Political Ideologies

#Liberalism

Liberalism is a principle of politics which insists on 'liberty' of individual as the first and foremost
goal of public policy. Liberty, in this sense, implies 'liberation' from restraints—particularly, from the
restraints imposed by an authoritarian state. This principle was evolved in the West in late seventeenth
century in order to liquidate feudal privileges of the land-owning class and to create favourable
conditions for the new entrepreneurial class to enable them to contribute to social progress. A state
where an individual, a group, an institution, or a set of rules enshrined in a sacred book are regarded
as the source of authority, i.e. legitimate power; its orders or directions are required to be obeyed by
all without questioning. In fact liberalism is not a fixed mode of thought, but an intellectual movement
which seeks to accommodate new ideas in order to face new situations and new challenges. However,
its basic tenets may be identified as follows:

(a) Man is a rational creature. He has immense potential to contribute to social progress as well as to
his own good;

(b) There is no basic contradiction between an individual's self-interest and the common interest. In
fact the common interest denotes a point of reconciliation between the interests of different
individuals;

(c) Man is endowed with certain natural rights which cannot be transgressed by any authority;

(d) Civil society and the state are artificial institutions created by individuals to serve the common
interest. They are entitled to demand obedience to their orders from individuals on the condition of
fulfilling this function;

(e) Liberalism believes in the primacy of procedure over the end-product. It means, if the procedure
for arriving at a decision is right, the decision may be accepted to be right. Liberal view of freedom,
equality, justice and democracy is a search for right procedure in different spheres of social life;

(f) Liberalism promotes civil liberties of the individual, including freedom of thought and expression,
freedom of association and movement, personal freedom (which rules out search or arrest without a
warrant) and strict compliance with legal and judicial procedure. Any restriction on individual
freedom should be meant to ensure equal freedom for others;

(g) Liberalism upholds freedom of contract. No individual can accept any obligation without his own
consent, and without consideration of mutual benefit. The state would function as umpire in the
enforcement of contracts. However, a contract concluded under pressure, or the one which
compromises dignity of the individual, shall be void; and

(h) Liberalism holds that public policy should be the product of free bargaining between groups of
individuals formed to pursue their common interests.

In short, liberalism treats market society as the model of social organization where role of the state
should be confined to the protection of individuals' life and property, enforcement of contracts, and
maintenance of minimum common services which would not be undertaken by private entrepreneurs.
In liberal view, the state is a necessary evil. Liberalism treats the state as the means and individual as
the end. It rules out absolute authority of the state.
# Main Currents of Liberalism

1. Classical Liberalism

Early exponents of liberalism include John Locke (1632-1704), Adam Smith (1723-90) and Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832). All of them were English philosophers. Locke is known as the father of
liberalism. Smith is known as the father of economics; Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism. All of
them defended the principle of laissez-faire which implies least interference of the state in the
economic activities of individuals. They are the founders of classical liberalism which is called
negative liberalism because it contemplates negative role of the state in the sphere of mutual
interaction of individuals. In the twentieth century, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), an English
philosopher, sought to reaffirm negative liberalism through the application of the principles of natural
sicence to social organization.

2. Welfare State

A state that provides for various types of social services for its citizens, e.g. social security (financial
assistance in case of loss of job or any other source of income, death of the bread-winner, prolonged
illness or physical disability or any other calamity), free education, public health, poor relief, supply
of essential goods and services like foodgrains, milk, fuel and transport to the needy at subsidized
rates. It undertakes the protection of cultural heritage including monuments, museums, libraries, art
galleries, botanical gardens and zoological parks, etc. It also promotes higher education and scientific
research, etc. to step up intellectual and cultural development of society.

John Stuart Mill (1806-73), an English philosopher, sought to modify utilitarianism and the principle
of laissez-faire on philosophical grounds which paved the way for the theory of welfare state. Then
T.H. Green (1836-82), another English philosopher, sought to add a moral dimension to liberalism
and thus advanced a full-fledged theory of welfare state. This tradition was further developed by L.T
Hobhouse (1864-1929), Harold J. Laski (1893-1950) and R.H. Tawney (1880-1962)—all of them
were English philosophers. Thus the theory and practice of welfare state flourished in the first half of
the twentieth century in England. This theory contemplates positive role of the state in securing a
dignified life to individuals. It is therefore called positive liberalism. On political side, liberalism
promotes democracy; on economic side, it promotes capitalism. Democracy is concerned with
fulfilling needs and aspirations of ordinary people, but capitalism results in the concentration of
economic power in the hands of the few who may use it against the interests of ordinary people. This
situation is sought to be rectified by the mechanism of the welfare state.

3. Neo – Liberalism

Neo-liberalism, neo-classical liberalism or libertarianism stands for contemporary version of classical

liberalism which seeks to restore laissez faire individualism. It denounces the welfare state, opposes
state intervention and control of economic activities. Champions of neo-liberalism stand for 'rolling
back' the state which has immensely expanded its sphere of activities. The chief exponents of neo-
liberalism include F.A. Hayek (1899-1992), an Austrian thinker, Milton Friedman (1912-2006), an
American economist, and Robert Nozick (1938-2002) an American philosopher. In the second half of
the twentieth century these thinkers realized that the theory of welfare state was inimical to individual
liberty, as it involved the forced transfer of resources from the more competent to the less competent.
In order to restore individual liberty, they sought to revive the principle of laissez-faire not only in
economic sphere, but also in social and political sphere. In a nutshell, neo- liberalism upholds full
autonomy and freedom of the individual. It seeks his liberation from all institutions which tend to
restrict his vision of the world, including the institutions of religion, family and customs of social
conformity apart from political institutions. Philosophically it repudiates the deterministic outlook of
human life, and maintains that human personality, character, thought and actions cannot be construed
as the outcome of his circumstances. In other words, it treats man as the maker of his destiny. It is,
therefore, hostile to all social and legal restrictions on individual's freedom of action. In the political
sphere, neo-liberalism particularly insists that man's economic activity must be actively liberated from
all restrictions to enable him to achieve true progress and prosperity.

All neo-liberals believe in the primacy of the 'spontaneous order' of human relationships as
exemplified in free markets. They deplore any politics (notably socialism) which pretends to have
definitive knowledge of human needs. No government can have such knowledge. Human needs
manifest themselves through the myriad unpredictable transactions between individuals living in a
free or open society. If government tries to regulate these activities, it would amount to curtailing their
freedom without fulfilling their genuine needs. It would therefore be advisable to transfer such
decisions to the market which will maximize their choice. In the economic sphere, market exemplifies
the genuine democracy. In the political sphere, market represents a model of genuine democracy,
where votes are traded against welfare benefits, and the cost is borne by the most productive members
of society.

STREAMS OF LIBERAL THOUGHT

Early liberal theory developed in two main directions: (a) individualism; and (b) utilitarianism.
Individualism focused on individual as a rational creature. It required that individual's dignity,
independent existence and judgment should be given full recognition while making public policy and
decisions. It means, no individual shall be made to suffer in order to benefit any larger unit of society.
According to this view, only an individual can have any rights; family, trade union, corporation or the
state cannot have any rights which could be distinguished from the rights of their individual members.
Similarly, no social unit can have any interests which could be distinguished from the interests of its
individual members. Individualism supports a social and legal system which is based on voluntary
transactions between individuals. This view strongly upholds market society model and holds that
even taxation should be confined to the provision and maintenance of common services. John Locke
and Adam Smith are the early exponents of individualism.

On the other hand, utilitarianism stands for 'greatest happiness of the greatest number' where interest
of the few may be sacrificed in the interest of the collective unit. Happiness is defined as the balance
of pleasure over pain derived from various goods and services, acts and policies. Founder of this
school of thought, Jeremy Bentham, observed that nature has placed mankind under two sovereign
masters: pleasure and pain. Human behaviour is guided by an urge to obtain pleasure and avoid pain.
Moral principles and state policy should aim at promoting 'greatest happiness of the greatest number.'
Bentham made no distinction between qualities of different pleasures. He insisted on maximizing the
quantity of pleasure. But John Stuart Mill pointed to qualitative differences between different types of
pleasure, and thus recognized the variety of tastes of different individuals. Further, he projected the
liberty of individual as the highest value. These modifications in utilitarianism tilted it toward
individualism and transformed its basic character. Mill also pleaded for taxation of the rich for the
benefit of the poor, and thus paved the way for the welfare state.
Decline of Liberalism

As the nineteenth century began, classical liberalism — or just liberalism as the philosophy of
freedom was then known — was popular around the world. In every advanced country the liberal
movement was active. Drawn mainly from the middle classes, it included people from widely
contrasting religious and philosophical backgrounds. Christians, Jews, deists, agnostics, utilitarians,
believers in natural rights, freethinkers, and traditionalists all found it possible to work towards one
fundamental goal: expanding the area of the free functioning of society and diminishing the area of
coercion and the state.

By the late 19th century, the West's rapid move toward industrialization created enormous short-term
problems of bad working conditions, poverty and displacement. Technological advances raced past
the nations' ability to adapt. The people turned to the government to overcome hardships. The
experiences of rising enmities in Europe after the turn of the century replaced the uniting European
culture with extreme nationalism and ethnic pride. Not only did World War I destroy international
trade, every government tried to expand their influence to meet military needs. World War II
compounded this problem; the United States' government, for example, was now engaged in
everything from wage and price controls to rationing, censorship, and propaganda. Once the wars
were over, the governments never decreased to their increased influences in trade and society. The
Soviet embrace of communism kept the other competing nations at a heightened military position.
The cultures now accepting of government's ever-broadening role, people expected economic and
social needs to be met by legislation. This lead to the decline of liberalism.

#Socialism
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world
being owned in common by the entire global population.But does it really make sense for everybody
to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather
than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict
the principle of a society based upon common ownership.In practice, common ownership will mean
everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means
nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a
society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them.
These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for
example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet
their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to
producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people
would engage in work that has a direct usefulness.

Definitions

The word ‘socialism’ finds its root in the Latin sociare, which means to combine or to share. The
related, more technical term in Roman and then medieval law was societas. This latter word could
mean companionship and fellowship as well as the more legalistic idea of a consensual contract
between freemen.

The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of what would later
be labelled "utopian socialism". Simon coined "socialism" as a contrast to the liberal doctrine of
"individualism", which stressed that people act or should act as if they are in isolation from one
another.

So, socialism can be defined as ‘A political and economic theory of social organization which
advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated
by the community as a whole.’

Features

 It’s a social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or
control of property and natural resources.

 According to the socialist view, human beings are essentially social animals and individuals do
not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another.

 Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone
who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole,
therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

 This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership
of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods
and services are distributed. Therefore socialists often complain that capitalism necessarily leads
to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who
emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to
reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and
how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. 

Disagreements among socialists

The above fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among
themselves with regard to two key points.

 The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control.
Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should
be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir
Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even
welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

 The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of
property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of
centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public
control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of
a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that
decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-
 possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict
has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement.

Types of Socialism

Based on the above differences socialism can be understood through its variants. Let us take a look at
some important types of socialism,

 Utopian Socialism: One of the first utopian socialists was the French aristocrat Claude-Henri de
Saint-Simon. Saint-Simon did not call for public ownership of productive property, but he did
advocate public control of property through central planning, in which scientists, industrialists,
and engineers would anticipate social needs and direct the energies of society to meet them.

Similarly,Sir Thomas More’s Utopiarecommends communal ownership as a way of controlling the

sins of pride, envy, and greed. Land and houses are common property on More’s imaginary island of
Utopia, where everyone works for at least two years on the communal farms and people change
houses every 10 years so that no one develops pride of possession. Money has been abolished, and
people are free to take what they need from common storehouses. All the Utopians live simply,
moreover, so that they are able to meet their needs with only a few hours of work a day, leaving the
rest for leisure.More’s Utopia is not so much a blueprint for a socialist society as it is a commentary
on the failings he perceived in the supposedly Christian societies of his day.

Similar themes mark the writings of François-Marie-Charles Fourier, a French clerk who
envisioned a form of society that would be more in keeping with human needs and desires.

 Anarcho-Socialism/Communism: Mikhail Bakunin held that religion, capitalism, and the state
are forms of oppression that must be smashed if people are ever to be free.As a communist,
Bakunin shared Marx’s vision of a classless, stateless community in which the means of
production would be under community control; as an anarchist, however, he vehemently rejected
Marx’s claim that the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was a necessary step on the way to
communism. To the contrary, Bakunin argued, the dictatorship of the proletariat threatened to
become even more oppressive than the bourgeois state, which at least had a militant and
organized working class to check its growth. Anarcho-communism took less-extreme forms in the
hands of two later Russian émigrés, Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman.

 Fabian socialism: Fabian Socialism was so called because the members of the Fabian Society
admired the tactics of the Roman general Fabius Cunctator (Fabius the Delayer), who avoided
pitched battles and gradually wore down Hannibal’s forces. Instead of revolution, the Fabians
favoured “gradualism” as the way to bring about socialism. The Fabians themselves were mostly
middleclass intellectuals—including George Bernard Shaw, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Graham
Wallas, and H.G.Wells—who thought that persuasion and education were more likely to lead to
socialism, however gradually, than violent class warfare. Rather than form their own political
party or work through trade unions, the Fabians aimed at gaining influence within existing parties.

 Syndicalism: Inspired in part by Proudhon’s ideas syndicalism developed at the end of the 19th
century out of the French trade-union movement—‘syndicat’ being the French word for trade
union. It was a significant force in Italy and Spain in the early 20th century until it was crushed
by the fascist regimes in those countries. The hallmarks of syndicalism were workers’ control and
“direct action.” Syndicalists distrusted both the state, which they regarded as an agent of
capitalism, and political parties, which they thought were incapable of achieving radical change.
 Their aim was to replace capitalism and the state with a loose federation of local workers’ groups,
which they meant to bring about through direct action—especially a general strike of workers that
would bring down the government as it brought the economy to a halt.

 Guild socialism: Related to syndicalism but nearer to Fabianism in its reformist tactics, Guild
Socialism was an English movement that attracted a modest following in the first two decades of
the 20th century. Inspired by the medieval guild, an association of craftsmen who determined
their own working conditions and activities, theorists such as Samuel G. Hobson and G.D.H.
Cole advocated the public ownership of industries and their organization into guilds, each of
which would be under the democratic control of its trade union. The role of the state was less
clear: some guild socialists envisioned it as a coordinator of the guilds’ activities, while others
held that its functions should be limited to protection or policing. 

 Marxian socialism: Despite their imagination and dedication to the cause of the workers, none of
the early socialists met with the full approval of Karl Marx, who is unquestionably the most
important theorist of socialism. In fact, Marx and his long time friend and collaborator Friedrich
Engels were largely responsible for attaching the label “utopian,” which they intended to be
derogatory, to Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen, whose “fantastic pictures of future society” they
contrasted to their own “scientific” approach to socialism.  “The history of all hitherto existing
society is the history of class struggles,” they proclaimed in the Manifesto of the Communist
Party. A scientific understanding of history according to them shows that these struggles will
culminate in the triumph of the working class and the establishment of socialism.

#Marxism
Karl Marx (1818–1883) was the most important of all theorists of socialism. The philosopher, social
scientist, historian and revolutionary, Karl Marx, is without a doubt the most influential socialist
thinker to emerge in the 19th century. Although he was largely ignored by scholars in his own
lifetime, his social, economic and political ideas gained rapid acceptance in the socialist movement
after his death in 1883. Until quite recently almost half the population of the world lived under
regimes that claim to be Marxist. This very success, however, has meant that the original ideas of
Marx have often been modified and his meanings adapted to a great variety of political circumstances.
In addition, the fact that Marx delayed publication of many of his writings meant that is been only
recently that scholars had the opportunity to appreciate Marx's intellectual stature.

Historical Materialism

Marx’s general ideas about society are known as his theory of historical materialism. Materialism is
the basis of his sociological thought because for Marx material conditions or economic factors affect
the structure and development of society.

Karl Marx is indebted to Hegel for his theory of Dialectics. Marx's theory, which he called "historical
materialism" or the "materialist conception of history" is based on Hegel's claim that history occurs
through a dialectic, or clash, of opposing forces. Taken most generally, the materialist theory of
history asserts that the manner in which human beings produce the necessities of life determines the
form of the societies in which they live.
Historical materialism is based on the economic interpretation of history which means that the major
changes in political, social, legal etc. institutions and ideas are being explained from the changes in
the nature of the economic system. The economy is considered to be ‘the base’ of the society while
the political, legal, social, religious etc. institutions and ideas are then considered to be 'the
superstructure' above the economic base.

The whole course of human history in explained in terms of changes occurring in the mode of
production and exchange. Starting from primitive communism, the mode of production has passed
through three stages i.e. slavery, feudalism and capitalism and the consequent division of society into
two distinct classes (Slave- master, serf-feudal lord and proletariat-capitalist) and the struggle of these
classes against one another. The most profound view of Marx’s theory of historic materialism is
contained in his preface to a contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.

Marx believes that the society has always been historically divided into two classes i.e ‘haves’ and the
‘have-nots’. Marx, on the basis of the change in the relations of production has divided the human
history in six parts:

(1) Age of Primitive Communism:

In this age, the institution of property had not taken birth and man had no knowledge of agriculture
and cattle-breeding. He had to live on hunted-animals and fruits.

(2) Age of Slavery:

In this age the agriculture and cattle-rearing started. Certain people were the masters or owners of the
land and certain people were slaves. It was the duty of the slaves to produce while the masters enjoyed
the fruit of the slave’s labour. Then feudal system emerged.

(3) Age of Feudalism:

During this age big landlords were the owners of the land and in place of slaves, serfs tilled the land
but they were not the owners of the land. They were completely under the control of their feudal
lords.

(4) Age of Capitalist Society:

The fourth age of capitalism started in Europe after industrial revolution. Many big industries were
established and their owners were called the bourgeoisie (capitalists). Millions of labourers or the
proletariat class worked in these industries. They got a meager salary and the capitalist became the
owner of the residual profit of the production.

(5) Dictatorship of the Proletariat class:

Marx said that his age (nineteenth century) was the age of capitalism. There would be a constant class
struggle between the capitalists and the proletariat, because the capitalists exploited the workers
constantly. In this struggle, the workers would ultimately be victorious.After the revolution,
capitalism would perish and dictatorship of the proletariat would be established.

(6) Communism:
Marx predicted that the last age would be the communist age. In this age there would be no class
struggle because capitalism would have perished in the previous age and thus there would be only one
class. Anegalitarian society i.e a classless and stateless society would be established.

Class

The doctrine of class and class struggle is central to the understanding of Marxian political
philosophy. The sole criterion on the basis of which the class of a person is determined is this
ownership (or control) of means of production constitute the ‘haves’ and those who labour constitute
the ‘have-nots’. It is clear that Marx defined classes on the basis of twin criteria of a person’s place
with mode of production and his consequent position in terms of relations of production.In
the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels comment that, ‘the history of all hitherto existing society
is the history of class struggles’.

Marx believed that the ‘have-nots’ would ultimately revolt when they realize that they have been
exploited. This realization is what Marx terms as ‘class consciousness’. According to Marx,
capitalism is the most brutal age of history where the have-nots have been suppressed the most. This
leads to a conflict between the two classes because the bourgeoisie and theproletariat do not reconcile
in this struggle. The interests of both these classes clash with one another. Therefore, this struggle can
stop only if capitalism is abolished and the workers gain a victory.

Marx was of the firm belief that capitalism, with its inherent evils, creates a situation for self-
destruction. Due to capitalism, the wealth of the country is concentrated in the hands of a few. With
the spread and growth of capitalism, the condition of the workers worsens and great unrest spreads
among them. Therefore, the labourers raise the banner of revolution. Marx prophesied that the
Workers will ultimately come out victorious in this struggle.

Alienation

Marx is best known for his two unsparing critiques of capitalism. The first of these critiques
maintains that capitalism is essentially alienating. The second of these critiques maintains that
capitalism is essentially exploitative.

The general idea of alienation is simple: Something is alienating when what is (or should be) familiar
and connected comes to seem foreign or disconnected. And since we are being alienated from our
own nature, alienation is not merely a subjective feeling, but is about an objective reality.

So how are workers alienated from their species-being under capitalism? Marx distinguishes three
specific ways.

1.  Workers are alienated from other human beings: In a capitalist economy, workers must compete
with each other for jobs and salary raises. But just as competition between businesses brings down
the price of commodities, competition between workers brings down wages. And so it is not the
proletariat who benefits from this competition, but capitalists. This is not only materially
 damaging to workers, it estranges them from each other. As such, they should see each other as
allies, especially in the face of a capitalist class who seeks to undermine worker solidarity for its
own benefit. But under capitalism workers see each other as opposing competition.

2.  Workers are alienated from the products of their labor: Capitalists need not do any labor
themselves – simply by owning the means of production, they control the profit of the firm they
own, and are enriched by it. But they can only make profit by selling commodities, which are
entirely produced by workers.Thus, the products of the worker’s labor strengthen the capitalists,
whose interests are opposed to that of the proletariat. Workers do this as laborers, but also as
consumers: Whenever laborers buy commodities from capitalists, that also strengthens the
position of the capitalists. 

3. Workers are alienated from the act of labor: Because capitalists own the firms that employ
workers, it is they, not the workers, who decide what commodities, are made, how they are made,
and in what working conditions they are made. As a result, work is often dreary, repetitive, and
even dangerous. Such work may be suitable for machines, or beings without the ability to
consciously and freely decide how they want to work, but it is not suitable for human beings.

Communism

Communism is explained by Marx as a form of society which the proletariat will bring into existence
through its revolutionary struggle. In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engles argued that the
communists have no interests separate and apart from the interests of the proletariat as a whole.

During the period of dictatorship of the proletariat the state continues to be the repressiveorgan of the
class controlling the means of production, but instead of the minority oppressing themajority, the
minority will oppress the small group of former exploiters (haves). Under the loving care ofthe
dictatorship of the proletariat, socialism will blossom into communism.

Thus, it will be different from the state in capitalism which isno more than the managing committee of
the bourgeoisie. For Marx the state in capitalism isserving the long-term interests of the bourgeoisie
as a whole.

Marx talked of two stages of communist society.

 In the first stage communism will bringabout the socialization of means of production. It
means that the means of production will not be inthe hands of any one class but in the hands
of society as a whole. At this stage labour will continueto exist and the organizing principle of
the economy will be: “from each according to his capacityto each according to his work” .It
means that every one will work according to one’s ability and getaccording to the amount of
work done.

 At the second and final stage the communist society willensure the end of man’s domination
by objective forces. According to Marx, communism is notonly the abolition of private
property but also the abolition of state and abolition of classes. It willbe a classless and
stateless society.

In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx defined communism as the positive abolition
of private property. It also entailed the abolition of classes and abolition of division of labour. In
economic terms, the communist society will be a society of associated producers’. In political terms
communism will be the first state in the history of mankind to political power for universal interests
instead of partisan interests.

#Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide range of things
that involve choices that people face. Among the things that can be evaluated are actions, laws,
policies, character traits, and moral codes. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it rests
on the idea that it is the consequences or results of actions, laws, policies, etc. that determine whether
they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general, whatever is being evaluated, we ought to choose the
one that will produce the best overall results. In the language of utilitarians, we should choose the
option that “maximizes utility,” i.e. that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good.

Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only one evaluative principle: Do
what produces the best consequences. In fact, however, the theory is complex because we cannot
understand that single principle unless we know (at least) three things: a) what things are good and
bad;  b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should aim to maximize; and c) whether
actions, policies, etc. are made right or wrong by their actual consequences (the results that our
actions actually produce) or by their foreseeable consequences (the results that we predict will occur
based on the evidence that we have).

Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action and hence is also called a consequentialist
theory. Utilitarianism maintains that the supreme ideal of life is pleasure - not the individual pleasure
but universal or general happiness. The slogan of Utilitarianism is, “The greatest happiness of the
greatest number”. Utilitarianism evaluates human actions on the basis of their consequences. Actions
are judged by their utility to produce pleasure or to prevent pain. The action that leads to best
consequences i.e. produces more pleasure is right action. Jeremy Bentham advocates Gross or
Quantitative Utilitarianism while J.S. Mill advocates Refined or Qualitative Utilitarianism.

Jeremy Bentham’s Gross or Quantitative Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism is as follows:

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two Sovereign Masters viz Pleasure and Pain.
These masters point what we ought to do and determine what we shall do. Bentham argues that we do
desire pleasure therefore we ought to desire pleasure.

Pleasure is the only desirable. All other things like wealth, power, knowledge etc. are desired because
they lead to happiness. Bentham says weigh pleasures and pains in our actions. An action is right if it
produces pleasure. An action is wrong if it produces pain. The worth of an action consists in its utility
to produce pleasure and to avoid pain. Bentham believes that all pleasures are alike. Pleasures do not
have qualitative differences. Pleasures have only quantitative differences i.e. they are more or they are
less. Bentham argues that the quantity of pleasure remaining the same, pushpin (a game) is as good as
poetry. The quantity of pleasure can be calculated. To calculate pleasure, Bentham considers different
dimensions of pleasure. Bentham argues that each man desire his own happiness. Each man’s
happiness is good for him. Therefore general happiness is good for all. Bentham asserts that by nature
man is egoistic and selfish Man can be altruistic only when, by being altruistic he satisfies his own
desire too. Here Bentham suggests the moral standard of “the greatest good of the greatest number of
people.” The moral standard is not the greatest good of one individual but it is good of a number of
people. Bentham suggests the maximum good of maximum number of people.

Mill’s Refined or Qualitative Utilitarianism

The theories of Bentham and Mill have many common points. In some points Mill differs from
Bentham. The Refined or Qualitative Utilitarianism can be summarized as follows:-

The moral criterion is Utility or the greatest happiness principle. Actions are right, if they promote
happiness. Happiness means pleasure and the absence of pain Actions are wrong if they produce
unhappiness. Unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure. Pleasure and freedom from pain are
only desirable Ends. All other things like virtue, health, love of honor, wealth, power are desired
because they promote happiness. Mill argues that “Desiring a thing and finding it pleasant are two
names of the same psychological fact. To desire a thing without its being pleasant is a physical and
metaphysical impossibility”. Happiness is the only desirable end. Mill argues that we always desire
pleasure therefore pleasure is desirable. The sole evidence that anything is desirable is that people do
actually desire it. All person desire happiness, so happiness is desirable. Mill holds that qualitative
distinction among pleasures is as real as quantitative distinction. Intellectual pleasures are better than
sensuous pleasures. Mill believes that we ought to seek satisfaction of higher capacities.

The question arises, what is the test of quality? Mill leaves it to the verdict of competent judges.
Those who are equally acquainted with both intellectual and sensual pleasures are competent judges.
These judges prefer intellectual pleasures to bodily and sensual pleasures. In addition to the verdict of
competent judges, Mill refers to man’s “natural sense of dignity.” No man would consent to be
changed in to the lower animals. Mill says “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

Mill argues that each man desires his own happiness. Each person’s happiness is good to that person.
Therefore the general happiness is good to all persons. So, general happiness is good to each person.
Mill advocates that, “The moral end ought to be, greatest happiness of the greatest number.” Mill
further states that utilitarianism grows out of self love. The law of transference of interest, changes
self love into sympathy or fellow feeling. Egoist man seeks pleasures of others, in order to relieve his
own pains. Seeking pleasures of others is means to achieve one’s own end i.e. pleasure. In the course
of time, means and end are transferred and altruism develops from egoism. Mill accepts the sanction
of morality as given by Bentham. According to Mill, there are external as well as internal sanctions.
Natural, Political, Social and Religious sanctions are the external forces. Mill accepts fifth, Internal
sanction of Conscience. Individual’s own conscience controls selfishness and motivates altruism.

Criticism of Utilitarianism

(1) The most glaring weakness of utilitarianism, many argue, is that it fails to respect individual
rights. By caring only about the sum of satisfactions, it can be unfair to individual people. For the
utilitarian, individuals matter, but only in the sense that each person’s preferences should be counted
along with everyone else’s. But this means that the utilitarian logic, if consistently applied, could
sanction ways of treating persons that violate what we think of as fundamental norms of decency
and respect.

(2) Utilitarianism claims to offer a science of morality, based on measuring, aggregating, and
calculating happiness. It weighs preferences without judging them. Everyone’s preferences count
equally. This nonjudgmental spirit is the source of much of its appeal. But in order to aggregate
preferences, it is necessary to measure them on a single scale. Bentham’s idea of utility offers one
such common currency. But is it possible to translate all moral goods into a single currency of value
without losing something in the translation? The second objection to utilitarianism doubts that it is.
According to this objection, all values can’t be captured by a common currency of value.

(3) It seems to be too demanding, since you may be required to sacrifice your life for the sake of the
overall good; too permissive, since it will permit you to torture innocent people if that is the only way
to avoid serious harm to many others; and too forgiving of inequalities, since it does not care about
how well-being is distributed between individuals so long as it is maximally promoted.

(4) The problem is to say that utilitarianism does not give people options; it does not allow the agent
to pursue his interests at the expense of the overall good.

(5) Utilitarianism wrongly believes that pleasure is ‘The Good.’Actually pleasure is only one of the
good things of life. Apart from pleasure, wealth, power, knowledge, beauty and virtues contribute to
good life.

(6) Utilitarianism seeks satisfaction of desire. However it does not tell us, how to integrate pleasures
to lead a harmonious life.

(7) Utilitarianism says that ‘Ends justify means’. The criterion of utility is an external criterion. The
actions are evaluated by their consequences and not by the intention of the agent.

(8) If pleasure is the supreme goal of life, it is our duty to perform the pleasant actions. But in actual
life, we do perform goal oriented actions without bothering about pleasure or pain.

#Nationalism
Origins and development

The word ‘nation’ has been used since the thirteenth century and derives from the Latin nasci,
meaning to be born. In the form of natio, it referred to a group of people united by birth or birthplace.
In its original usage, ‘nation’ thus implied a breed of people or a racial group, but possessed no
political significance. It was not until the late eighteenth century that the term acquired political
overtones, as individuals and groups started to be classified as ‘nationalists’. The term ‘nationalism’
was first used in print in 1789 by the anti-Jacobin French priest Augustin Barruel. By the mid-
nineteenth century nationalism was widely recognized as a political doctrine or movement, for
example as a major ingredient of the revolutions that swept across Europe in 1848. In many respects,
nationalism developed into the most successful and compelling of political creeds, helping to shape
and reshape history in many parts of the world for over two hundred years. The idea of nationalism
was born during the French Revolution. Previously countries had been thought of as ‘realms’,
‘principalities’ or ‘kingdoms’. The inhabitants of a country were ‘subjects’, their political identity
being formed by allegiance to a ruler or ruling dynasty, rather than any sense of national identity or
patriotism (p. 167). However, the revolutionaries in France who rose up against Louis XVI in 1789
did so in the name of the people, and understood the people to be the ‘French nation’. Their ideas
were influenced by the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the new doctrine of popular self-
government. Nationalism was therefore a revolutionary and democratic creed, reflecting the idea that
‘subjects of the crown’ should become ‘citizens of France’.
During the twentieth century the doctrine of nationalism, which had been born in Europe, spread
throughout the globe as the peoples of Asia and Africa rose in opposition to colonial rule. The process
of colonization had involved not only the establishment of political control and economic dominance,
but also the importation of western ideas, including nationalism, which began to be used against the
colonial masters themselves.

The basic belief of nationalism is that the nation is, or should be, the central principle of political
organization. However, much confusion surrounds what nations are and how they can be defined. In
everyday language, words such as ‘nation’, ‘state’, ‘country’ and even ‘race’ are often confused or
used as if they are interchangeable. Many political disputes, moreover, are really disputes about
whether a particular group of people should be regarded as a nation and should therefore enjoy the
rights and status associated with nationhood. Nations are cultural entities, collections of people
bound together by shared values and traditions, in particular a common language, religion and
history, and usually occupying the same geographical area.

Fascism and Nazism

Totalitarianism is a form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that
seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government.In the
broadest sense, totalitarianism is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and
direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression.Italian dictatorBenito
Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to describe the new fascist state of Italy,
which he further described as: “All within the state, none outside the state, none against the state.” By
the beginning of World War II, “totalitarian” had become synonymous with absolute and oppressive
single-party government.

Totalitarianism is often distinguished from dictatorship, despotism, or tyranny by its supplanting of all

political institutions with new ones and its sweeping away of all legal, social, and political traditions.
The totalitarian state pursues some special goal, such as industrialization or conquest, to the
exclusion of all others. All resources are directed toward its attainment regardless of the cost.
Whatever might further the goal is supported; whatever might foil the goal is rejected.

The resulting popular support permits the state the widest latitude of action of any form of
government. Any dissent is branded evil, and internal political differences are not permitted.
Because pursuit of the goal is the only ideological foundation for the totalitarian state,
achievement of the goal can never be acknowledged.As pluralism and individualism diminish, most
of the people embrace the totalitarian state’s ideology. The infinite diversity among individuals blurs,
replaced by a mass conformity to the beliefs and behaviour sanctioned by the state.  

Large-scale, organized violence becomes permissible and sometimes necessary under totalitarian
rule, justified by the overriding commitment to the state ideology and pursuit of the state’s goal. In
Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, whole classes of people, such as the Jews and the kulaks
(wealthy peasant farmers) respectively, were singled out for persecution and extinction. In each case
the persecuted were linked with some external enemy and blamed for the state’s troubles, and thereby
public opinion was aroused against them and their fate at the hands of the military and the police was
condoned.

Fascism
Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and
eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United
States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito
Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or
birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. This was
an ancient Roman symbol of collectivism and power. Fascism was an organized movement to control
the policy of Italy which originated at Milan in 1919. Benito Mussolini was the acknowledged leader
of the fascist movement.

Fascists believed that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of
society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to
respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as
a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to
forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.Although fascist parties and movements
differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme
militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a
belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites etc.

Let us take a brief look at some important elements of Fascism,

 Fascists distrust reason and rationalism. Since fascism is based on sentimentalism and
irrationalism it is fanatical and not reflective. It is dogmatic and not open minded. Fascism in all
places is based on certain taboos. Each taboo must be accepted faithfully and should not be
discussed critically.It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even
arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

 The second element is the denial of basic human equality. It not only accepts human inequality
but also goes further and affirms inequality as the ideal foundation.

 Fascism believes in violence. The principle means of fascism are force and intimidation.Under
fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often
willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There
is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

 The fascists had faithfully accepted rule by elites. Fascist regimes almost always are governed
by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use
governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon
in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright
stolen by government leaders.

 Fascism is anti-feminist. Women are supposed to stay at homes in fascist regimes. The
governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist
regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are
suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

 In fascist regimes there is supremacy of the military. Even when there are widespread domestic
problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the
domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

 Fascists believed in a corporate state. Under fascist corporatism, sectors of the economy were
divided into corporate groups, whose activities and interactions were managed and coordinated
 by the government.The National Council of Corporations was the government body in charge of
managing Italy’s economy, and membership included representatives from labor unions,
employers, public sector workers, government ministries, and social groups. 

 .Mass media is totally controlled under fascist regimes. Sometimes to media is directly
controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government
regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war
time, is very common.

 Fascism is also opposed to international law and order. Therefore fascists do not prefer
participating whole heartedly in international organizations in which they are expected to abide by
the majority decision. They do not believe in the principle of equality of nations.

Nazism

Nazism was a totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its
intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with
Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost
every respect it was an anti-intellectual, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole
source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of
the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.

The term ‘Nazi’ is derived from the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’ founded by Hitler in
post-World War I period. It was a political movement of ultra-nationalist kind which had no faith in
the liberal-democratic ideas and which wanted to avenge the humiliation inflicted on Germany by the
treaty of Versailles. Let us now look at some features of Nazism,

 It was totalitarian. The state was all-inclusive. The subordination of individual to the
omnipotent state was expressed in several ways. Freedom of speech and association was
abolished, and all means of molding public opinion—the press, the theatre, the cinema, the radio,
the school and the university—were under the total control of the state. All political parties and
labor unions were disbanded.

 Nazi Germany was one-party state, only the National Socialist Party being legally recognized.
The party was declared by law to be ‘the bearer of the idea of German state’. Its emblem—
Swastika—was the emblem of the state and its leader was the head of state.Numerous powers
were transferred to the party organizations such as the right of appointing municipal councilors,
selecting juries and members of school boards, investigating public records and consulting with
state authorities on practically every matter. Nazi Germany was, thus, a party-state.

 For Nazis the supreme unit was the volkor nation. The volk was more important than the
individual or even the state. The Nazis claimed that the Nordic race, to which family the Germans
belong, has the finest qualities of men and greatest accomplishments in the annals of history. It
follows, therefore, that if a nation has to maintain its glorious record of achievements and its
unity, the racial purity of the state has to be preserved. Moreover, such a state has no place for
inferior races like Jews. Nazi Germany not only deprived the Jews of much of their property, it
subjected them to persecution.

 The state was based upon ‘leader principle’. German politics was based on the idea that every
citizen was directly or indirectly responsible to Hitler for his life and conduct. The actions of
leaders were above scrutiny and criticism, as they are necessarily right. Democracy and all talk of
 rule of people were self-deception. The well-governed state is one where all powers are vested in
a single leader. His will is law. Those who oppose the will of the leader should either be forced to
obey it or thrown in concentration camps.

The noted philosopher Karl Jaspers remarked once that ‘totalitarianism is not wedded to any view. It
makes use of all. It fools all men and melts them into its power structure’.It is clear from the foregoing
description of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany that these authoritarian states, along with Stalinist
Russia, were extreme forms of totalitarianism.

Regionalism

Regionalism is a political ideology that focuses on the national or normative interests of a

particular region, group of regions or another sub-national entity. These may be delineated by political
divisions, administrative divisions, cultural boundaries, linguistic regions, and religious geography,
among others.

Regionalists aim at increasing the political power and influence available to all or some residents of a
region. Regionalist demands occur in "strong" forms, such as sovereignty, separatism, secession,
and independence, as well as more moderate campaigns for greater autonomy (such as states'
rights, decentralization, or devolution).

Regionalists, in the strict sense of the term, favor confederations over unitary nation states with

strong central governments. They may, however, espouse also intermediate forms of federalism.

Regionalism is defined as a feeling of loyalty to a particular part of a country and a wish for it to be
more politically independent.

It is not just a territorial unit but a culmination of socio-economic and political factors. Regionalism
can be defined in connotations both positive and negative.

Positive regionalism means love towards one’s culture, region, language etc whereas negative
regionalism is an excessive attachment to one’s regions in preference to the country of the state.
Positive regionalism helps to build Brotherhood and commonness on the basis of common language,
religion or historical background and it helps a particular regional group to maintain their independent
identity. It gives self-determination to people and empowers them to feel happy. Negative regionalism
may pose a threat to the unity and integrity of the country. in the Indian context generally the term
regionalism has been used in the negative sense.

In India broadly regionalism can be defined in two forms one the demand for state autonomy and
two secessions from the Union.

This is a demand by the states for Greater autonomy from the centre this may be because of an
increasing interference by the centre in the affairs of the state that led to the regional feelings. The
demand for the state it autonomy has also been raised by the regions within some states of the Indian
Federation Secession from the union.

This is it the dangerous form of regionalism. It emerges when States demand separation from the
centre and try to establish an independent identity of their own.

 Why does regionalism evolve and what are the causes for It?
1.    Regionalism evolved when the national government tries to impose a particular ideology may be
language or culture pattern over a particular state. This is evident from the Anti- Hindi movement in
the South Indian states as well as the Anti-foreigner Movement in Assam both were launched in order
to protect their own culture.

2.    The continuous neglect of an area or Reason by the ruling party and concentration of
Administration and political party has also given rise to the demand for decentralization of authority
and bifurcation of and unilingual States.

3.    The low rate of economic growth investment infrastructure and social expenditure by the state on
health education and sanitation can also be a reason for the development of-of regionalism

4.    The sons of the soil doctrine which after 1950 in competition between local youth and migrants
for employment has led to the development of regionalism not only in rural areas but also in cities.

5.    The Desire of the various units of the Indian federal system to maintain the subcultural regions
and greater degree of self-government has promoted regionalism and giving rise to demand for
Greater autonomy

6.    The ambition of regional Elite to capture power, for example, the DMK, AIDMK, Telugu Desam
have encouraged regionalism to capture power.   

 7.   The dispute between the states over the sharing of river water primacy given by the states to the
language of the majority and the people of their own state in a job opportunity with growing
awareness among the people of backward areas that they are being discriminated against has also
promoted the feeling of regionalism.

What can be done to correct regional imbalances?

      Regionalism is an important aspect of Indian politics sometimes it has posed threats unity and
integrity of the country. Therefore it is necessary to take steps to reduce such tendencies.

Some of the measures can be

1.    That should be balanced regional development in formulating the economic policies of the state
so as to avoid the economic negligence of a particular region

2.    The excessive interference of the central Government in the affairs of the state should be
minimized unless if it is unavoidable for National interest.

3.    That should be a friendly relationship between the centre and the states with the national
education system so that it would help to overcome the regional feelings and develops an attachment
towards Nation.

The problems of the people must be solved in a peaceful and constitutional manner .politicians must
not be allowed to misuse the use of power for their own benefit.

The need of the hour is to develop a realistic perception of regionalism at the conceptual level
focusing on righteousness and judicial outlook on the path of the political parties. If this objective is
achieved then the regionalism of the idea of different communities speaking the diverse language and
is linked with particular cultural expression thinking globally acting globally and seeing human unity
in diversity in practical terms too would become a distinct possibility.
For every Indian, it is an identity of an Indian first with outside the India and then comes to a regional
identity. In a positive sense, many Regional parties which were formed with the regionalist feeling of
people make a positive sense when they come for the regional development without discriminating
against outsiders. Soul regionalism is in a way good for India. Being every Indian is son of the soil
and also being a cultural identity and an idea of Unity and Diversity of largest in our country we are
brought together by this idea and that unity is imperative if you want to release the dream of
becoming a superpower so people loving the culture and being little regionalist it doesn’t mean that
they love their mother country India less, it is more important for nationalism as we see it as for
regionalism. Proponents of regionalism usually claim that strengthening the governing bodies and
political powers within a region, at the expense of a central, national government, will benefit local
populations by improving regional or local economies, in terms of better fiscal responsibility, regional
development, allocation of resources, implementation of local policies and
plans, competitiveness among regions and, ultimately, the whole country.

Sub-Nationalism

Sub-nationalism is defined as ‘The policy of asserting the interest of one's own state/region/province,
as separate from the interest of the nation and the common interest of all other
states/regions/provinces.’ One of the most prominent ideas of sub-nationalism may be taken to have
emerged out of the notion of self-rule and complete self-sufficiency. In some cases, the search has
taken the form of a resurgence of religious identity in India and various parts of the world; as in the
revival of Islam in many parts of the world, the separatist movements in the early seventies by the
Sikhs in north-western India and the emergence of ethnic communities of Northeast India seeking
autonomy or complete sovereignty and the trends of Hindu sub-nationalism in other parts of India. In
some cases, sub-nationalism centers at least in parts on differences in language, as in French and
English speaking Canada, the Basque movement in Spain and the language conflict between the
Flamands and Wallons in Belgium. 1 While the concept of 'we feelings' and 'nationalistic feelings' are
expanding exponentially everywhere at local, regional, national and community levels; sub-
nationalism is slowly coming as one of the most powerful articulations in modern community's world
for uniting a particular community or groups of one culture and history or homogenized communities.

A number of examples of sub-nationalist movements can be cited within the existing multinational
states almost in every parts of the world these days. The struggle now practically accomplished for
Eritrean independence from Ethiopia and the disintegration of the USSR because of insistent demands
for independence by the republics (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, and Ukraine). One of the
successful movements was the declarations of independence by Slovenia and Croatia from
Yugoslavia; and the failed attempts are of Biafra to secede from Nigeria and the separatist movements
in Sri Lanka by the Tamilians. Old empires as well as new states cobbled together by departing
colonial administrations either have fallen apart or are in danger of falling apart because of sub-
nationalist movements working from within. Cases can also be found of sub-nationalist movements
that cut across existing state boundaries and that ultimately aspire to create a new state of their own
from portions of existing states. The movement for a greater Kurdistan by Kurds community
potentially absorbing territory from Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Turkey and Syria is an example of this.

Ethnicity thus poses a challenge to global peace and stability, but the search for a new basis for
community and group identity should be seen as an opportunity for more to self-determination, for
people to choose the polity, under which they live, an opportunity to enlarge community and group
freedoms. Freedom, choice, self-determination are integral to what is meant by human development
and for this reason the attack on the state from below should not be seen as a subversive movement
but as a process which in many places could contribute to increase human development culturally,
socially, economically and politically. There is also, however an ugly side to the rise of sub-
nationalism and this poses a danger to human development. We refer to the intolerance that
sometimes accompanies the search for identity and a new community. At their best, ethnic and sub-
national movements are inclusive and sharing; they encourage participation and strong loyalties. At
their worst, when carried to excess, they are narrow and exclusive, socially divisive and sources of
communal discord.

#Environmentalism
Environmentalism can be described as a social movement or as an ideology focused on the welfare
of the environment. Environmentalism seeks to protect and conserve the elements of earth's
ecosystem, including water, air, land, animals, and plants, along with entire habitats such as
rainforests, deserts and oceans. This is done through the adoption of forms of political, economic, and
social organization that are thought to be necessary for, or at least conducive to the benign treatment
of the environment by humans; and also through a reassessment of humanity’s relationship with
nature.

By the 1960s and ’70s, as scientific knowledge of the causes and consequences of environmental
degradation led to increasing concerns among some scientists, intellectuals, and activists about the
Earth’s ability to absorb the detritus of human economic activity and, indeed, to sustain human life.
This concern contributed to the growth of grassroots environmental activism in a number of countries,
the establishment of new environmental nongovernmental organizations, and the formation of
environmental (“green”) political parties in a number of Western democracies. As political leaders
gradually came to appreciate the seriousness of environmental problems, governments entered into
negotiations in the early 1970s that led to the adoption of a growing number of international
environmental agreements.

Environmentalism is a different way of thinking in which people try to care more about the planet and
the long-term survival of life on Earth. It means recognizing the planet's environmental problems and
coming up with solutions (individually and collectively) that try to put them right. Concepts dealing
with environmental issues include the management of natural resources, overpopulation, commercial
logging, urbanization and global warming. The effects of human development ad activity have
harmed and altered the earth's natural state. Environmentalism works to correct the damage as well as
prevent future destruction.

Types

Environmental thought and the various branches of the environmental movement are often classified
into two intellectual camps: those that are considered anthropocentric, or “human-centred,” in
orientation and those considered biocentric, or “life-centred.”

Anthropocentric approaches focus mainly on the negative effects that environmental

degradation has on human beings and their interests, including their interests in health, recreation,
and quality of life. The defining feature of anthropocentrism is that it considers the moral obligations
humans have to the environment to derive from obligations that humans have to each other—and, less
crucially, to future generations of humans—rather than from any obligation to other living things or to
the environment as a whole. Human obligations to the environment are thus indirect. Critics of
anthropocentrism argue that anthropocentric approaches presupposes the historically Western view of
nature as merely a resource to be managed or exploited for human purposes—a view that they claim is
responsible for centuries of environmental destruction.

In contrast to anthropocentrism, biocentrism claims that nature has an intrinsic moral worth that
does not depend on its usefulness to human beings, and it is this intrinsic worth that gives rise
directly to obligations to the environment. Humans are therefore morally bound to protect the
environment, as well as individual creatures and species, for their own sake. In this sense, biocentrics
view human beings and other elements of the natural environment, both living and often nonliving, as
members of a single moral and ecological community.

Anthropocentric approaches

 Apocalyptic environmentalism: The vision of the environmental movement of the 1960s and early
’70s was generally pessimistic, reflecting a pervasive sense of “civilization malaise” and a
conviction that the Earth’s long-term prospects were bleak. Works such as Rachel Carson’s Silent
Spring (1962), Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), Paul Ehrlich’s “The
Population Bomb” (1968) that the planetary ecosystem was reaching the limits of what it could
sustain. This so-called apocalyptic, or survivalist, literature encouraged reluctant calls from some
environmentalists for increasing the powers of centralized governments over human activities
deemed environmentally harmful. This approach argued that human survival ultimately required
the sacrifice of human freedom.

 Emancipatory environmentalism: Beginning in the 1970s many environmentalists attempted to

develop strategies for limiting environmental degradation through recycling, the use of
alternative-energy technologies, the decentralization and democratization of economic and social
planning and, for some, a reorganization of major industrial sectors, including the agriculture and
energy industries. In contrast to apocalyptic environmentalism, emancipatory environmentalism
took a more positive and practical approach, one aspect of which was the effort to promote an
ecological consciousness and an ethic of “stewardship” of the environment. The emancipatory
approach was evoked through the 1990s in the popular slogan, “think globally, act locally.”

Biocentric approaches

 Social ecology and deep ecology: An emphasis on small-scale economic structures and the social
dimensions of the ecological crisis also is a feature of the school of thought known as social
ecology, whose major proponent was the American environmental anarchist Murray Bookchin.
Social ecologists trace the causes of environmental degradation to the existence of unjust,
hierarchical relationships in human society, which they see as endemic to the large-scale social
structures of modern capitalist states. Accordingly, they argue, the most environmentally
sympathetic form of political and social organization is one based on decentralized small-scale
communities and systems of production.

 Ecofeminism: Oppression, hierarchy, and spiritual relationships with nature also have been
central concerns of ecofeminism. Ecofeminists assert that there is a connection between the
destruction of nature by humans and the oppression of women by men that arises from political
theories and social practices in which both women and nature are treated as objects to be owned
 or controlled. Ecofeminists aim to establish a central role for women in the pursuit of an
environmentally sound and socially just society.

 Animal rights: The emphasis on intrinsic value and the interconnectedness of nature was
fundamental to the development of the animal-rights movement, whose activism was influenced
by works such as Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (1977) and Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal
Rights (1983). Animal rights approaches go beyond a concern with ill-treatment and cruelty to
animals, demanding an end to all forms of animal exploitation, including the use of animals in
scientific and medical experiments and as sources of entertainment (e.g., in circuses, rodeos, and
races) and food.

Through its international activism, the environmental movement has influenced the agenda of
international politics. By the late 1980s environmentalism had become a global as well as a national
political force. Some environmental nongovernmental organizations (e.g., Greenpeace, Friends of the
Earth, and the World Wildlife Fund) established a significant international presence, with offices
throughout the world and centralized international headquarters to coordinate lobbying campaigns and
to serve as campaign centres and information clearinghouses for their national affiliate organizations.
The electoral strategies of the environmental movement included the nomination of environmental
candidates and the registration of green political parties. The world’s first green parties—the Values
Party, a nationally based party in New Zealand, and the United Tasmania Group, organized in the
Australian state of Tasmania—were founded in the early 1970s. The most successful environmental
party has been the German Green Party (die Grünen), founded in 1980.

#Feminism
Feminism is a belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. Although largely
originating in the West, feminism is manifested worldwide and is represented by various institutions
committed to activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests.  Feminism denies or downplays
differences between men and women. Feminism also opposes homemaking, child-rearing,
and homeschooling by women, and promotes participation by women in predominantly male
activities. Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex is one of the earliest attempts to confront human
history from a feminist perspective.

Throughout most of Western history, women were confined to the domestic sphere, while public life
was reserved for men. In medieval Europe, women were denied the right to own property, to study, or
to participate in public life. At the end of the 19th century in France, they were still compelled to
cover their heads in public, and, in parts of Germany, a husband still had the right to sell his wife.

Even as late as the early 20th century, women could neither vote nor hold elective office in Europe
and in most of the United States (where several territories and states granted woman suffrage long
before the federal government did so). Women were prevented from conducting business without a
male representative, be it father, brother, husband, legal agent, or even son. Married women could not
exercise control over their own children without the permission of their husbands. Moreover, women
had little or no access to education and were barred from most professions. In some parts of the world,
such restrictions on women continue today.
Core themes

Until 1960’s, the idea that feminism should be regarded as an ideology in its own right would have
been highly questionable. Feminism was rather viewed as a subset of liberalism and socialism. The
rise of radical feminism changed this. The radical feminists proclaimed the central importance of
gender divisions, something that no conventional ideology could accept. However proponents of
different strands of feminism like liberal feminism, socialist feminism and radical feminism have had
a lot of disagreements and differences over the meaning and understanding of feminism. A range of
‘common ground’ themes can nevertheless be identified with feminism. The most important of these
are as follows,

 Opposition to the public/private divide

The private sphere was long regarded as women's "proper place" whereas men were supposed to
inhabit the public sphere.An important goal identified by early feminists was to challenge and even
eliminate the distinction between the public and private spheres. These feminists rejected the
liberal notion—broadly stated—that the public sphere (including governmental power) should not
impinge on the private realm where “individuals are the final arbiters of their decisions.”The private
spheredenigrated and endangered women in part by isolating them and rendering them subject to male
control, including by way of domestic violence.Feminist critiques regarded the public/private divide
as “the source of women’s oppression, not only because the private realm is exempt from liberal
principles and political accountability, but also because activity and work in the private realm are not
valued like that in civil society.” Under the slogan that “the personal is the political,”certain
feminists called for the end to a sharply defined public/private distinction with the goal of ending the
contemptuous, brutal treatment of women by men.

 Opposition to Patriarchy

Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior
to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females.Patriarchy believes that men are
endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through
various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. Feminists use the concept of patriarchy to
describe the power relationship between men and women. The term literally means ‘rule by father’
(pater meaning father in latin). Feminists believe that the dominance of father within the family
symbolizes male supremacy in all other institutions like in education, at work and in politics. Male
violence against women is also a key feature of patriarchy. Women in minority groups face multiple
oppressions in this society, as race, class and sexuality intersect with sexism for example. Patriarchy
is therefore commonly used in a broader sense to mean quite simply ‘rule of men’ both within the
family and outside.

 Pointing out the difference between sex and gender

The terms ‘sex' and ‘gender' are closely linked, yet they are not synonyms. Robert Stoller, in the
1960s, has drawn the distinction between them. He suggested that the word ‘sex' be used to refer to
the physical differences between men and women, while the term ‘gender' be used in connection to
the behaviour and cultural practices of men and women. This means while sex is a natural or
biologicalfeature(genital organs like vagina, penis etc.); gender means a cultural or learned
feature or the set of characteristics that a society or culture defines as masculine or feminine. (eg;
notions like women stay at home while men go to work; girls love pink while boys love guns etc.) As
stated succinctly by the French writer and radical feministSimone de Beauvoir, “one is not born a
woman, but becomes one”. We can extend this to mean that one is not born a man but becomes one,
too.

In popular cultures, gender education is given to kids on the basis of their sex from an early age.
While men are told that they need to be aggressive and not emotional (men don’t cry), women are told
that they have to be feminine (don’t laugh loudly, learn how to cook, don’t study too much else who
will marry you). However, such roles can prove to be a disadvantage for both male and female. What
about those men who are fragile? Or those women who do not want to marry and bear children but to
make a career? Hence, it is stands to reason that such choices should be granted to different sexes
irrespective of the expected gender roles in order to ensure the fullest developments of their
personalities in accordance with their innate abilities or desires.

Different traditions of feminist thought

Despite their broad agreements on the above issues, different traditions of feminist thought have
propagated varied priorities and solutions to such issues. The major traditions in feminism are the
following,

 Liberal Feminism

Liberal feminism's primary goal is gender equality in the public sphere through equal access to
education, equal pay, ending job segregation, better working conditions which can be won
primarily through legal changes. Private sphere issues are of concern mainly as they influence or
impede equality in the public sphere.

Liberal feminism has its roots in the writings of, among others, Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart
Mill, and Harriet Taylor Mill etc. In Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft argued, have
the capacity to reason; hence both should be educated as to enhance their rationality, which she
defined as the ability to act as fully responsible moral agents. John Stuart Mill echoed
Wollstonecraft's sentiments in The Subjection of Women (1869). He described gender roles as a kind
of caste system in which women were assigned lower status and restricted in what they were
permitted to do simply because of their sex, even though there were no categorical differences
between the sexes that could justify it. This not only stunted the moral development of women but
also denied them the self-fulfillment that comes only with the freedom to pursue one's own good.
Similarly Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystiquereferred to a cultural myth that women seek security
and fulfillment in domestic life and ‘feminine behaviour’ which serves to discourage women from
entering employment politics and public life in general. She highlighted what she called ‘a problem
with no name’ by which she meant the sense of deep despair and unhappiness many women
experience because they are confined to domestic existence unable to gain fulfillment in a career or
through political life.

 Socialist Feminism

Socialist feminists agree that liberal feminism does not appreciate the depth of the oppression of
women and basically only addresses the situation of women of the upper and upper middle classes.
They also agree that women have been oppressed in virtually all known societies, but the nature
of this oppression has differed because of the different economic realities.Frederick Engels set
forth the theoretical basis for modern socialist feminism in his book Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the State. 
Socialist feminists do not think that the oppression of women is based solely on the economic system,
and they suggest that patriarchy and capitalism are combined into one system. They believe that
we must understand the continuing effects that colonization, imperialism, and racism have on the
women of the world.Socialist feminists maintain that it is wrong to suggest that any one form of
oppression is the most important or key form of oppression. Instead, they recognize that oppression
based on sex/gender, class, race, and sexual orientation are all are interwoven. To effectively
challenge any one of these forms of oppression, we must understand and challenge all of them.

 Radical Feminism

Radical Feminist theory’scentral tenet is that women as a biological class are globally oppressed
by men as a biological class. They believe that male power is constructed and maintained through
institutional and cultural practices that aim to bolster male superiority through the reinforcement of
female inferiority. One such manifestation of the patriarchy is gender, which they believe to be a
socially constructed hierarchy which functions to repress female autonomy and has no basis in
biology. Radical Feminists also critique all religions and their institutions, and other practices that
promote violence against women such as prostitution, pornography etc.

As a specific branch of feminism, radical feminism takes the point of view that society under
patriarchal rules is necessarily oppressive to women and that gender is entirely a social
construct made for the benefit of patriarchy. For radical feminists, true equality between the
sexes can only be brought about by bringing down these social constructs of gender along with
the rest of the inequality-maintaining power structure — i.e., society as we know it. 

Some key radical feminists were Susan Brownmiller, Kate Millett, Ellen Willis, Monique Wittig etc.
Interestingly, Susan Brownmiller’sAgainst Our Will (1975) argues that men have created an ‘ideology
of rape’ which amounts to a ‘conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a
state of fear’. This means that rape can be not only physical, but psychological as well.Brownmiller
argues that men rape because they have the ‘biological capacity to rape’ and that even men who do
not rape nevertheless benefit from the fear and anxiety that rape provokes amongst all
women. Brownmiller hoped that the women’s movement launches a frontal attack on all kinds of
criminality and all forcible acts of violence. According to her as long as any culture encourages
violence, much of it inevitably is directed toward women.