Talk:List of political ideologies

Kemalism

Listing Kemalism under Fascism may not be right. I believe this should be reconsidered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.111.68 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism

Why isn't Capitalism on the colour bar?

-G

Capitalism is an economic ideology, not a political ideology. Capitalism is, however, on this bar. VolatileChemical 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Bold textThe entire article is based on teh assumption that the major contradiction in politics would go along the authoritarianism-individualism axis. That is highly biased. The author of the article know very well that it is considered smearing to place marxists in the same category as fascists. --212.60.73.2 16:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read the article again. Marxism is not in the same category as fascists. Electionworld 06:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, I have two questions: (1) What is being disputed on this article? I can't find mentions of the NPOV dispute anywhere... (2) National socialism is just a disambig page pointing to various groups that called themselves "national socialists", some of which had nothing to do with the nazis (or with each other). So, should that disambig page be listed here? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I reverted the new categorization. It doesn't seem to be an improvement and in no way communism can be considered as a variant of liberal. These are contradictory. Electionworld 22:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm going to revert your revert because you failed to explain how the new categorization is not an improvement, seemingly resting this decision solely on your particular bugaboo regarding communism. It is a clear improvement, because it divides the political world with more categories and more precision, dividing the spectrum of individualism and community (collectivity) into economic and cultural components. This is better. Instead of just the misleading left-right axis or just the communitarian-individualism axis, it uses BOTH. It can also help clarify the difference between European and American conservatism and liberalism (American following the labels shown and European (I think) correlating more to "cultural right" (communitarianism and conservatism) and "cultural left" (liberalism and libertarianism) shown on the diagram). If you question this, please raise the issue here rather than doing a massive revert. I am open to changing particulars, but the general changes are clearly better. I will take "communism" out of the cultural left category, but leave it under liberal in the economic left category. This is because communism is clearly left on economic issues, and I think leans toward the left on cultural issues, certainly on the moral issues they do (religion, abortion, etc.). This would put it in the economic left and cultural left categories (the "liberal" quadrant on the diagram shown, and in American parlance). I am open to persuasion on the cultural issues category, but let's talk about it. -- Chris 09:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Further making a point of even-handedness ... from the beginning, I had put Nazism in my quadrant (though it is debatable as well). I don't like that ... wanna trade? I'm an American who feels communitarian-centrist longings, and proclaims himself a Christian Democrat, because Republicans are too conservative on economic issues (again, see the diagram) and Democrats are too liberal on cultural issues. You don't like being lumped with commies. I don't like being lumped with Nazis. But unless we are ready to propose a more complicated categorization scheme, then everyone has a blacksheep in the family. -- Chris 15:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the article on liberalism and you can clearly see that communism and libralism have noting in common. Liberal is not a synomym of left (neither of right) and this is not an American page. Communism starts with the collective, with class, liberalism starts with individual liberty. There was a well balanced oversight, which whereby the new one isn't. If we cannot agree, we could make an alphabetical list. Electionworld 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for new categories in response to criticism

In response to Electionworld ... Well, in American parlance the categories on the present diagram (liberal, conservative, libertarian, communitarian, center) fit perfectly, when not considering the third axis between anarchy and monarchy, which is probably too complex here. In my estimation, European parlance overly conflates conservative with communitarian and liberal with libertarian (still using American parlance in describing). Europe doesn't seem to allow the economic distinction between free market and social market on the spectrum. In an effort to move beyond terminology issues, and still allow four basic categories, I propose the new diagram to the right. Liberal ---> Social Market Individualism. Conservative ---> Free Market Communitarianism. Communitarian ---> Social Market Communitarianism. Libertarian ---> Free Market Individualism. I think that these new classifications should rectify the situation. What do you think? -- Chris 08:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't fit. It ignores the meaning of words outside the US. Liberals around the world believe in free market individualism, but differ on the degree of government intervention. The new categorization is still not better than the categorization ad developed in the last months in this article. As I said, I am ready to make an alphabetical list it the old one is considered not neutral POV. Electionworld 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point of the new diagram. The new diagram transcends the label problems. According to the new categories, all who are free market individualists would be placed under "free market individualism". Classical liberalism (or just plain "liberalism" according to Euro-parlance) would be under "free market individualism". Libertarianism would likewise be so classified. However, American liberalism would fit under "social market individualism". British liberalism and Labour would also be so classified. I'm not claiming that liberalism (read "classical" or Euro-parlance) has to fit under the social market individualism (formerly called "liberalism"). That is the whole point, and I think the point of misunderstanding. Do you feel uncomfortable with categorizing classical liberalism under "free market individualism" and American liberalism under "social market individualism"? I don't think that the alphabetical list helps because the article isn't just a list of ideologies, but an article that places political ideologies in context, showing how they relate to each other. That is the point of what I have done. -- Chris 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not yet complete. Please understand: classical liberalism is not the same as European liberalism, European liberalism is not the same as libertarianism. Social market is what most liberals would agree to, but where in the scheme is the planned economy of the socialists? Electionworld 07:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a multitude of competing political spectrum diagrams. As such, any one diagram is POV. The only NPOV way to list ideologies is by "common themes", without making any definite assertions about an overarching political spectrum. Thus, I strongly believe the old classification was better. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What the hell? Who organized this list, this is terrible. Conservativism listed as "traditional" when in fact the definition of the word "conservative" is less: i.e. less gov't. Liberalism is listed as more personal freedom (or whatever) while it is for MORE gov't. Please, this is _insane_

I believe you're not distinguishing classical liberalism from modern American liberalism. --Serge 17:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added anarchism to Ideologies emphasizing class struggle, in Argentina and Spain (two of the countries where historically anarchism has had a great impact, with anarchosyndicalist unions of hundreds of thousands of memeber, general insurrections and anarcho-communists organizations with great political wight) it is the main branch of anarchism (anarchism as a culturalist individualist ideology is a post-modern higher class invention with no ties to anarchism -Bakunin, Durruti, Makhno-).

my radical revision vs nikodemos'

I'm not satisfied with Nikodemos' recent edit. Although there is no reason to choose his classification over mine, I have one major issue with it: "Focus on social equality" instead of "Focus on the position of the working class". To me it is unclear what social equality is and why socialism would want that and liberalism or anarchism not. Socialism is however better defined as focussing on the working clas (proletariat) this in adaptation of the original version which used the term "class struggle". Socialists unlike liberals focus on the working class. I also prefer to keep anarchism neatly separated from socialism and not mix subtypes of working class-oriented ideologies with individual-oriented ones. I realize that this differences is not entirely indisputable, but I'd prefer to keep the system ordered.

I also see no reason to put the working class oriented ideologies first. The individually oriented ideologies anarchism and liberalism are logical to put first, because liberalism is the first real political ideology of the modern age.

Furthermore, some orderings were deliberately not alphabetical, such as anarchism but instead I tried to form a subclassifcation between more individualist and collectivist types of anarchism.

I hope that we can come to some kind of compromise on these differences. C mon 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am always open to compromise. Let's discuss the issues point by point. I'll start with your recent edits: First, "socialism" can be used with two very distinct meanings: an ideology or an economic system. What is the name of the economic system supported by socialist ideology? Socialism. Yes, I know it's confusing, but that is precisely why the article should explain the issue. Second, the Nazis were not the only ones to use the term "national socialism" - they weren't even the first (see national socialism (disambiguation). Czech national socialists, with their belief in Czech independence and moderate social reform, would be insulted by anyone equating them with the Nazis.

Now, regarding the "focus on social equality", keep in mind that the categories are not mutually exclusive. Just because socialists want social equality that doesn't mean that liberals don't. It's just that liberals put individualism first. And yes, "social equality" is vague, but so are all the other criteria for classification (e.g. "tradition" - anything could be "traditional").

Anarchism (or at least the collectivist schools thereof) is also very much concerned with social equality and class struggle.

As far as the ordering and the classifications are concerned, I have no particular preference. -- Nikodemos 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your last sentence: you have no preference for any classification; also not for the title of one on socialism? and the inclusion of anarchism? I will assume you do.

I don't think we can solve the socialism/corporatism issue here, let's just remove the second economic system, capitalism is clear as an example of economic systems.

I realize the term "national socialist" is problematic, Nazism is as problematic for me because it is slang: it would be the same as calling socialism "sozism" or christian democracy "kallotisme" or green politicians "greenies". There is a reason why the article national socialism (disambiguation) is not the article national socialism.

Social equality is not only vague, it is also no the core issue of a socialist. The social equality article does not discuss socialism and the socialism article does not discuss social equality. The working class article however discusses socialism and vice versa. The fact that the social equality article is a stub should be indication that this term is not only vague but also not used very often.

I don't understand why we can't seek to make mutually exclusive categories, we can at least try.

But if we do (as you propose). There is no reason to mix anarchism with socialism: some anarchists (like some liberals) might be interested in social equality, but destroying systems that repress individuals is first.

Although I would prefer compromise, I can't really see it now. C mon 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised of how compromise can be achieved after sufficient discussion. What I meant with my last sentence ("no preference for any classification") was that I have no particular preference for the order of the sections, or the order of individual articles within a section. This was in response to your objection that you didnot like my efforts to alphabetize the list. I think alphabetical order is good because it is neutral (you can't be accused of any bias), but if you want to change it I won't stop you.

I don't understand your objection to using socialism as an example of an economic system.

"Nazism" is the most common English word used to describe the ideology of Adolf Hitler. That may not be the case in German, but what is slang in one language may not be slang in another. An English Google search reveals 3,800,000 hits for "nazism" as opposed to only 392,000 hits for "national socialism". So "nazism" is about 10 times more common than "national socialism". The general consensus on wikipedia is that we will use the most popular names for things. Thus the article on the USSR is called Soviet Union and not Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The article on North Korea is called North Korea and not Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Many socialists have moved away from a working class emphasis in recent decades, and some forms of socialism (e.g. utopian socialism) were never focused on the working class to begin with. The only thing all socialists have in common is their desire for equality.

Mutually exclusive categories are logically impossible, because some ideologies clearly belong in at least two categories (e.g. anarcho-communism, or eco-feminism).

Some forms of anarchism are already mixed with socialism by their very nature (again, I give you anarcho-communism as an example, but also anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism). An anarcho-communist might be an anarchist first and a communist second, or he might be a communist first and an anarchist second... -- Nikodemos 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we'll order them alphabetically (that is really alphabetically, and not putting Social equality before Gender issues or Foreign policy;

Listing socialism creates confusion, because it is also a political ideology. It does not help to clarify why some things should be on the list and somethings not;

Nazism appears to be the consensus on wikipedia. I'll have to fight that battle somewhere else;

I'm not convinced by your argument on socialism being oriented towards equality. Can you supply me any proof (can also be within wikipedia) of this claim? Furthermore in this reasoning liberalism should be listed as focus on liberty and green politics as focus on sustainability. This kind of classification is different from the one issued here (which uses more neutral terms than values; they are also real focuses and not goals). I'd prefer to keep working class.

We'll put some of the collectivist anarchist in the socialist bloc, but not mixed with the "other" category, but under the header "anarchism".

Is this a compromise you can live with? C mon 08:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with alphabetical ordering (though I believe the "Big 3" categories - individualism, tradition and equality - should take precedence over others, because they define the three main directions of modern political thought). Alternatively, we could return to the order you established before.

Yes, it's certainly true that socialism can mean two different things is a source of confusion. That's precisely why we should strive to eliminate that confusion by explaining things...

I would have no objection to liberalism being listed as being focused on (individual) liberty, or green politics as being focused on sustainability. Regarding the focus on socialism, I can go look for references stating that it is indeed social equality, though it seems self-evident to me. Perhaps you would find it more acceptable if we said the focus was on society?

I agree with your proposal about anarchism in the socialist bloc.

We seem to be down to a single disagreement now (the one over the focus of the socialist bloc). I'm definitely happy with our progress. -- Nikodemos 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay three down one to go (although that big three thing? There aren't three big ideologies on a global level).
Focus on society? That is certainly the worst classification one could give: political ideologies per definition focus on society and social issues! That is not a criterion that will ever work!
Socialism could be said to focus on

1. a social group: the working class/workers/the proletariat/lower classes/the poor/chanceles
2. a strategy: class conflict/proletarian revolution)
3. a source of value: labour
4. a goal: worker/state ownership/control of the means of production
5. a value: substantive equality/equality of outcome/positive freedom

I could settle for any of these, (except the class conflict because it's highly disputable), as long as there is some consistency between this and other headers.
I would not settle for headers like society/collective/group, that's too general.
We could try to make a consistent classification for each of the 4/5 categories above and choose one. I have done this here.
Alternatively we could classify them by "general ideology", those which for instance have made the template (anarchism/christian democracy/communism/communitarianism/conservatism/fascism/feminism/green politics/islamism/liberalism/libertarianism/nationalism/social democracy/socialism). Although we could collapse several (anarchism/religious ideologies/socialism/conservatism/nationalism/green politics/liberalism/feminism) we would throw out several ideologies which are issue stances (multiculturalism/foreign policy/form of government).
I think the 'alternative' route presented here would be most fruitful. C mon 16:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I could go with either a classification based on values (e.g. equality), or one based on goals (e.g. collective control over the means of production), or the alternative one you proposed (based on "general ideology"). I dislike the alternative route, however, because there are many hybrid ideologies that would be difficult to classify (e.g. we can all agree that anarcho-capitalism focuses on the individual, but there are bitter disputes on whether it is an anarchist or liberal ideology). A classification by general ideology seems to invite endless debate on the exact nature and origins of the hybrids. I like a classification on values most of all. -- Nikodemos 19:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the general ideologies one would be most general and least disputable. As I tried to point out here no single ideology is linked to one single value. C mon 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but we could easily list ideologies twice under two different values without raising much of a dispute, whereas if we did it by general ideology we would be inviting chaos. Are you aware of the never-ending debates in Talk:Anarcho-capitalism as to whether anarcho-capitalism really is a form of anarchism? I wish to avoid things like that. -- Nikodemos 20:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We can not avoiding these issues by entering in a debate whether conservatives value freedom, liberals equality and nationalists solidarity. A 'general ideology' typology is simplest. C mon 20:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Very well, I agree to the 'general ideology' typology. However, I reserve the right to change it if it causes an edit war some time in the future. -- Nikodemos 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose we discuss such a change here first. I'll make the change to night. C mon 22:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Any edit war would necessarily involve long and pointless arguments on the Talk page, so it should be easy for both of us to notice it. -- Nikodemos 01:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

New Template: Lib

I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism

The section on anarchism does not belong here because anarchists generally do not form political parties so i will remove it.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a different solution is necessary renaming the article list of political ideologies, because that would 1) show the list nature of the artcicle and 2) allow is to encompass all ideologies and not just party political ones. But we will need an admin for the move because the article already exists and is a redirect to this article. C mon (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New organization

I've made some changes to the list's organization in order to avoid the use of list items as list headers and to cut back on some redundancy. I'm not sure if this is the correct style. I've read Wikipedia:Lists but I couldn't see any style guide that addressed the way the list was before, which seemed a bit awkward in my opinion. Please feel free to revert or change the list in case I made a mistake in changing it. Ecto (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing ideologies

There might be a few ideologies missing from this list. I think "anti" articles like anticommunism, antifascism, or antifeminism should be included on this list but I understand why others might disagree. What does everyone think?

Also, capitalism should be on this list too, even though it has been removed. There are some old discussions about how capitalism is an economic system rather than a political ideology but I think that leaving capitalism off this list has NPOV issues. We probably wouldn't even use the word "ideology" at all today if Marx and Engles hadn't used it to identify the pro-status quo belief system (superstructure) generated by the economic system of the day (the basis), so "capitalism" doesn't just refer to an economic system but also the value system that makes the economic system acceptable to a society. Marx and Engles used "ideology" to distinguish pro-capitalist ideas from the "science" of socialism. When communists talk about "bergousie morality" they're talking about capitalism as an ideology. We might not agree with the communist point of view that capitalism is as an ideology but we should take it into account when making this list in accordance with NPOV.Ecto (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I added "National Socialism" after Nazism, but then discovered National Socialism (disambiguation) and National Socialist Party both of which described a number of ideologies or groups that were NOT Nazi. I don't see a previous discussion on how to handle this. I'm sure some would like the ideology not mentioned at all because they think it makes "socialism" look bad. But it makes Wikipedia look bad to not try to distinguish the types here. That being said, I don't have a strong idea of how to do that right now and busy on other stuff, so I'll keep it in mind and see what others think. CarolMooreDC 10:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and Technocracy

This list seems to be rather democracy biased. What of those who are opposed to democracy, or Technocrats (such as myself)? 80.3.68.136 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Way to avoid overlaps of ideologies in groups.

I have noticed many ideologies can fit into 2 or more categories and while this system works fine. I believe it could be massively improved.

If you used scales such as the Political Compass instead it would avoid any possible crossing of political ideologiez. Political Boss (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Categories

What determines an ideology being a "major" field in bold rather than an ideology listed below it? Fascism seems to be radically different enough to be its own category, while many of the environmental ideologies feel like they would be included in some of the other categories. Is Libertarianism even considered a part of the Liberal tradition? Also, should this list be relabeled "List of ideologies" rather than "List of political ideologies" to facilitate the inclusion of economic ideologies such as Capitalism? Communism and Socialism may be political ideologies but economics remains heavily engrained in their beliefs. 158.96.4.13 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the Fascism. It is dubious to list it under the moniker "Nationalism" as I don't think that Nationalism can be really considered integral to Fascism, nor Fascism a sub-group of Nationalism. There have been "Internationalist" Fascist idealogues such as Werner Daitz who visioned a kind of German-led "European Union" in the 1940s. Also, the Nouvelle Droite has somewhat pan-Europeanist views, although still wanting to preserve "ethno-pluralism". Fascism does require strong adherence to the State and the Leader, but it does not necessarily include strong Nationalist elements, or adherence to the common cultural heritage. It should be noted that at the time most of the Fascist parties, movements and states were operating (20s, 30s, 40s), even Liberals (by this, I mean European Liberals) were often fiercely nationalistic. The point of contention wasn't the Nationalism, but the totalitarian nature of Fascist movements.

Libertarianism is clearly a part of Liberal tradition. This is evident in Europe where most of the parties named "Liberal Party", while not being Libertarian, still adhere to a quite laissez-faire economic policy. Adam Smith, the oft-quoted economist in Libertarian circles, was an enemy of Mercantilism and hence, a Liberal. The broad "Liberal tradition" could be defined as belief in Parlamentarism as opposed to Monarchism and in Progressivism as opposed to Conservatism which are characteristics of both (in economic terms) Left-Liberal and Right-Liberal parties.

The question of whether Capitalism could be considered an ideology is difficult. Capitalism is, to quote Marx, really a mode of production. But then again, so is Socialism, and yet many movements attempting to establish Socialism as a preferred mode of production call themselves "Socialist" and often include additional political goals they claim are inherent to their "Socialism". Communism as a movement is more consistent, as their stated goal is Socialism, and their means of achieving it is class struggle. The argument against including Capitalism as its own ideology would be that the support of "Capitalist mode of production" is prevalent in many different political movements, even in contemporary Social Democracy. As such, there really isn't an "ideology of Capitalism". JJohannes (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of political ideologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609075437/http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html to http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Anarchist communism sections

How come we have two "Anarchist communism" sections? Should they not be merged in one place? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Missing one-nation conservatism?

Any reason why One-nation conservatism is not included? Is it not considered a political ideology? If so, why? --Jzema 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have since added this to the page --Jzema 17:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary conflations of distinct ideologies

I'm not sure why, but it seems like some anonymous editor(s) keep insisting on conflating distinct ideologies, such as Socialism and Communism, Libertarianism and Liberalism, and editing out ideologies such as Christian Democracy and Social Democracy. I understand the desire to keep from listing separately ideologies that are generally agreed upon as being variations of the same ideology, such as Mutualism and Anarcho-syndicalism both being branches of Anarchism. However, it is definitely not an idea generally agreed upon in political science that Socialism a branch of Communism, for instance. To support this idea, I wish to cite the following article: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/state-of-socialism-a-note-on-terminology/4C742B00BE0D00ED3F0BE855097DE5F7# Please state your reasoning and/or give citations if you wish to make such conflations, whoever you anonymous editors may be. Thanks! Tomabird (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Why remove an informative, unbiased link?

I am mystified as to why the link I added to the page, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/PoliticalIdeologies , was removed by an anonymous editor- there are no external links provided on this page and this was one which gave readers useful and unbiased information on the subject of political ideologies- and this on a Wikipedia page that has been tagged as needing more citations! Thanks. Tomabird (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users continually deleting content & conflating differing ideologies

I have spent a lot of time adding content to this page and organizing it as rationally as possible, only to have my work undone continually by anonymous user(s) who seem to have some agenda. I know this kind of thing must happen a lot on Wikipedia, but it seems to me to be approaching the realm of vandalism. Any thoughts? Tomabird (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I am this user, I have no agenda, but your distinction between communism and socialism is nonsensical, socialism is an economic system most often used by communists and other lefties, distinguishing between the two is like distinguishing between liberalism/conservatism and capitalism, it's far too complicated to split into separate categories, and the way you've done it is completely arbitrary for reasons I could go into, the way it is now is the way it was before you changed it, so you are the one imposing your perspective, also, all links under the socialism category linked to leninism, so if anyone has an agenda it's you, I have fixed all these, please stop reverting the changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.236.245 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, anonymous user. While it is true that the word "socialism" is used to describe an economic system (or more properly, a set of widely differing economic systems) it is also true that the word "socialism" is used to refer to a wide range of differing political ideologies as well- which you can easily tell by reading the page entitled "Socialism." The same can be said for the word "communism." I concede that it is possible to say that "communism," in a political sense, can be described as a subset of socialism. However, there are many socialists who would be extremely upset at being called "communists," even though both advocate for differing forms of a "socialist" economic system, just as there are many conservatives who wouldn't particularly like being called "liberals" even though they both advocate for differing forms of a liberal economic system. By your logic, we should have one section called "Liberalism/Conservatism." Like it or not, unlike what you claim, "Socialism" refers to both a set of economic systems AND a set of political ideologies, most of which are distinct from communism. This page is a list of POLITICAL ideologies. It is also simply untrue that all links under the Socialism section link to Leninism. That is like saying all the links under the Conservatism section link to Nationalism. There are probably more socialists who would not identify as communists than there are conservatives who would not identify as nationalists. These categorizations are largely arbitrary, but we have to try to be as accurate as possible, largely by avoiding unnecessary conflations. In any case, I am happy to include communism as a variant of socialism. Yours truly, Tomabird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomabird (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

They did link to leninism, before I changed them all back to how they were, but I see your point, will leave as is now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.236.245 (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough- I pretty much ended up going with your approach after all, but let me know what you think. I apologize for insinuating vandalism earlier. All the best, Tomabird — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomabird (talk • contribs) 19:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Should Left and Right Libertarianisms be under one section?

I've been thinking that the most proper way to categorize Anarchism and Right-libertarianism would be to put them both in the same section called "Libertarianism," with Left-libertarianism and Right- libertarianism as subcategories. Any thoughts? Tomabird (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Heavily disagree, the ideologies are completely unrelated in everything but name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.236.245 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok- I guess I was thinking along the lines of historical common ancestry, but perhaps the contemporary understanding is more relevant. I have noticed how under one category there tend to be wide ranges of variations of the same ideology from right-wing to left-wing, which I think is quite natural. Any classification is arbitrary, so it all depends what you want to emphasize- historical continuity or what a particular ideology means to the average person today. Thanks for the feedback. yours truly, Tomabird — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomabird (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I think Definitely not. The only main similar characteristic between the two is the Anti-authoritarianism. And although this may seem like the most important characteristic, Right Libertarians and Left libertarians have extremely different ideologies and should have there own respective categories. It would be unfair to have Anarcho-Capitalism and Communism in the same category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.137.224.226 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Populism? Interesting...

Should we have a separate section for populism? It's an interesting thought, as I have wondered about it previously, but decided after reading the article on populism that it reflects more of a political approach that various ideologies might pursue, rather than an actual ideology in-and-of itself - but I may be wrong, of course. Thoughts? Tomabird (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It's true. I think we should have a separate section for populism, but we must understand the following. As I read in a news article: "The ideology is the hardware, the populism is the software". Because of this, there are left-wing populism and right-wing populism.--186.59.174.228 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Major re-ordering

To the IP who has now twice restructured the whole article without any conversation or really even edit summaries, care to discuss what's up? Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@95.246.152.199: It doesn't fill me with confidence that you disregarded my advice to break out your edits into smaller chunks and make use of edit summaries. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Why combine populism with direct democracy?

Populism has nothing to do with Direct democracy. Why combine both of them? It's illogical.--186.59.174.228 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It kinda does, depending on whether you have a positive or negative view of populism, but I think the whole section needs to go, it's an alright idea but I don't really see how general political movements can really be described as ideologies

Right-libertarianism is a form of conservatism

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were conservatives, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, so can we please stop putting them in the same category as classical anarchists? you can call yourselves what you want but I think it makes more sense to delineate sections by the whole background and history of the ideology, rather than just by name alone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.236.245 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I never heard either Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan describe themselves as "libertarians," although others may categorize their brand of conservatism as something like "libertarian conservatism." By the same token, it makes no more sense to put Noam Chomsky, a self-described libertarian socialist, in the same category as Joseph Stalin, an authoritarian communist- which is exactly what people are doing every time they combine the communism and socialism sections. I think we have to admit that all of these categories have significant overlap, which is natural- ideologies often don't fit into neat, distinct categories, so even making a list with separate sections like we are doing is inherently problematic. The only way I can think of to minimize unnecessary conflation is to have more separate categories- which is why I chose to revert your last edit. Let's see what other editors think... Cheers! Tomabird (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That does make sense though, because they are part of the same political tradition, just at opposing ends of it, there is overlap but if we're going to put them in boxes it may as well be boxes that most people would put them into, not boxes based on name alone

Too many sidebars

the footers at the bottom of the article were not displaying due to too many sidebars (post-expand size exceeded). I have removed many of the more minor sidebars and sidebars that were duplicating the footers. please feel free to remove more. we should concentrate on adding footers where appropriate and avoid adding more sidebars since they crowd the article content and have problems when there are too many trying to occupy limited space on the right side of the article. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/959445883 - WP:OR?

Seems like it, but I always feel uneasy about reverting when the list itself is almost entirely unverified info. Second opinion requested. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

MJL, it seems that the IP is right. Marxism–Leninism was developed by Stalin and his supporters in the 1920s after Lenin's death and became the ideology of the Communist International and later of the Communist bloc, in several cases being also explicity mentioned in the state constitution. Trostkyism was in opposition to Marxism–Leninism which was seen as Stalinism and anti-Stalinist socialists use Stalinism to refer to it. In academia, Stalinism seems to be used to specifically refer to Stalin's policies while Marxism–Leninism is used to refer to the ideology adopted by Communist states.--Davide King (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Let's go with that then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thank you for the response! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed Spam "Source"

I removed the source "The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics". It's only cited in the opening after a long list of other sources. It's author is "anonymouse conservative" and appears to be vanity published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by History8192 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Individualism

Could someone please add individualism to this list Bruhwer01 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Turkey and Mexico

Mexico is North American too, Turkey is also European L1948L (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. All four !votes (including the proposer) raised valid points. But there is consensus against increasing the scope of this article at this time. (non-admin closure) VR _talk 18:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

---

List of political ideologies → List of ideologies – Renaming this to "List of ideologies" will allow for more freedom in what is included, without lengthy debates on which ideologies are political and which are not. It will also remove the need for an expert in politics to review the article, which means that there will be one less problem to solve. Heythereimaguy (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Do you mean for religious ideologies to be included? That seems like it might get a bit unwieldy. The Ngram remark seems useless, since "ABC" will always be more common than "ABC XYZ" for any strings of ABC and XYZ. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@BarrelProof fair point. I'd say it would be best to exclude it for now, as a quick search doesn't come up with anything useful. Focusing on stuff like economic ideologies would be better, in my opinion. What do you think? Heythereimaguy (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that if the title is List of ideologies, then any kind of ideology would be assumed to be included. A quick web search for "religious ideologies" shows that the phrase is commonly used, and there are a lot of religious ideologies. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree: this should include every ideology, including religious ones. 20 million + is significant, the only problem is that none of these provide much information at first glance, except an article in a journal that's paid access. Can you provide some sources that have a decent amount of info about religious ideologies? Thanks! Oh, and one more thing: you're definitely right about Ngram. Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely Not This massive mess of an article needs a smaller scope, not a larger one. As for It will also remove the need for an expert in politics to review the article, which means that there will be one less problem to solve. that isn't solving the problem, that's just inviting even more problems by changing the article scope. Not to mention that by expanding the article scope, you wouldn't clear that flag since all the material requiring review would still be there. BSMRD (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree - I think "list of ideologies" actually might be a good idea, but something that is a list of lists, if that makes sense. It could link to this list, and to other lists that focus on other ideologies. I think keeping this "list of political ideologies" as its own entity helps the community engage with it, its scope to be understood, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamzze (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reducing the length of this article

There seems to be a lot of discussion over what should/ should not be included within this article. I think that will take some time to deal with. In between this, could we agree a way to minimize the length of this article? It is a little difficult to navigate as it currently stands.

I am not sure what is possible in terms of wiki-tech, but:

- Each section could be wrapped in a {{columns-list|colwidth=18em| so the different article links go across the page, rather than down?

- Each section could be placed within a table and then set to autocollapse?

Any other ideas of what is possible/ accepted editorially + not impacting accessibility would be great to know.

This can then be reversed, if wanted, once/ if the page is reduced in scope of the current ideologies. I think, though, addressing this issue would help this page be more approachable for everyone. Jamzze (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Non ideologies

Comradeka Articals such as the New Deal in the progressive section are not political ideologies and shouldn't be in the article. As to to violate R3 I'm making this so it can be discussed. — RealFakeKimT 19:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Geolibertarianism as Left-libertarianism?

Georgism is a pro-capitalist economic philosophy with respect to the ownership of private property, Geolibertarianism even more so. It seems wrong to me to list it under Left-libertarianism rather than Right-libertarianism or Other-libertarianism Snoopdigglet (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Chairmanism

This is obscure ideology but it is a ideology none the less and as such I believe it should by located here.

I will try to find the Chairmanist Party website again to further reference this Ideology. Tob 888 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be a reliable source showing that it's a notable ideology. ... discospinster _talk 18:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Non-Scandinavians in the "Scandinavia" section of "nationalism" (and more)

Scandinavia is Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Finns, Sami and Inuits are not Scandinavians or even Germanic (or even Indo-European!) and while Faroese and Icelandic people are Germanic, they're not Scandinavians either. Using "Scandinavia" to refer to the Nordic countries is, well... not very NPOV to say the least. For it to be accurate (and not reflective of Scandinavian expansionism or whatever), the section should be renamed "Nordic countries". I'll rename it myself in a second, but I expect it'll be reverted by one of those "nationalists" the section is about... VHGW (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm not going to edit it myself because that's not the only part of the "nationalism" section that's a mess. Apparently according to this article, Bulgarian, Chechen, Circassian and Karelian nationalists are now proponents of Russian nationalism... uh. Maybe someone who's better at Wikipedia can figure out how to fix it. VHGW (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually nevermind the nevermind, looks like it's intentionally organised by country/region even though the linked articles are to the "main" nationalism of that country or the pan-nationalism of the region... except in the case of the Nordic countries, since one doesn't even exist. So I'll edit it, but leave the link to the "Scandinavism" article since it just barely mentions "Nordism" (which isn't really a thing; a lot of Finns think it is, but it's a naive self-delusion entirely different from the anti-Finnish Scandinavianism). VHGW (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Phillipines politics

Tagalog 222.127.75.74 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)