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.