man from true meaning? Alienated from the condition of modernity, these dissidents make up many varied schools, but generally emphasize an ancient metaphysical wisdom that has been lost to the world. Their task, then, is to bring it back into the light.

Translating Reactionary Esotericism into a political movement is no small task. Too elite in nature to compete in parliamentarism, its societies may work as a parallel power structure of influence, even within an existing political party. Alternatively, their organization and conspiratorial nature can aid in coordinating extra-parliamentary activity. While the finer details of the esotercisit program will differ from place to place, the agenda in power retains its essential character: the worthy of the country are initiated into the society and positioned to rule over the rest who, for the past centuries, have utterly failed to rule themselves.

 Reactionary Populism

Progress is a myth, if not for he who suffered it. The turning points of history, the events that become common knowledge, were met in kind by those who sought to turn it back. Where there was the French Revolution for a republic and liberty, there was the Chouannerie for the throne, altar, and old rights. Where European power and influence entered the Far East, peasants united between the twin cries to revere the emperor and expel the barbarian. As the hand of the people rises to strike what has disturbed it, it takes the shape of Reactionary Populism.

It is important to remember that the present moment that is being reacted against is a moving target. The current incarnation of the reactionary tendency is not necessarily against republicanism and nationalism, for instance, but the Second Industrial Revolution and what followed. In the face of massive disruptions to the economy and the landscape of the home, to labour unrest and proletarianization, and to an increased secularization of public life, the backlash could be apocalyptic. Certainly, reform and revolution were prescribed as the cure for this malaise, but this same milieu produced nativist, anti-socialist movements — such as the Antisemitic League of France or the Black Hundreds in Russia. The Great War only solidified the desire of such organizations to look backward for salvation; if modernity led to such a crisis, then what use was it?

With the failure of French monarchism and the inability of White Russia to crown a tsar, thus far the traditionalist tendency has remained in common hands with common ideals. Reactionary Populism's idyllic past to return to will differ between contexts, but generally has the same core tenets: faith, tradition, and identity — be it a race, nationality, or some other cultural label. Hostile to liberalism and socialism, the popular nature of its politics nevertheless often allows for some variety of political participation, as well as a break from a capitalism both merciless and red in tooth. In the face of upheaval, this is the flag carried by men who are willing to shed blood to restore order and meaning to an alienated people.

 Religious Fundamentalism

This is a fallen world. The oaths and moral principles of our spirituality have been distorted, discarded. Human intermediaries of a holy message have bent the knee to temporal power, diluting its commandments in their weakness. The people have lost their way, serving only material ends or their own passions, and unaware of the costs incurred. Look — what are these days if not the end times — the Great Tribulation, the Ragnarök, the Kali Yuga, the Seven Suns? But like many before them, some have responded to this crisis of meaning by returning to the first principles of their culture, and take up the mantle of Religious Fundamentalism.

While the panacea offered by this ideology will always differ by the faith animating it, the framework is similar, prescribing government by the tenets of a religion with very little room for pragmatism and reinterpretation. At times, the hierarchy of the church or sect becomes that of the nation, and holy men transform into government officials alongside the laymen — if not replacing them entirely. In some cases, a god or another immaterial figure may become the official head of state, making clear what values are to be enshrined in day to day governing. The state accordingly uses its power to bring the world into agreement with its spiritual ideal.

While Religious Fundamentalism may seem unchanging throughout time, its present form is a very deliberate reaction to modernity. The historical trend to the division of religious and political power is one cause, for example. Another is the appearance of foreign technology and ideas, by trade or colonialism, that threaten the political autonomy and spiritual wellbeing of the masses. But above all, it is currently a reaction to an age of disorder, where man's understanding of his place in the world, his goals, and his belonging to a community are in question, scattered by materialism, iconoclasm, and liberal individualism. Many responses to atomization, alienation, and anomie exist, but the values that have endured for centuries, even millennia of change, will crack the earth and sky when roused to defend themselves.

Gallery

• 

  Accelerationism sub ideologies with icons.

• 

  Reactionary sub ideologies with icons.

• 

  Despotism sub ideologies with icons.

• 

  Polyarchy sub ideologies with icons.

• 

  Conservatism sub ideologies with icons.

• 

  Liberalism sub ideologies with icons.

• 

  Progressivism sub ideologies with icons.

• 

  Revisionist Socialism sub ideologies with icons.

• 

  Anarchism sub ideologies with icons.

• 

  Popular Socialism sub ideologies with icons.

• 

  Vanguard Socialism sub ideologies with icons

Refrences

• Development Update: #4 Political Spectrum

• Progress Report 31: Ideological Rework

• Progress Report 34: TSF2's Ideology Expansion, or, the Re-Rework