The problem with these labels is they often conflict with the names of the various political parties. The conservative party in the UK are probably more liberal than conservative, whereas the liberal party in australia are more conservative than liberal.
I guess I would say the names we apply to political parties should not be used in the same manner is trying to understand these three broader forms of government… And I think in particular conservatism is kind of miss label in itself… basically sounds like continued imperialism open upper class…Or if you don’t like that explanation… I would definitely say today’s common meaning of these words and as typically used… I have nothing to do with these three forms of Ideology… Just by way of example there are no conservatives in the United States who don’t truly identify as being a liberal under these definitions… And in fact it is the main tension of people on the far right… Who feel that their individual liberties, are being surrendered… To the liberal left in the United States… Quite frankly when we use the word conservative… We use it to only apply the idea of slow change…Yes conservatives have people in it that struggle to balance the idea of freedom for all and not freedom for some… Just like the modern-day liberal have problems understanding the dangers of censorship towards unpopular views… And adopt the belief that the left has the right to trample the rights of individuals who have conservative views because they are people of the class that are capable of oppressing… So without legislation… Banning such behavior… The right will continue to oppress… I personally reject that notion… anyway I agree with your point that the labels are an issue!
@@naughty_swagger41 Actually liberalism is only a or right leaning philosophy depending on your point of position… Sure it’s to the right of communism… And it’s to the right of pure Socialism… But it’s far far to the left of imperialism and it’s far far to the left of totalitarianism… And guess what doesn’t work at all without totalitarianism… Communism… fascism… And by the way guess what else doesn’t work… Pure liberalism… Well I love the idea of thinking like a libertarian… I certainly acknowledge we need some government… We need some forms of collective bargaining in a social society… But I definitely value the individual freedom… In the attempts we put on ourselves to remind ourselvesThat the government needs to justify its intrusions into our individual liberties…
Just because it doesnt fit with your American views doesnt mean its not correct. Americans know to fucking little about political ideology and politcal history. Talking about (especially liberalism and conservatism) and having no freaking clue about what it actually is and comes from
Except that these definitions are not the beliefs in the USA. Socialism has never worked. Liberalism only works for the elites at the top, that constantly try to make government bigger and more powerful. More control over the people they fight to keep ignorant. Much like Communism
@@jerryeastman170 hey again Jerry. You are incorrect because socialism triumphed in elevating Russia from a poor feudal nation into the world power it is today. We can talk about the failures inside the USSR, but it was clearly a successful project when it comes to developing the country and its economy. On the other hand, countries like Bulgaria and Burkina Faso were on the right track before being couped by capitalist interests. I indeed agree with your belief on liberalism, but I believe they want to push the government into debt rather than making governments bigger. In "communism" no one would have control over us, because there would be no social classes and therefore authority would be given voluntarily and not by force/unvoluntary. You don't have to tell me you are American...
@@jerryeastman170 just because these beliefs are not held by Americans doesn’t make the definitions any less valid that’s why Americans need to read them.
You should clarify that this video is about european conservativism, liberalism, and socialism. So to my americans watching, this is kinda off to the American counterparts
This video is intended for UK A Level students and we refer to UK politics simply as Government and Politics. The US section gets put under Global Politics (covered in the second year) and is not seen an individual subject/course. I hope this helps
Yes. There are not a lot of good videos examining politics that can look at these ideas where they fit with every nation. US politics has a very different slant on these ideas than a lot of other countries. There is a nice Crash Course vid that does US, but this one is pretty good for UK and avoids too much bias.
But Americans are wrong and confused about what these ideologies are supposed to be. Americans are mass manipulated into incorrectly defining these terms and First Rate Tutors doesn't have to provide false information to appease sensibilities of United States citizens. It would be better is if U.S. citizens put a little effort into educating themselves on these terms. I'm speaking as a U.S. citizen. PSA: Ayne Rand didn't invent libertarianim. Nobody here knows what that word really means either.
I've been reading a book about european history and I couldn't tell the difference between these ideologies. Thank you for the video, finally can make up more context while reading.
I know this is from an English perspective on their own versions of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism, but here in America, conservatism and liberalism (we don’t have socialism) have very different definitions. Over here, it is actually the conservatives who favor smaller government, less regulation and lower taxes, while the liberals are keen on larger governments with more intervention into society. A good example of this is health care, liberals are willing to pay a lot of taxes so that the government will have free health care for all. Meanwhile the conservatives would rather less taxes, so they can choose their own private doctors and health groups for higher quality Medicare. However, Conservatives do favor tradition here, an example would be free speech, and hate speech. Liberals are in agreement that people should be prosecuted for insulting or discriminating against minorities, while conservatives say that is a violation of free speech, they believe in the quote “I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it,” they believe no should be prosecuted for speaking their mind, even if it means someone somewhere will have their feelings hurt. I could go on and on about the differences between British and American conservatives and liberals, but you can probably just look it up.
In some ways, the Republicans in the US could be described as classical liberals, at least in the historical context as those beliefs and values laid out by John Locke. Whereas, the Democrats could be described as social liberals within that same context. If we were to push the categorization criteria to it's limit, the Republican Party would be comprised of classical liberals with a conservative tendencies, whereas the Democratic Party would be comprised mainly of social liberals with a socialist tendencies. Fitting 330 million people into 2 major parties through a diversity of 50 seperate state political infrastructures creates a somewhat nebulous notion, at least in the US, of what makes one "liberal" or "conservative". Accurately defining what is meant by those terms in the US is likewise like trying to build a house on shifting sands. Each major party is broadly defined as liberal or conservative, but within those parties are several factions each with their own particular ideological bent (particularly in regards to authoritarianism) covering a wider part of the spectrum. Liberal Republicans were a thing, might still be, though if so are of little political consequence. Conservative Democrats are still elected to national office to this day, however, in regards to the above definitions would be considered more classically liberal than anything else. As the factions in charge of the major parties change, so too do their particular place on the historically defined political spectrum. If we consider the movement of the Overtun window itself in conjunction with the shift of the parties in relation to society as a whole, it muddies the water further still. The Republicans are comprised primarily of everything to the right of center up to the point of that which is socially acceptable position to hold (and both parties push that limit from time to time) and the Democrats perform the same function to the left of center, but the center point is typically determined on a state by state basis.
You definitely have the greens party (Howie Hawkins - Eco-socialist) however with a two party system the chances of him getting elected is sadly not too big
@@FirstRateTutors Tories are real Conservatives. Is real Cons hate tories with a passion. There is no real Conservative party. We loved Tony Blair before the whole wars nonsense. Conservatives hate war and we think war is a result of meddling with other people's internal affairs.
To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, you can't have a discussion without hurting someone's feelings. I don't mean to be purposely offensive or whatnot, what I mean is that you will get a greater understanding of a situation with free speech, no matter how offended someone becomes.
I think people can take a little from each group especially because its mainly our personality and the way we think about certain topics, Like i can go read a buddhist book and take something from that too, we can all learn from each other
Except Liberalism methods failed me and so many with them giving "human rights" to violent criminals, homelessness, lazy ppl, etc... Conservatism is very strict and about "order" while Socialism have all the good qualities (affordable HC, some free housing, taxing the rich, etc). A "merge" between this two ideologies would be great so no need for liberalism.
Pathetic attempt of defining socialism. It's really easy: • worker's seizure of the means of production ⟨Industrial Democracy⟩ • (to some extent) decommodification Not a single one of those points was mentioned. The closest you got to my first point was "the gorvernment expands the `public sector` ". Wrong . The WORKERS do expand the "public sector". Also wealth distributive measures are not a criteria for socialism (the definition doesn't bring up wealth at all). But still most socialsts agee that to an extent redestributive measures need to be undertaken.
@Roniixx False, the workers only control the public sector if the state is democratic. Even then, the owning and control of the means of production is so indirect that many people wouldn't call it socialism.
7:33 Problem is this: Every government, regardless of ethos, are corrupt. Most of the taxes makes it into the hands of connected people of power, and not the intended audience.
Although some people call themselves “conservative” these people aren’t when they are advocating for the things you said which that things like “security are more important than freedom, rights and equality”. To the contrary great conservative leaders like James Madison & Benjamin Franklin state “Men who value security over freedom deserves neither”. Conservatives, or at least more constitutional conservatives believe in this. It’s the more liberal “conservatives” who believe in denying freedom, rights and equality for security. The ultimate example of this is liberal “conservative” leaders going along with the left aka Liberal, Labor, Democrat and Socialists in demanding lockdowns, tyrannical mandates, forced inoculations, vaccine passports, detention camps etc in the name of “security” and saying “Screw your freedom”. Actual conservatives who believe in constitutionalism and “classical liberalism” believe freedom and rights always trump security and any government control. This is called consistency with believing in less government power and control. So it’s just a lie that real conservatives would EVER say security is more important. The only time that may apply, unfavored, is in a inland wartime or civil war.
As a Canadian, it's no surprise to me that the definitions presented here (by a speaker from the UK) closely mirrors Canadian political ideologies because Canada is part of the Commonwealth nations.
Canada is more socialist than the US but our conservatism here has gone through similar transformations as the US/UK. Old-time conservatives such as MacDonald or Borden would have been staunchly in favour of the primacy of state; Stephen Harper, our conservative prime minister from 2004-2015, was all about shrinking social programs and cutting taxes. Under Thatcher/Reagan/Harper, defense spending skyrocketed. So it's not true that modern conservatives don't spend; it's what they spend their money on
But Americans are wrong and confused about what these ideologies are supposed to be. Americans are mass manipulated into incorrectly defining these terms and First Rate Tutors doesn't have to provide false information to appease sensibilities of United States citizens. It would be better is if U.S. citizens put a little effort into educating themselves on these terms. I'm speaking as a U.S. citizen. PSA: Ayne Rand didn't invent libertarianim. Nobody here knows what that word really means either.
That definition of socialism was motly talking about social democracies. I would say that you miss the cores of those three systems. For conservativism it would be a traditionalist hiearchy enforced by the state and free market capitalism. For liberalism it would be democratical capitalist state, balancing the eqality of democracy and uniqaulity of the market. For socialism it would be equality and enforcment of the enlightenment values to the economical sector, forcing democracy to both the sate and the economy. The reasons why they advocate those ideas matter. Why do soc-dems want a strong state? To fight capitalism hierarchy. Why conservatives want it? To enforce hierarchy.
Conservatives in the UK have some liberal views in the US. US conservatives want a strong leader but we also want a smaller government, and minimal government intervention.
For everyone watching this video !!! This video contains many misinterpretations of certain perceptions, e.g. "conservatives stand that people aren't equal" such a statement is a conscious far-reaching manipulation of the viewer's feelings and arousing negative emotions towards conservatives because no man wants other people to consider him inferior. The correct form should be "conservatives believe that all people are equal before the law and should be equal for opportunities to achieve their dreams" as well as "conservatives acknowledge the fact that nature created us unequal in many properties such as height, strength, beauty, intellect, etc. and we should accept such fact instead of trying to change the natural order of things". This movie is very biased.
Wrong. You're going on a more modern, liberal conservative definition talking about equal opportunity for all, level playing field, etc. The video is talking about conservatism in the classical sense, when the state really was the vehicle to prop up the upper class through monarchy. Conservatism has changed a lot since the classical definition was coined but they share some similiarities, as you are inferring
@@drecful My point about the conscious manipulation in portreying conservatism in the video is valid. If the video mainly focuses on aspects of conservatism that are traditionally associated with not-very-popular maintaining the status quo and social structures and not present the more modern (actually 150 years old already) views that emphasize equal opportunities, legal equality, individual rights and freedom, it is clearly presenting a one-sided view. This selective portrayal can lead viewers to associate conservatism solely with these older concepts only, potentially overlooking the evolution and diversity of conservative thought over time. In such cases, it's important for media to provide a balanced view and not one-sided view, that may not be easily noticed by people who want to learn something, hence my comment and warning. The statement "from the conservatism perspective there's this viewpoint that people aren't equal" is a far-reaching, harmful and demonizing simplification and psychological trick. From the other side there is "from a socialist perspective equality is key" that is a far-reaching, beautifying and glorifying simplification. The video is totally biased, showing one-sided views.
I think some of the captions are misleading. Conservatives tend not to want "Strong" government per se, but rather want the government to focus on issues such as protecting private property and punishment of crime, including the use of capital punishment. There are two strands of thinking re foreign policy: strong, if not aggressive in terms of power projection, and isolationism. They would definitely be suspicious of international organizations, especially in terms of constraining a nation's liberty to act as it sees fit.
That is a really stupid explanation by a pro-socialist idiot. She painted conservatives as evil monsters and capitalism as a 'for the rich only society'. Only the foolish and gullible will fall for this. A fool is someone who will not shut up, look and listen, work and learn, grow and mature in wisdom. Fools won't work to make a good thing better. They complain and whine and seek to destroy what success others have made to satisfy their selfish desires. They blame others for their own irresponsibility. If someone in a socialist society speaks out against socialism that person will be eliminated. If a person in strongly liberal area speaks out against liberalism they will be threatened, or beat up. I live in a mostly conservative city. Not all but most of the liberals to have a hatred for others and have a halo of selfishness above them. If you want to find anger, hatred and evil, look at socialism and liberalism aka 'progressivism'. If you want to find a society that realizes their mistakes, tries to correct them and works to make a good thing better look for the conservatives.
Great Explanations! And a quick comment on Hobbes idea about the human nature, 'evil.' While humans would pursue self-interest to reach their potential, every human is inherently good and pure, to help and cooperate regardless of different social contracts.
Thank you for the video! Does anyone recommend a book about politics? One with simple language that covers differents politics globally and historacly? Thank you
Thankyou for a very precise explanation of these ideologies. It seems incredible that in the 21st century the human species is still divided by ideology. No one system has all ths answers and with the benifit of more sophisticated education(?) we should have naturally selected the best bits from each ' ideology' and governed accordingly, but alas this will probably not happen yet. I guess we need to evolve a bit more before we can dispense with this polarisation of human society.
People are not inherently "evil," but they are self-interested and selfish. In a state of nature, a stronger person will take what it wants and will use violence to get it. Therefore, societies form to protect the weak from the strong. Governments are an extension of this.
I noticed that you did not list any of the common beliefs like Religion etc I find myself being a conservative because I believe in Christ. With the minimal explanations that were provided, you make Liberalism look appealing to me... on purpose??...🤔
Everything I've seen is the exact same as I have in mind and yeah as a liberal, I support freedom more than anything and say humans are the best being individualistic and are capable of doing most stuff... Tho there may be differences on nationalist or globalist term, if I'm a liberal from a prosperous country, I'd be siding with my country and be a bit nationalist tho being mostly globalist while the liberals from a not so ideal place may be pure globalist like saying, "This country is not mine, the world is" or something like that... We also support the minority in a situation a bit more... About conservatives, it depends on where you are, conservatives follow traditions and traditions vary from place to place, some may be already liberal or some may be radical, it just depends on what culture you follow... Where I live, I find the conservatives to be annoying as they are being proud of the stuff that they didn't do and someone else of the country did a lot while back in the past and also they hate any criticism on them and try to suppress anyone who opposes them or their believes and my liberal values are absolutely against that...
Barbara no just NO , WRONG WRONG WRONG These 3 really came from the French revolution and implementation of liberalism. Youve explained the idelogy of conservatism and liberalism but not socialism. As liberals advocated liberalism conservatives who wanted to preserve the state and were reaction to liberals and radials on the left. Conservatism was on the right , liberalism on the left and further left of them was radicals . As liberalism formed liberal governments and made capitalism strong and became right wing . Radicals became socialism as a reaction to and opposition of liberalism a .Socialism went thru many phases in history of its practice . One branch of socialism arrived from the workers who formed political parties in late 1800s and stood in elections . These were called social democracy partys these gave up socialism post WWI and before WWII and became capitalist reforming partys for example UK or NZ Labour Party . They no longer are socialist parties representing the worker (labour) . But shes describing these capitalist parties as an ideology or she may be confusing them with Lenins calling his transition stage towards communism as socialism. These are both historical practises of the ideology not the ideology. Theres very few good videos on it. This seems best. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vyl2DeKT-Vs.html
Can someone help explain why I see democrats claiming less government but doing the opposite, and conservatives wanting less regulation but this videos claims otherwise. It seems like when labeling groups like that, it would be helpful to show the history of these ideologies through Europe, touching on the welfare state. I don’t think saying who wants more or less government was accurate in this video, correct me if I’m missing something
She said liberalism is for limited government! That, in my opinion is not true! Conservatives believe in limited government! Something's very wrong in this total explanation! Prove me wrong!
_"Conservatives believe in limited government! "_ Depends on the country. There is no single set of policies regarded as conservative because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. For example, if you have a country where the government has been historically small, and you are in favor of preserving this instead of expanding the government, you would be called 'conservative' in that country. However if you would have that same mentality but in Cuba, you would be called 'progressive' and the people who would want to preserve their socialist government, would be 'conservative' instead.
This video attributes many aspects of conservatism to liberalism for some reason. It also doesn't make clear dichotomies. It insists that conservatism asserts certain things, but then claims that liberalism CAN do the opposite but doesn't make a clear dichotomy. IT'S NOT A VERY FAIR QUALIFIER. Judging by the accent I don't really think this is American because conservatism seems to be an amalgam of what this person views conservatism and liberalism to be.
It's almost as if the world isn't black and white and there are overlaps between ideologies. Go figure. P.S: You are right when it comes to this not applying to American politics.
What you call socialism is actually social democracy or social liberalism. The central tenet of socialism is societal control of the means of production (factories, arable land etc. which, btw, have not mainly been in the hands of aristocrats since the time the term socialism was coined). Many socialists actually oppose the state, which in their eyes inherently produces and enforces hierarchies. Also, in contrast to liberalism and socialism and many others, conservatism without a qualifier (e. g. modern western conservatism) is hardly an ideology, given how it is entirely dependent on what the status quo is. While a liberal cannot also be a socialist (liberalism upholds private property), a conservative can in theory also be a liberal, or a socialist, or a fascist, or whatever the status quo of the day is.
These definitions seem off from a pragmatic perspective. Most socialists I know believe in much more grounded changes rather than theoretical plans - Social Democracies. This feels like it's misrepresenting the views of socialists themselves and convoluting many variations of socialism. The idea of selfishness is more involved with exploiters of labour, wage surplus should go to the worker and having both higher taxes and complete redistribution are ignored. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.
If you want to understand why we are living this mess at this point in history watch the documentary Zeitgeist The Addendum. It's free on Roku makes all the connections between the monetary system, what we just experienced here in this country and why it will not be stopped until more ppl are educated
It should be about the definition of the ideology. Not about the definition of political parties. Political parties are a joke and their names most of the time don't represent their ideology at all.
Because leading liberal thinkers such as John Stuart Mill, while pushing the primacy of the individual, were still coming up against the problem that, ultimately, someone in govt has to decide priorities. It cannot really be a libertarian Invisible Hand. Liberalism is moving away from the state as a vehicle to protect ruling class interests to the state as a vehicle to give equal rights to all who qualify.
It's my guess that your definitions of political beliefs are valid for the U.K. because you have a British accent. For the U.S. though this isn't accurate. First of all why do you think conservatives think humans are evil? It's conservatives that believe humans are good and everybody can have success in life if a individual knows what's important. Also it's liberalis not conservatives that are in favor of a big or strong government. It's liberals and socialists too that beiieve the government should be big so the goverment can pass laws to help pepole without realizing that those plans in the history of both political idelogies hardly any of their efforts have been succesfull. All men are created equal is a illusion. Liberals and socialists think the beilief that conservatives have about this is racist but in reality conservatives are the ones that believe everybody is a individual. They don't have the illusion that everybody in a certain race or demografic has the same mindset. They beileve the most important things for pepole are hard work which anybody is capable of and individuism. Why play a big hand in trying to help everybody the same way when everybody is diffrent? Your analoges about political idealogies really suck.
"you definition of political beliefs are valid for the UK" Mhhh their definition for, at least, the liberalism is the same all around the world and the only historically valid. Liberalism is the individualist ideology which advocates for small government which let people do what they want, except when it comes to violate others' people rights. Sad that the meaning of "liberalism" has been twisted in the USA to become synonymous with "leftism". You either have to call yourself a "classical liberal" or "libertarian" not to be confused with leftists. You almost made it like " US conservatism" = "classical liberalism". From what I've seen you are for the economic freedom but still socially "conservative" (I mean anti-progress). Do you think that the government should forbid gay mariage and marijuana ?
british politics is much more normal than US politics, and therefore is much less polarised than US politics. Some stuff here may be incorrect, but most of the stuff is pretty damn accurate in regards to European politics
These terms are certainly understood differently in different countries. In the US the so-called liberals are actually mostly socialists/collectivists, while the conservatives are fairly liberal but with some conservative ideas. I'm a moderate in my country, as I'm a bit of a classical liberal and a bit conservative. I am, however, strongly opposed to socialism and any form of authoritarianism.
Lol you have TWO conservative parties in the US. Yet one calls the other far right, the other calls the other far left. It's crazy,, and the rest of the world think it's totally bonkers!
Lmao the 2 parties in America would both be considered conservative to the rest of the developed world. You're looking at 2 sides of the same arse here
The two political parties are so far to the right, Bernie Sanders, who is thought to be a socialist, really is just a New Deal Democrat from 80 years ago (think FDR).
Not everyone has the US's warped political spectrum. This is for an English syllabus about our (and Europe's) leading political ideas. doesn't mean this is 'not how it actually works'.
@@jerryeastman170 lmao republicans really considering Joe Biden as "far left" when the rest of the world considers him a libertarian. America is so polarised it fucking blows my mind, how has it not descended into civil war yet?
I'm starting a political podcast where we highlight different types of politics in a Q&A style platform, I'd love to share my platform once it gets going
@@nahomteriyaki7404 Socialism in America is not really socialist at all but social democracy with progressive social views. I'm seen as the odd-woman out here for being socially conservative but communist
,.. NO... there are only 2 forms of politics... Conservative or Liberal... There are 3 forms of government... Communism..Socialism ...Fascism.. Democracy falls under the umbrella of Socialism
Communism, and Socialism, are BOTH Marxism. Karl Marx was hired to make the masses believe that, everyone "equally" sharing next to nothing, and, having/possessing absolutely no rights, whatsoever, existing but by the grace or will of the State, the totalitarian authoritarian ruling body of draconian despotism, is a good and acceptable, if not preferable set of circumstances. But, in any form of Marxism, you have no rights at all. No right to express yourself, no right to worship what or how you please, no right to assemble, or to defend yourself, or your loved ones. No right to any fair and speedy trial(s),:where you are presumed innocent, until PROVEN guilty, found guilty by a jury of your peers. No right to privacy, or to be free from government intrusion...NO RIGHT TO EXIST! (Read The COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, that explains it ALL, as far as Communism goes.) FASCISM, is when a government is in collusion with private industry, (corporations), to manipulate the various markets, by skewing the public's perception of supply and demand, by controlling the price, availability, and other numerous factors of products and materials needed to manufacture products, in order to profiteer off of the people. Since, 1871, The United States of America is a Corporation, as boldly stated in the unLawful rewritten, replacement Constitution for the United States of America, corporate version, which was never ratified by the required number of States, so, therefore should NOT be 'in effect' as the defacto Law of the Land, as, it is not the dejure, Law of our Constitutional Republic. Fascism, though, requires a government to be in collusion with industry, with our American government having been replaced, by/with a corporation, which, We the People, do NOT own nor control, our situation is FAR BEYOND the scope, and severity, of mere fascism...its much closer to corporate enslavement, through various, numerous unsavory, underhanded, unethical, inhumane, deceptive, unholy, insideous, evil and, fraudulent devices... So, it is incorrect to group Fascism with Marxism, they are not very similar. In "America", or the States, Liberalism and Conservatism have to do with, ones view regarding the Constitution, does one read it, comprehend it, and, FOLLOW it? As Conservatives do? Or, does one seek to interpret it, so as to create false perceptions with the wording, phrases, and terminology utilized within our ruling document, in order to invalidate, negate, and/or circumvent, the document that rules our nation. Keep in mind, that, the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is a set of limitations inherently imposed upon those who would seek, and, then fill public offices, in servitude of the Citizenry of our Republic. There are few enumerated powers of authority, listed...and, that was absolutely by design. The Founding Father's wanted a relatively neutral Central Government, in favor of States having more ability and authority, for self determination. They did not want a strong Central Government seizing authority NOT delegated to it, and, mandating terms and conditions, that they then forcibly impose upon us, stealing our Sovereignty, our wealth, and our FREEDOM from us...
Conservatism = Tradition Liberalism = Change Communism = Moneyless, classless economy, stateless government Socialism = Democratic, community-owned economy, worker-controlled government Corporatism = Usually capitalist economy, capitalist-controlled government Fascism = state-controlled economy, dictatorial government Most countries today combine either conservatism and corporatism or liberalism and corporatism
