Left-wing map

[Caid Ivik]

Liberal Socialism

Classic centristic democracy is usually slightly unbalanced on right or left side. We can see the right form in usually new parties composed of young politicians, many times former businessmen, liberalising the market as well as society (i.e.question of abortions). On the other side we have the parties usually calling themselves as "social democrats", or just "socdems". Also the "green" movements share much with them. This is the widest of all socialistic thoughts, which we can find in any nation (in history first was created in 1867 in Britain, well known were also socdem parties in France, Germany, Russia and Sweden, from today's parties we have US Democratic Party, as well as many socdem governments in Germany, France, Sweden, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Britain, Italy etc.). Their goal is to maintain free market, but with ensurements of its support to state's efforts: hospitals, schools and welfare. Usually socdems try to establish a state strong more economically and less politically (this we can see in their support for i.e.pacifist groups). In cultural questions socdems have usually same opinions as their right-winged partners. Extreme form can be seen in anarchocommunistic movement, were the state itself returns to its primitive form, as a pure treaty between citizens.

Communism

As "communism" we call the hardcored form of socialism, traditionally defined as a work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Today's followers of their thoughts disagree with any practice with this system: that's why some call it utopy, when others call it a failure. Mentioned intellectuals defined the world as "capitalistic", using quotes of many of other philosophers of their era. Human is led by its inner greed, where the honorable is only its overpowering (Kant). It is impossible, because we have no other way to consider the human life as good (Nietzsche). Logically, this creates a world, were stronger try to oppress those weaker (Darwin). This creates a system, where small number of strong (called capitalists or bourgeoise) lives from the work of weak (called proletariate or just workers). Both are underlining the fact, that humans are equal in their rights, so all have right to have same participation of world's wealth. Because of historical determination (Hegel), proletariate will once revolt against the rule of capitalists, redistribute the wealth and work automatically on their own democratical treaties. Unlike the anarchists, which called for immediate fall of state, communists believed in some form of Council for common good, which will ride the society to have common values and to familiarize them with sharing, with its slow vanishing due to it won't be needed. In fact, revolution was succesful only in Russia in 1917, where Vladimir Uljanov (called Lenin) materialised the mind of proletariate in his Party. However, Party instantly turned to an oppressive oligarchic aparate, which gave the unified people equality, but on lower standards than in other industrialized countries. Oppressivity was caused because of the middle class, which was only minimally considered in Capital. Problem is that they thought, that in the conflict it will part into two battling factions, what they didn't. Due to its intellectual diversity, it wasn't suitable for system of mass values, what caused conflict.

Christian Socialism

Christian socialism has its core in gnostical thoughts of swiss priest Johannes Calvin. He teached dialectics of mattery and spirit, where mattery leads human mind to evil and spirit to good. There were only two ways to handle with mattery without committing sin. One way was ascetism, sacrificing all mattery, can be called an isolation from evil. This way was done by early gnostics of middle ages, many of them were condemned by Church for heresy. Other way is to fuse spirit with mattery: creating a state, which will push people's will to share the mattery with others. Needed oppression will be compensed after some generations by the fact, that result will be a society, where everyone will work for the else! Calvin saw in this a way to create a Heaven already on the Earth. This led him to many clashes with roman Church, which condemned him for gnosticism, lowering God's art of creation, as well as his "daring" against Jesus, or putting society over own family. Political opponents also seen another threat in possibility of new crusades (comparable to Marx' teaching of Revolution). Aggressivity of christian socialism led to establishment of such states in Switzerland, Britain and North America, altough only for a limited time. Next generations had no mood to continue with building a specific society, so they returned to work for themselves and their families. Today's christian socialism is more like a conservative opponent to liberal socdems. Like german CSU, which is more catholic than calvinistic, they are now ensuring right for own wealth, but instead of underlining personal responsibility of individual as the primary attribute (like their right-wing partner CDU) they give more importance to ensuring medical care and education.

National Socialism

National socialism is rather unjustly defined by name of Adolf Hitler. In fact, the idea of conditional socialistic paradise was much before him. As creator is usually named Jean Rousseau, which created the right of nation (in ethnical meaning) to govern itself without foreign interventions. As he declared, that all humans are equal in their rights, he teached same for nations as units. In its utopical form, the national socialism is provided by an existing nation-state, what is the primary difference from Lenin's way of worldwide unification. Nation-state ensures its citizens equality and cultural existence, prohibiting import from other countries and taking control over own production and export. People work with each other to ensure the glory of nation. Selfishness is eliminated, because the fact of national glory (comparable to heavenly stage in Calvin's christian socialism) is the only possible priority. Nation doesn't need a government when it reaches the utopical target, it is like a small-scale communism. Very close to this stage is i.e.China, altough here were showed also many oppressive effects of marxism in its stalinized form. Many problems of the system's doctrine were shown in other practices. Reaching national glory could be succesful only if they could compare it to others, and feeling of competition can result in hostility against other countries. In fact, all national socialistic governments have taken the rule by this point, searching for "enemies", causing all poverty. Due to its national characteristics, these enemies were usually pointed to historical national opponents. Point of national glory was started to be considered by military might: Germany tried this about twice, altough the first time was society still stratified by feudalism. Best examples can be found also in Africa, were nation was changed for tribe. As well as communisms with internationalistic basin, even national socialisms usually turned into militaristic authocracies, where people are led by a hate against the enemy. Difference is only that communistic dictatures have the enemy in political systems, while national socialisms in very members of hostile group.

Sine ira, cum studio...