[Le Rouge]

For the breakdown of ideologies:
Radicalism: collective bodies as the locus of social change
Liberalism: individual bodies as the locus of social change
Conservatism: individual bodies as the locus of social stability
Reactionism: collective bodies as the locus of social stability

I'm pretty sure this model also works across frameworks (as it would fall in line with a behaviorist framework just as easy as a humanist framework). Comments?

[QatzelOk]

the locus

Exactly.

The major problem with "ism"s is that they essentialize in order to justify their existence. The very structure of every "ism" creates its own dialectic against everything else. That is how we get "wars on" that target just about anything out there. It seems bizarre and useless, but we are continuing the logic of our current "ism" (liberalism) and will do so until it makes us starve.

[Dr House]

but we are continuing the logic of our current "ism" (liberalism) and will do so until it makes us starve.

Except of course it won't make us starve. We already produce enough food to feed the planet, economic growth and it's spillover effects will quite nicely do the job of actually getting that food to everyone. All that's required for that to happen is political stability. That's why it hasn't happened in Africa.

[Abood]

What about individual anarchism/Mutualism?

[HoniSoit]

Why do you have to dress simple ideas in complex language?

[Abood]

Because he's trying to be a philosopher.

[Nets]

I wish we spent less time constantly defining the ideologies, -isms, and schools of thought of ourselves and those around us and more time trying to fix real instead of theoretical/philosophical problems.

[Nets]

DP

[QatzelOk]

Except of course it won't make us starve. We already produce enough food to feed the planet, economic growth and it's spillover effects will quite nicely do the job of actually getting that food to everyone. All that's required for that to happen is political stability. That's why it hasn't happened in Africa.

And as long as we continue to follow those who promote this kind of free-market tantra, we will see our standards of living and security deteriorate until it reaches a crisis that destroys our civil societies. It's hard to believe that our societies have been reduced to dust so many times by free market criminals and yet we continue to get sucked into the same old lies that were proven false so many times to our grandparents and great-grandparents.

Political stability won't feed people. Food production and redistribution - not the free market wishing-well - will, and the invisible hand Inc. has been notoriously inept at ensuring the wise use of resources to satisfy the grestest number of people. Africans die of starvation because the free market doesn't feed them. Insteand it feeds its richest shareholders cocaine and corporate wars to fill their "need" for increased production.

[Zyx]

Comments?

Disappointment that this thread was ignored.

I think that you should justify this collective/individual dichotomy as well as this social change/stability dichotomization.

Whoever said that Liberalism was unstable?

[Dr House]

Political stability won't feed people.

No, but it's a pre-requirement to setting up the structure by which people will be fed, which free trade does naturally almost everywhere.

Africans die of starvation because the free market doesn't feed them.

Africans die of starvation because 1) their main source of revenue and employment, agriculture, can't compete against subsidized crops in the West and thus can't develop to the same level, 2) they have kleptocratic corrupt dictatorships where property rights are not protected, which scares off investors and further hinders development, and 3) they have inadequate infrastructures. All three of those problems need to be addressed before Africa can start developing to the level that their people are cared for. Africa is about the only place in the world where hunger is increasing. Everywhere else, free trade is helping it decline.

[pikachu]

Radicalism: collective bodies as the locus of social change
Liberalism: individual bodies as the locus of social change
Conservatism: individual bodies as the locus of social stability
Reactionism: collective bodies as the locus of social stability

I didn't get it...

Some explanation is needed as to why liberalism or conservatism seek change/stability in "individual bodies", actually I don't even understand what that means.

By the way, since the current world order is mostly centrist, the far-right (which, I guess, is what you meant by reactionism) actually wants change as much as far-left does. Sometimes the conservatives themselves are in favor of reversing the changes made by liberals, so in that way they are also in favor of change - just in different direction.

[Le Rouge]

Liberalism and conservatism see individual bodies, i.e. individual human beings, as the center of political action. Radicalism and reactionism see collective bodies—class, race, gender, nation, etc.—as the center of political action.

To answer Abood's question, I would consider individualist anarchism under liberalism because it desires radical change but through individualist means.

[Ombrageux]

I don't think we should look to give a label (like "liberalism") only a single meaning. They are merely terms which denote often very systems of thought in different times and places.

Your schema for separating different ideologies is interesting but I don't know how far you can go with it. Would existentialism fit under liberalism? Would fascism fall alongside communism as a form of radicalism, is it a reactionism?

[Le Rouge]

I don't think we should look to give a label (like "liberalism") only a single meaning. They are merely terms which denote often very systems of thought in different times and places.

I actually strongly agree with this idea. I am very skeptical of reducing complex systems to one single, foundational definition. Hence, I titled the thread 'an idea'.

You raise good questions, to which I have unsure answers and hence none.

[pikachu]

Liberalism and conservatism see individual bodies, i.e. individual human beings, as the centre of political action.

Perhaps that's what they like to tell themselves, but that's not what actually happens. An individual human being in liberal or conservative society can achieve near nothing. A corporation can, a political party can, a social movement can, government can, an NGO can, an individual - not really.

Liberalism and its sister ideologies try very hard to be seen as individualist, because that's what sells these days - people like to think that they are independent and they can do everything. In reality, the power of the social organizations outweigh the power of individuals by so much that it's almost incomparable.