The gaps, as mentioned in the last entry, between various Social Doctrines is rather wide.  There is a world of difference between most of them and to jump the gap is difficult.  However, what connects these various spectra are systems in economics.  At a point, a spectrum's beau ideal of an economic system begins to run and mix with various ideas of the next spectrum, the camel's nose under the proverbial tent if I may.  This mixing of doctrines sets in motion a movement toward the next spectrum and tends to cloud the advent of an entirely new political system.  During the transition, the economics appear to be the same, it looks like the old system, it smells like the old system, but in reality, the old system is breaking down.

To remind the reader, the Social Doctrines are Anarchism (order sans government), Liberalism (minimal government based on natural law and delegated power), Nationalism (centralized national power), and Internationalism (centralized multi-national government and imperialism).  To learn the ins and outs of these basic Doctrines, read the last entry.  Each of these Social Doctrines carries with it economic ideas being that economics is actually based less on mathematics and more on philosophy and theology.  Most arguments against a particular school of economics usually say "well, that sounds good, but it's just a theory", but truthfully, all economic ideas either are or began as a theory.  Only time can really prove whether Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, Albert Marshall, or Maynard Keynes was right.  If they are proven wrong, new people come along and try new theories, there is no cut-and-dry economics that all economists believe in.

Yet, the ideas that have been disproven often get ample chances to again prove their error, mostly because of an unconscious populace that can't tell one economic system from the other, hense they are easily fooled when an erroneous system suffers upon the people a resurgence.  Each Social Doctrine, their roots being in philosophy, carry with them certain ideas they feel should be accomplished in an economic system, thus, they naturally gravitate towards the ones that most easily meet those desired ends.  All of these economic theories are compatable with two Social Doctrines but in different doses, which is why they serve as an ideal bridge on to a new spectrum.

Lets begin with Anarchism.  At the 0 degree point, there is no real "market" at all.  In the absence of government people are forced to live in close quarters and harvest what they require for sustanance and since anything they do must contribute to staying alive, they have no surplus to serve the purpose of trade.  A market is then impossible unless that particular locality begins innovating and is able, through technology, to create a surplus and require less time to work for sustanance.  They are able to use that surplus to find another locality with things that they want, since they are able to supply this other locality with products it cannot produce or cannot produce as efficiently, they open up trade and concentrate their efforts on things they can produce more efficiently in order to use these better products for other things they need or want.  The two economies build and the economics of 0 degrees shift to the economics of 45 degrees--capitalism. 

Capitalism is one of those terms with an over-definition.  People often do this with terms like "peace" and "white-supremacy" by adding to the contextual definitions with other definitions mixed with stereotypes creating a mongrel of a definition rather than actually using the words in a conprehensive way.  Since Capitalism--as mentioned above--is one of these over-defined terms, allow me to define it properly.  Free-market, laissez-faire Capitalism is simply a free-exchange economy.  Money isn't even a necessity in Capitalism, a medium of exchange or a reference point to value is all that's required.  You have something I want, I have something you want, lets work out a trade.  That's Capitalism.  This system can develop in the absence of government but thrives in the presence of a government that merely enforces ground rules (i.e. private property, definitive fraud, honor of contract, etc.), thus it is borne of Anarchism and serves as a bridge into Liberalism, connecting the absence of government to the presence of a liberal government.  Since Capitalism thrives with the certainty and impartiality of law provided by Liberalism, the two systems make good bed-fellows.  The danger in the success of Capitalism, though, is the fact that government eventually gets greedy, and wants to harness the power of Capitalism to best suit its needs and to award it more control in a Nationalistic government.  So in order to push the purpose of government from impartial referee to a more powerful ruler, it has to prove it can harness the power of Capitalism and make it greater through the system of Mercantilism, the bridge beginning at 135 degrees.

Many people, mostly Marxists, tend to confuse Mercantilism for Capitalism, and for good reason.  Firstly, it calls itself "Capitalism", secondly, it strongly resembles it.  There is a freedom of exchange in the lower levels of the economy, but it is seen in Mercantilism as illigitimate, the big differences between Capitalism and Mercantilism are the way the two treat "bigness".  For example, in Capitalism, if a firm becomes big and makes bad decisions, it is treated just as harshly by the "invisible hand" as a small firm that makes an equally bad mistake through either insolvency or a loss in profits.  Mercantilism, however, tries to alter and guide the "invisible hand" in order to nourish the "national interest" through protectionist policies (i.e. tariffs to alter supply and demand), government recognition of business cabals and cartels, centralized banking, and a nationalized currency.  Before a society notices, it has jumped the gamut solidly from Liberalism, into the Social Doctrine of Nationalism

The system of Mercantilism is an attempt to better empower business and its interests in order to help the nation as a whole, but it leads to monopolies and oligopolies in business, and lobbying and corruption in government.  Every industry feels it should be protected by a tariff in order to give it an unfair advantage and protect it from foreign competitors.  However, this system ends up hurting the consumer because the tariffs force prices to go up, giving the business to charge what it wishes rather than what the consumer is willing to pay for it as it is in Capitalism.  Businesses can also go to the government for subsidies, loans, and contracts in the name of the "public good", leading to lobbying and corruption through bribery as well as the empowerment of politicians as lords of business.  The inevitable corruption that comes from Mercantilism eventually outrages the people who demand something cleaner, more transparency.  The government gives it to them, a system even more corrupt that puts up the front of purity with promises to "reign in" corruption in business and government.  This system is called Corporatism, which begins at the point of 225 degrees on the greater-spectrum.

The system of Corporatism is, even still, oft-confused with Capitalism even though they are very far apart.  Corporatism, to define it simply, is government direction of the means of production as opposed to out-right ownership of production found in Socialism.  It begins with the government promising to "clean up" the government-business relationship with more stringent regulations on business.  However, what happens is that the businesses are allowed to help in the writing of the regulations, leading to regulations that help the cabals and cartels remove the threat of competition.  This makes way for even stronger monopolies and oligopolies with the government on their side in thwarting off any possible threats.  Essentially, in Corporatism, the business interests become the national interests.  Businesses, getting too big for just one country, begin to open firms all over the world and the government increases their spread in order to protect their national interests, assisting these mongrel firms and moving the country from Nationalism to Internationalism. 

A point made by F.A. Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom, as well as in Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt was that Corporatism creates a demand from the people for Socialism.  Hayek wrote his book on the basic premise of inevitablity.  He pointed out that as governments aide businesses in the name of "national interests", the corruption becomes more and more apparent, this incestuous relationship creates resentment in the people.  Not only does the corruption disgust people, but the pouring of resources into the pockets of the cabals in the name of the "nation" while the general population is left out of the mix, makes the poor look at their empty plates in anger and resentment towards "Capitalism" even though it isn't Capitalism they're seeing.  The people, naturally begin to demand a share in the spoils ("where's our bail-out??") and demand more egalitarian solutions to the problems created by Corporatism.  So at 315 degrees, the nation hops on to the bridge of Socialism.

Socialism is defined as government ownership of the means of production and is the epitome of the Collectivist philosophy put into economic terms.  While the Collectivism of Mercantilism and Corporatism is based more in varying degrees of Nationalism, which, by nature can be exclusionary, Socialism believes the government should seize all means of production and distribute all the goods equally or according to "need".  While there are varying stripes and colors among Socialists, Marxists, in particular, don't even trust the government to distribute goods correctly, which is why Marxists, dogmatically, believe that the government should collapse or dissipate in order for the trade unions to take charge of the distribution of goods.  Whether Marxists gain influence in a Socialist society is irrelevent because Socialism inevitably collapses because government is truly unable to take on such a lofty task as "properly" egalitarian distribution of goods.  There is no central planner in the world that can "fairly" set prices or provide basic needs to all people equally.  Socialist governments are also notoriously corrupt so typically, a Socialistic society is either forced to scale back its control (as Sweden and China are doing currently and Russia was forced to do) or it collapses into Anarchism.  Thus, the cycle begins anew with non-market anarchism.  The global Collectivist dream remains for some time but fades as localities become more isolated, such as it was after the Roman Empire gave way to the Dark Ages.

So with this, we see a clear movement, a cycle that renews itself should a nation travel the whole distance: Liberalism is an inevitablity of Anarchism; Nationalism is an inevitablity of Liberalism; Internationalism is an inevitablity of Nationalism; and Anarchism is an inevitability of Internationalism.  To go in the other direction is very difficult but it can be done, it has to do with the fact that after government reaches a certain point of strength, it is very difficult to scale it back, and by the time the people are usually conscious of it--it's too late. 

In the latter part of the 19th century, Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species changed the political and sociological debate as Newton's Law of Gravity had changed the debate before that.  Nary a scientific idea has had the impact that the Theory of Evolution did on political scientists and economists.  Two groups formed from this discussion--the "progressives" (modern so-called "liberals") and the anarchists.  The progressives believed that since society evolves, then old notions of society reach obsolescence, therefore government must be pragmatic and strong in order to move society along and adapt to the issues of the day free of dogma or principle.  Since people evolve, they thought, so must government, to insure that societal evolution is best harnessed for the better of the collective.  Anarchists went in the opposite direction believing that since people evolve and adapt, then that means the people out-grow the need for government.  They believed that truth was truth and would thus remain so (as Darwin did), after all, a man who jumps off a cliff is still going to die, they just believed that man had evolved to the point that he was too enlightened to think he can fly by flapping his arms.  Anarchists viewed government as a hinderance to mans' evolutionary potential, thus an enemy of man and progress itself.  What this disagreement shows is the vast casm that separates an Individualist from a Statist--one believes that the natural movement of man is toward want of more government to tame him and ensure equality, whereas the other believes the natural movement of man is away from control and toward freedom without regard for material equality. 

I say that both are right.  The natural movement of society as a group of individuals is toward less government as it becomes more enlightened.  The enlightened man can now more easily adapt and provide for itself the accoutrements formerly provided by the government whereas the unenlightened man could not provide for himself much outside what he could produce himself.  In a free economy, a need is seen and it is filled by someone to make society more efficient and comfortable, allowing the quality of life to rise without the necessary aide of government to provide that luxury.  Governments didn't bring us resorts for instance, people through a more efficiently run society became more able to afford holidays and needed a place to go and simply enjoy themselves--a need was seen and it was filled.  What the semi-free economy we've enjoyed over the past two hundred years has shown us is this fact--that society's natural movement is toward individualism and less government interferance.  The opposite is true, however, in the case of government. 

Governments crave power and control by nature.  A society where government isn't needed is a society with an almost inept and quite boring government.  The natural movement for government then, is towards more and more power, using economics to create inequities and promising to alleviate them if they're only given more power.  As individuals show they can do something without the aide of government, the ability is robbed through regulation or nationalization of the service.  It is in constant need to show how useful and essential it is, so it claims more and more power.

No matter what, all nations are vulnerable to the very cycle illustrated in my last several entries.  Next time, I'll show a couple countries that make my point perfectly.  A couple that traveled the whole cycle, and those trapped somewhere within, unable to progress.

-W.D.P.

Social Doctrines are the basic premises based on general ideas of the role of government and its purpose.  Cultural Philosophy plays an optimal role in deciding such premises which, in turn, dictate the type of government to which a particular society is partial.  Imagine the political spectrum not as a single line upon which everything falls neatly, but imagine political thought as a series of spectra based on completely independent doctrines based on variances of the two basic philosophies of Collectivism and Individualism.  To refresh the readers mind, Collectivism is to be defined as the exaltation of the group over the individual; Individualism is to be defined as exaltation of the individual over the group. 

The next question raised after the identifying of the Cultural Philosophy is the definition of the individual or the collective.  How is the individual or collective to be defined?  Is the individual to be defined in a more Nietzchian light--as an island with absolute sovereignty unfettered by rules of morality?  Or is the individual to be defined by a more Aristotolean definition--as an inherently social being that must view respect of other individuals as its hallmark of reality?  How is the collective to be defined?  Is the collective a race?  A geographical nation?  A culture?  A religion?  A Platonic brotherhood?  How is the collective to be preserved?  Genocide?  Diseducation?  Multi-culturalism? These are all questions that the various spectra of Social Doctrines define.

Within every spectrum within the greater cyclical political spectrum, there is a different approach--a Radical approach, and a Conservative approach.  "Radical" coming from the Latinate "Radi" meaning "root" will be defined as the more uncompromising approach that hopes to bring the absolute root idea of the particular Social Doctrine to fruition.  "Conservative" will be defined as the slower moving, more resistant, and "luke warm" approach that holds on to certain ideas from the previous Social Doctrine (or the "Ancien Regime" as it shall be refered to henceforth) held by the society. 

The greater-spectrum can be divided into four slices like a pie, each one of these slices are the lesser-spectra or Social Doctrines.  At the point of "0 degrees", there is the dividing line between Absolutism (100% government) and Anarchy (0% government) (Absolutism and Anarchy are not Social Doctrines, merely extreme situations).  In geometry, 0 degrees can also be 360 degrees depending on direction, whether the direction is "right" or "left" is inconsequential because as I have said, left and right are directions, not ideologies.  They merely distract and add unneeded abstraction to an already abstract school of thought.  It is best to use the terms describing from which of the spectra a society moved rather than simply saying it moved left or right. 

The Social Doctrines that are the subject of this discussion are as follows; from 0 degrees to 90 degrees: Anarchism, to be defined as order sans government; from 90 degrees to 180 degrees: Liberalism, to be defined as government based on Natural Law and voluntary government through Social Contract; 180 degrees to 270 degrees: Nationalism, to be defined as centralized national government (the definition of that "nation" is relative to the discussion); 270 degrees to 360 degrees: Internationalism, to be defined as centralized international government (i.e. imperialism and/or dependence--not interdependence).

Each of these Social Doctrines as noted above have within them a "Radical" and "Conservative" approach to that particular doctrine.  What is described as "Conservative" or "Radical" usually depends on the Ancien Regime of the particular society.  If the society practices an Internationalist doctrine, for example, the conservatives will reject to retreating back toward Nationalism or Liberalism, as well as would wholly reject collapsing into Anarchism.  As the radicals push for the pure idea of any of these doctrines, the conservatives fight back, warry of going all-in.  (Keep in mind that the modern term "conservative" doesn't apply.  I prefer to use the classical definitions for semantic reasons.)  The conservative and radical elements make up the "north and south" or the two different sides of the same coin.

Take the Social Doctrine of Anarchism, for instance; depending on whether it was an Internationalist society that collapsed under its own weight, or it simply evolved from Liberalism, the conservative and radical elements could take either of two forms.  Should a society collapse from Internationalism, the radical element would appear in an anarcho-captialist, market-based anarchism or an individualist-anarchist movement.  Internationalism being the Ancien Regime in this case, and Internationalism being based on a Collectivist Cultural Philosophy, radicals would wish to totally rebel and take a radically individualist shape, respecting the rights to private property with competing private enterprise providing services and protections that government used to provide, thus more delegated power.  In the same case, the conservative element would keep hold of a Collectivist philosophy and venture a more non-market anarchistic, anarcho-socialist route with centralized power within the locality.  On the other hand, should the Ancien Regime be Liberalism, the opposite would be the case--the radical elements would seek a more Collectivist philosophy in anarcho-socialism while the conservative elements would choose to hold on to the Individualist philosophy and go the anarcho-capitalist  route, still valuing Liberal ideas of voluntarianism, private property, and free-exchange.

The same can be said for the other Social Doctrines.  Take Liberalism which can either devolve from Nationalism, or develope from Anarchism.  In the first case, the conservative element would be more Nationalistic, wanting a centralized power to hold limited sway over the localities and smaller juristictions (i.e. our Constitutional system of federalism) while the radical element would want the smaller juristictions and localities to hold sway over the centralized power (i.e. our pre-Constitutional system of anti-federalism).  In the case of Liberalism developing from Anarchism, again, the opposite would be true with anti-federalists taking the conservative role in preserving the Ancien Regime of Anarchism through highly delegated and localized power, forcing the central powers almost into ineptitude, while the federalists would be the radicals pushing for a stronger centralized government. 

Which leads us to the next Social Doctrine--Nationalism.  Again, the radical and conservative elements are dependent upon the evolution/devolution of the society.  In the case of Liberalism developing into Nationalism, the conservative element would take on the shape of progessivism which sees Liberalism as too scattered and unorganized.  Progressivism seeks to simply organize the rewards of Liberalism and direct them towards more Nationalistic goals.  It doesn't seek to destroy all elements of Liberalism, but to allow Liberalism to exist in a more organized fashion, as opposed to the radical element (fascism) which seeks to destroy all things liberal and turn all efforts unapologetically towards the "national" interests as defined by the organizers in power (note to reader: "fascism" has nothing to do with killing Jews.  That was Hitlerian National Socialism and was distinct to post-WWI Germany, though Nazism does fit into the radically nationalistic element in what was becoming an increasingly Liberal Europe, therefore a sub-category of fascism).  Nationalism, in general, hopes to organize society to serve the "common good" of the defined collective.  The cross from Liberalism into Nationalism requires a change in the Cultural Philosophy from Individualism to Collectivism.  However, in the case of an Internationalist government contracting and taking a more Nationalistic approach, the progressives would be the radicals, using elements of Liberalism to better the national condition, whereas the conservatives would be the fascists, seeking to reinvigorate the "nation" into pursuing its former imperial glory.

Finally, we have the Social Doctrine of Internationalism which can either develop from Nationalism, or be attempted from Anarchism.  Again, the radical and conservative elements being decided by the Ancien Regime.  In the first case, a nation can begin to view itself as so great that it becomes evangelical, wanting to either spread its system or want to simply acquire more territory for expansionist or economic reasons.  Its based on the idea of a greater collective outside just the "nation" but views the "nation" as the greatest carrier of the message.  The conservative element of Internationalism would be fabian socialism, believing that the nations should maintain some sovereignty as businesses would be given in a nationalistic economy: free to produce, but "collectively-minded" in its distribution.  In this case, the radical element is communism which seeks the dissolution of private property and rights with the out-right and immediate "collectivization" of all societal elements.  As many know, communism is based on the economic ideas of Karl Marx, who believed that government should swoop in, take over the means of production, collectivize the population, and dissipate into anarchy.  The reason most communist/socialist countries tend to be very unstable is because they try to shift from anarchy into absolutism by trying to expand local collectivism into global collectivism wanting to "free the people".  In the case of anarchistic collectivists moving towards Internationalism, the communists would be the conservatives fighting to maintain the root idea of collectivized economics and public ownership of the means of production distributed with the barometer of "need".  The fabians, here, would be the radicals, insisting on more quasi-capitalistic means to meet the same collectivist ends. 

The shift from one Social Doctrine to the next is very difficult and usually begets much strife in the transition.  Yet, with each transition, many of those experiencing the shift are not aware that they are involved in an historic changing of the guard.  The reason this is, is because it is typically not a conscious transition, each of these Social Doctrines have a bridge that connects them, sneaking in the new Social Doctrine bit by bit, until the society recognizes the sea-change only in retrospect.  That bridge, is economics.  Each Social Doctrine shares elements of the socio-economic systems of the two surrounding spectra, providing a much smoother, and often hidden, transition from spectra to spectra.  So what are those economic systems and how do they connect?  That will be discussed later.

-W.D.P.

Cultural Philosophy, to define it directly, would be the general views toward human interaction held by a society.  These views mold the type of ethos a society will follow, thus judging for it its Social Doctrine, and finally, its system of government.  Ultimately, all the philosophies in the world can be summed up by a single query: "What matters, and why?"  This simple question determines the ethics of human interaction.  The views of human interaction can be summed up into two different philosophies that beget different views of ethics.  Philosophy is the root of all thought.  It was the study of philosophy that led the naturally inquisitive human to medical sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, and law.  Like I've said, without a discussion of philosophy, a discussion on ethics is useless, and without a discussion of ethics, a discussion of politics is useless.  So in order to understand political science (the study of societal interaction), one must first understand philosophy.

Most views and ethos can be traced back to one of two general philosophies: Individualism and Collectivism which contain their own general ethics that beget sublets with much stricter ethical standards.  In the ultimate question of political systems, the question of Cultural Philosophy is the first unanswered question to be answered.  Whether they seek to break free from the philosophy of their current rulers or they simply developed the outlook in the absence of government is irrelevant; it is the Cultural Philosophy that dictates their preferences in a government.

So let's reconstruct the political spectrum.  Picture it the way it's presented now: atheistic communist-socialism on the left and religious nut-job fascistic super-capitalism on the right.  Now throw that away--left and right are not ideologies, they're directions.  The spectrum the founders of our nation believed in had no government on one end and too much government on the other but that's not right either.  The many political ideas can't simply be put properly on a spectrum based on no or too much governance, there's too much to political discussion to simplify it to that single issue.  It doesn't get down to the philosophy of a civilization, nor does it give a direction to that civilization.  If a nation wants a strong central power, who will benefit?  That question is not answered by a simple no/too much government spectrum, and it surely isn't answered by the right-left spectrum we have now.

I'm sure you'd like to know what it is if it isn't a spectrum and I'll tell you now: it's a circle.  A cycle based on the growth and collapse of a government.  No and too much government aren't ideas on opposite ends of the spectrum, it's a tipping point where a government collapses.  The stability of a nation is determined by what point on the circle a nation begins and that point is determined, ultimately, by that initial unconscious decision of the philosophies of Individualism or Collectivism.  Now, allow me to define those philosophies:

Individualism is the philosophy that makes the case for the autonomy and sovereignty of a human being  as the chief decider in his own life.  The individual has a right to private property and to live his life as he sees fit.
Collectivism on the other hand, makes the case for humanity being a brotherhood, a partnership.  Collectivism says that there is no individual without the collective.  The collective grants him his rights and all the individual does ought to be done for the benefit of the collective (whatever the "collective" may be.  It is a term defined by the authority).

How these Cultural Philosophies influence Social Doctrine and the political systems is fairly simple and self-evident.  In a society that believes in the individual's sovereignty and rights to property and life will have a natural inclination to make a small, non-intrusive government that allows the individual to fail or succeed as he sees fit while societies of the more collectivist persuasion will prefer a large safety-net of a government that supplies for the needs and wants of the collective. 

People tend to forget the strong links between science and politics these days.  We tend to see them as separate subjects but the early thinkers of all of the social sciences were heavily influenced by physics, astronomy, and biology--changes is scientific thought inspired change in socio-political thought as well.  Take for instance Thomas Hobbes, writer of Leviathan, considered one of the first true political scientists.  He was inspired not by statesmen and politicians, but by the astronomer and physicist Galileo.  It was Galileo's theory that the natural state of things was to be in motion that inspired Hobbes to theorize in Leviathan that society was constantly in motion, therefore it needed a strong sovereign to guide it to the most productive path; it was Isaac Newton's law of gravity that sparked that explosion of political ideas that birthed our nation called the Enlightenment; it was Charles Darwin's theory of evolution that revolutionized political thoughts leading to not only the acceleration of the progressive movement, but also the little known anarchist movement in the late 19th century.  Each one of these great discoveries shook the world, sparking arguments among the intelligensia as to its meaning to society.  Those debates created massive rifts in the societies that changed everything.

Take the aforementioned idea of Galileo who also proved that the Earth revolved around the sun.  His theory of motion, which he realized after proving Capunicus's theory of the sun, changed the debate.  If the Earth is constantly moving, then motion is natural, and if motion is natural, then surely human interactions are in constant motion, changing society and moving it forward into new ages.  Hobbes was fascinated by this and theorized that it was the government (the "Leviathan")'s duty to harness and guide that motion.  Others took it differently, arguing the obsolescence of monarchy in favor of granting all power to the House of Commons, sparking the English Civil War.  Do not misunderstand me and think I'm saying Galileo indirectly sparked the English Civil War, tensions had been developing for years before.  However, Galileo's theory did change the language of the time, sending the debates in new directions.

Newton's Law of Gravity had a similar impact on social thought.  The implications of the Law of Gravity and his other theorums were that there were certain "natural laws" (as Cicero called them) from which humanity could not escape.  If you jump off a cliff, you can flap your arms, but you will hit the ground and die.  Science took a new direction.  Galileo opened minds to exploration and curiosity of the superstitions and the functions of the world.  Newton's theory sent scientists to discover other natural laws.  The search for natural laws led to the birth of the study of economics, leading to a storm of new economic thought by the likes of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, Jean-Baptiste Say, and David Ricardo to dispell the conventional wisdom of mercantilism.  They sought the "natural laws" of a market.  How the Law of Gravity punished bad economic decisions.

The Enlightenment is also the time of the birth of socialism.  While most Enlightemnent thinkers sought through the doctrine of Liberalism the individual impact of natural laws, Socialists sought to discover the utopia described by Plato as Atlantis.  While Liberals talked about natural laws and individual rights, the Socialists talked about universal brotherhood.  The Liberals won the debate because the utopianists sounded more like medeivalists yearning for the "good old days" of the dark ages while still wanting to reap the benefits of modern advancement.  The Liberals believed that what a man created should be his and should only be sold voluntarily for the sake of personal profit, thereby benefiting society by harnessing an individual's self-interest.  The Socialists believed that what a man created was not his, but the society's, and therefore should be given selflessly to the whole for the joy of benefitting mankind. 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution was equally as revolutionary to political thought in the latter half of the 19th century.  He was hailed as the "man who killed God", much to his disgust (he was a christian) and people began a hot new debate.  His theory, as we all know, was that species, when in a certain environment, adapt to better meet the rigors of what it takes to survive.  He spoke of "natural selection" harkening the ideas of "natural laws" that the Enlightenment thinkers sought to better define.  The debate changed.  If species evolve and change and adapt, then surely humans must too, and if humans adapt, then surely human thought adapts and evolves too.  It was a further confirmation of that Galilean principle that the natural state of things was in motion.

The debate with a subject as radical and polarizing as the Theory of Evolution was equally as radical in its socio-political implications and the thought it inspired.  Spurred on by the expansion of government under Lincoln and the progressive measures taken by his Republican Party after the Civil War, progressive intelligensia latched on to evolution, adapting it to their ideology and using it to justify Lincoln's destruction of states' rights, the racism of the earlier part of the century, and the death of Liberalism in general: since there are different cultures and different races and people, then they must evolve at a different pace, making some superior and other inferior.  For a society to prosper, the most "fit" should run things while the inferior stay below us until they've evolved to the point of being equal.  While the more extreme elements of progressivism sought population controls of the "unfit" through birth control movements, etc, others simply wanted to "take care" of the inferiors until they're ready.  This mirrors the pre-Civil War attitude towards blacks where the South wanted to keep them as slaves till they were "ready for freedom" and most in the North just wanted to send them back to Africa (called "colonization").  Banishment from paradise or subserviance would be the only options for the "unfit".  With this knowledge, it was the State's duty to oversee and control the "evolution" of a society in order to gain the optimal result.

However, the evolutionary idea also sparked a debate in a completely different direction.  The Individualist Anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Henry George argued that as humans evolve and become more enlightened, government becomes less and less necessary, and in order for humanity to truly thrive, government had to be destroyed and replaced by either a very small government, or no government at all.  Since humans are subject to evolution and even more capable of evolutionary thought due to the studies of science and philosophy, adaptation in a world sans government would be a snap.  Spontaneous order would occur and people would establish orders of their own in order to co-exist.  This, mixed with the Liberalism of the Enlgithenment, made what eventually became known as the Libertarian Movement.  Though both Progressivism and Individual Anarchism were both atheistic in nature, they did not match in ethics.  Progressivism rejected the ideas of natural law and put the "State" in its place.  This way ethics were no longer absolutes, but elastic, bendable to the government, or as they say; "will of the people".  The Anarchists, obviously, had a different view.  People had evolved into strong, capable, enlightened beings, therefore the "State" is not needed and a "Leviathan" is purely unnatural.  There was no "will of the people" anymore, we had evolved past that; there is only the "will of the person".

Now, we see the duality of a Cultural Philosophy.  With the advent of new debates and ideas, one philosopher takes one view and the other takes a completely different view.  This is the ultimate decider as to where on the circle a society lies and what type of Social Doctrine that society is proned to.  Individualists tend toward more delegated and personal control, whereas Collectivists tend toward more centralized and less personal control.  We'll see what kind of Social Doctrines are available to the Collectivists and Individualists in my next entry.

-W.D.P.

Good question!  A political system doesn't simply appear from nowhere, there is a process that leads to a society drafting a constitution or choosing a form of government.  Whether it be conscious or unconscious is not germane to the process or the discussion of political theory in general.  A political system takes ages to dream up, apply, and even when applied, takes ages to perfect provided that the system is at all sustainable to begin with.  The proper study of politics is feckless when separated from a discussion of politics or ethics because without ethics, a discussion of justice and how to apply it to a society becomes meaningless, and without philosophy, a discussion of ethics floats in mid-air and collapses of its own weightlessness.  "Politics" sans philosophy, is meaningless.

This, in essence, is the ultimate problem with the contemporary political discussion.  We hear about the Republicans and the Democrats, "right" and "left", "liberals" and "conservatives" with no real definition attached to the terms, rendering them more disorienting than definite, making the entire political discussion cloudy, making any attempt at having a rational discussion quixotic at best.  So, those terms; "Republican", "Democrat", "right-wing", "left-wing", "liberal", "conservative"; forget them.  They're not classically defined words but a product of the Stalin Doctrine ("whatever the party [communists/Stalin] disagrees with is 'right-wing'") and Alinskian (i.e. Saul Alinsky) methods of misdirection for the purpose of power. 

We tend to use these words because we don't know how they came into being, which is the real problem.  To top it off, popular culture has so perverted the meanings and so effectively applied Stalin's Doctrine to the terms, that we don't question them.  A pundit we agree with most of the time berates the "left" or the "right", "liberalism" or "conservatism" and we simply become familiar with those words in that particular context and create an image in our head of the subject of our beloved pundit's hatred that we burn in effigy in our heads and find ourselves appalled when we find one of our friends or relatives is one of "them".

Today's entry will concentrate on defining our political semantics.  It will be followed by a deeper explanation of political systems and how they're formed and the inevitability of unenlightened cyclical motion of collapse and renewal.  It's less a "redefining" of the political spectrum that we usually apply and more of a lynching, burning, and pissing on the ashes of an evil beast that devoured our children and raped our wives in the dead of night.  My theory works basically on the idea that the development of political economy, law, and justice put a nation somewhere on the spectrum and judges how long they can ultimately last before collapse and renewal.  It works on the Galelean/Hobbesian idea that the natural state of things is in motion until someone stops it.  Since people are natural beings susceptible to natural laws, and since motion and inertia are both natural principles, and since the study of political science is the study of human interaction and societal ethics, then the natural state of society and human interaction is in motion.  By this very simple principle, I can say rather soundly that the shift of prevalent societies through this cycle is inevitable when the people of that society are unconscious. 

One of the ways that the people are rendered unconscious to history, politics, and economics, is through the ambiguety of terms.  It happens to all of us: "C-SPAN is just so boring, economics has all those words I don't understand, and political pundits on TV just yell over each other, history is simply a series of dates and people I don't care about, and when people talk about any of it I get bored to tears!"  One of the ways it becomes boring or infuriating is through the undefining of our political language.  Allow me to clear up where the terms come from.

Republican:
Obviously, a political party, also known as the GOP (Grand Old Party).  The Republican Party officially began in 1854 in Michigan, shortly after the collapse of the Whig Party.  There was a void left there that was mostly being filled by the "Know Nothing" Party (AKA the "Native American" party- a protectionist, anti-immigrant party.) and the Free-Soil party, which ran solely on abolitionism.  Now, to understand the Republican Party, you have to understand the Whig Party.  They were formed by the former Speaker of the House Henry Clay of Kentucky in the early part of the 1800s.  Originally called the "National Republicans" during the non-partisan period before the forming of the Whig and Democratic Parties, they were the more radical descendants of the Federalist Party (Alexander Hamilton and John Adams' party).  Hamilton was the more radically pro-central government of the founding fathers and was often out of step with the Madisons, Jeffersons, and even the Adamses, but he was the beau ideal of Henry Clay and his National Republicans/Whigs.  The Whigs were in favor of a bigger centralized state than the Federalists originally wanted by way of a national bank, a nationalized currency, "internal improvements" (i.e. corporate subsidies to build infrastructure), protectionism through high tarriffs, and nativism.  This was all what Clay called the "American System".  Lincoln was a big believer in this. 
The Whigs only managed to get two presidents in the White House (William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor) but both died in office leaving less than desirable Vice-Presidents in their sted (John Tyler and Millard Fillmore).  In 1860, however, three years after the panic of 1857, Lincoln campaigned for the Republicans, presenting Clay's "American System" as a cure for all ills and to put an end to panics and recessions.  Lincoln was advised by the Whigs/Republicans' favorite economist; a man named Henry C. Carey, a man who proclaimed Adam Smith as a fause prophet and the vindication of Hamiltonian mercantilism.  He also admitted once that he hadn't spent even three days devoted to the study of economics, explaining his love for such an asanine economic system as the "American System".  So basically, the Republicans were formed to be the "progressive" party in the sense of the progressive movement.  The party planted the seed for the expansion of government.
It wasn't until the Great Depression where things started to change for the party.  There was a new movement in the form of a group called the Liberty League, led by Democrats and Republicans disgusted by Roosevelt's New Deal.  The Liberty League gave rise to the Libertarian movement, which birthed also the Conservative movement and started making Fabian-like plans to take over the Republican Party, viewing the Democratic Party as too far gone now under the spell of the Rooseveltian myth.  There are still Hamiltonians among the Republican Party, but Jeffersonians/Libertarians have been slowly taking it over for some time now.  Reagan was highly influenced by the Libertarian movement and openly read Libertarian magazines like the Freeman.  Though Reagan was disappointing to many Libertarians, he did pave the way for a more Jeffersonian Republican Party, setting an archetype for conservatives, but a mere stepping stone to the Jeffersonians.

Democrat:
The other major political party formed in the early 1800s by Martin Van Buren to counter Clay's Whiggish "American System".  They were the descendants of the Democratic-Republicans (the party of Jefferson and Madison).  They believed in delegated, decentralize government power through states' rights, free-trade, economic freedom, and were against "internal improvements", a central bank, and a nationalized currency.  Because of this, the Democrats had many presidents in the early half of the 19th century (Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, and Buchannan) thus a lock on the Supreme Court.  The Civil War changed the dynamics drastically.  With Lincoln forcibly answering the secession question with a resounding "no, you have no right", and the Republican Monopoly of the latter half of the 19th century (Grover Cleveland was the only Democratic president of that period and fought against the expansion of government), there was a sea-change in the Democratic Party during the Progressive movement. 
The Democratic Party was mostly changed during the turn of the century through Southern Nationalism.  After the Civil War, the South was in shambles economically.  Education was poor and the people were poorer and disenfranchised.  Pressures began mounting for the Democratic Party (the party of the South) to take more militant and radical pro-poor measures.  This led to a stronger interest in socialistic and progressive ideas.  Mixing socialism with the nationalism of the progressive doctrines of the Republicans, they turned the American System on its head.
Then, of course, the sixties changed everything.  The hippies were at best confused, mixing Libertarian liberalism and individualism with socialism and progressivism.  This led to the modern Democratic Party.  It was during this time that the Republican Party simply reacted, retreating to ardent nationalism in order to provide a contrast.

The long-and-short of it is that depending on party as a definition is fickle and unreliable.  The more Libertarian Democratic Party of the early 19th century is completely different from the more nationalistic party of the early 20th, and the more socialistic party of the latter 20th and current era.  To simply say the killing of indians is the "fault of the Republicans", or slavery is the "fault of the Democrats".  You must look at the ideology of the particular issue.  Just because the Democrats were the more Libertarian party also doesn't mean Libertarianism is to blame for slavery, for reading the justifications of slavery reveal Southern Nationalism as the root and not the Classical Liberalism that influenced Libertarianism.  Replacing philosophy and ethics with partisanship in politics robs politics of its very meaning.

Right/Left-Wing:
The terms "Right" and "Left" Wing have no basis in philosophy or ethics either.  The terms are based on parlamentary seating and have no meaning whatsoever.  For instance, the "left" in revolutionary France were laissez-faire individualists while the "right" were monarchists and mercantilists, the socialists were actually seated center-back.  So what we now consider "right" was "left" to France and what was "center-back" to them is "left" to us now, where as their "right" has no baring in modern American politics.  Therefore "left" and "right" are unreliable terms.

Liberal:
Liberalism, by its classical definition, was a philosophical movement during the Enlightenment based on individualism, free-markets, and natural laws.  It bred a new school of economics, justice, science, and political theology based on natural law and personal freedom.  It worked on the idea of spontanious order and that people are capable of governing themselves better than the government can.
However, the progressive movement changed the definition of Liberal and took it from a Newtonian ideology and applied it to a Darwinian ideology of collectivism and applied the Liberalism to societies and groups and the idea of the State rather than individuals.  This flipped the term on its head.  In fact, many imbittered Libertarians still sneeringly call modern Liberals "so-called liberals".  So seeing as Liberalism has been robbed of its classical definition, the modern term of "liberal" is unreliable and clouds political discussion.

Conservative:
Again, Conservative, like Liberal, has been robbed of its classical definition, rendering the term useless.  Conservative simply means "not radical" or "resistant to change".  The term in itself carries no philosophy with it.  In the modern political games, the term is used to describe someone who is uptight or simply an obstructionist.  "Conservative" was never used in its modern sense until the 1950s as the Conservative Movement began breaking away from the Libertarian Movement and carving its own identity with family values and religion at its forefront, two ideals Libertarianism rejected.  Chiefly, "Conservatism" in its modern sense is used to describe someone who believes in the Newtonian idealism of the Enlightenment, but mixes it with religion and family values, and nationalism.  However, since it, like Liberal, has been robbed of its classical meaning, it is rendered useless in political science.

Radical:
The root word, "Radi" is the Latinate term for "root" (i.e. radish).  A Radical believes in a pure idea and demands immediate and drastic change to that pure idea.  The conservative, classically, is meant to resist and suppress the Radical.  That's all the term means.

From now on, in my entries, when I use these words, I will be using the classical definitions.  I will continue to get into the spectrum and cycles that serve as the focus of my political theory.  I will revert from using parties as definitions and will explain the spectrum of no government, to absolute government that inevitably collapses back into no government--Anarchism to Internationalism.

Pay attention, folks, I'm going to be thorough.

-W.D.P.