In this moment of fake news and misinformation let's grasp the distinctions between the different types of political views

The world is changing with rapidity and these changes affect the daily life of populations. In addition, the old way of doing politics is being swept away overnight while old forms  and radicalism are reappearing. In such a situation spontaneous actions of different types arise. In fact, many of these phenomena are closer to catharsis and social excesses than to a social process having the capacity to orient and make sense of the present moment.

On the other hand, today bad faith and banditry in the appropriation of words have become monstrous. Indeed, I believe that it then becomes necessary to review some definitions. To remedy this situation, I share with you definitions of different political views.

These definitions were taken from a book published a few years ago from the World Center for Humanist Studies which presented a short series of vocabularies intended to familiarize readers with the themes most frequently encountered in the texts of Universalist humanism.

I believe in this moment of fake news and misinformation it is important to grasp the distinctions between the different types of political views and political movement.

ANARCHISM

Sociopolitical movement whose fundamental principle is the negation of the State, which is considered to be an organ of violence. In general, anarchism also rejects private property and religion, which it regards as factors that threaten the absolute freedom of the human being.

From the theoretical point of view, anarchism is eclectic, admitting from the most violent formulations to Stirner’s anarcho-individualism, Kropotkin’s anarcho-communism, and anarcho-syndicalism, so profoundly influenced by Kropotkin.

Anarcho-syndicalism denies any validity to political struggle or a leading role in the workers movement by any political party, attributing to the anarchist union the highest revolutionary status.

Bakunin maintains that the new order will spring spontaneously from anarchy, a thesis conflicting with that of Proudhon, which conceives the new society as an organization based on exchange of services and mutualism, involving cooperatives and the principle of self-governance.

Some specialists have seen in Nietzsche an axiological anarchist and in Tolstoy and Gandhi practical expressions of an ethical, socialist, and non-violent anarchism.

CENTRISM

A specific political or ideological current, more or less equidistant from the “extremes” or more radicalized positions. As a rule, centrism prefers the path of compromise, reduction in conflict, pacification, appeasement. With some frequency centrism is accused of sacrificing principles, being too soft, or cowardice. In reality, this current always plays an important role, occupying a central space between movements of the “right” and “left”. Within any given party or movement there may exist centrist or moderate groups located between opposing flanks or wings. In most cases, traditional orientations of non-confrontation and dialogue are part of centrism, though in some instances centrism can play a reactionary role. 

Per ex. today we are seeing both the Democrats and the Republican are losing the centrism path. Both parties use radicalism terminology to denounce the political views of their opponents. The Democrats are accusing the Republican of being fascism and the Republican accused the Democrats of supporting the radical left the anarchist groups. But contemporary political studies, the term radicalism is used to stress a propensity to use political force in vigorous extra-legal actions, and a distinction is made between radicalism of the right (Fascism, fundamentalism) and radicalism. of the left (anarchism, Communism).

RADICALISM

Movement that seeks profound reform in the political, scientific, moral and religious order, and is opposed to the position of relativists. Historically, radical parties appeared in the political life of European and American countries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, occupying the left flank within the democratic movement, and regarding liberals as the right flank. Radicals supported the republican principles of universal suffrage, secular education, advanced social legislation and other human rights. Radicals have taken part in numerous political revolutions, forming political alliances with socialists and actively participating in the struggle against fascism and totalitarianism in general, and working for the modernization of society.

COLLECTIVISM

Pertaining to any association or group of individuals. A doctrine, social system, and political movement, whose ils are the holding of goods and services in common and which seeks to transfer to the State the control of the distribution of wealth.

This is a highly contradictory movement, which contributed to the rise of the socialist, communist, and anarchist movements as well as to a number of nationalist movements. It starts by opposing the social to the individual, giving priority to the collective. 

Framing things through such a dilemma presents difficulties, because society cannot be reduced to a biological organism or species, nor the human being to an animal. Historically, collectivism represented a reaction against an exacerbated individualism. Historical experience has shown, however, the theoretical and practical inconsistency of the postulates of both collectivism and individualism, demonstrating their limitations and negative consequences when either pole of this dilemma is chosen to the exclusion of the other. In reality, the interests of the human being as a personality are not and can never be antagonistic to the necessities of social progress. The integral development of the person, of each person’s capabilities, is an inalienable condition of the evolution of society. If, on the contrary, the human being is reduced to the condition of being merely a cog in a collective machine, ultimately this will lead to the death of the civilization.

Collectivism. proceeds from moral principles and feelings of solidarity among people in their work, their community life, their political struggle, and their cultural pursuits. It is antithetical to individualism and selfishness. The traditions of collectivism largely determine the actions of the person toward society, toward other persons, and orient social conduct, contributing to the formation of certain humanist values (mutual aid, mutual respect, solidarity). In some cases the acceptance of the priority of collective and more broadly viewed social interests (including those of the state) can end up crushing the freedom and existential interests and needs of the individual. Such a characteristic is typical of totalitarian societies. In principle, the traditions of healthy collectivism are the true foundation of human coexistence and of the humanization of personal and social life. 

COMMUNISM

Social system in which property is the common possession of all the people in accordance with the principle: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.” During a large part of the nineteenth century c. was synonymous with socialism, but following “The Communist Manifesto” of 1848 and other works by Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, these two terms gradually diverged. In Marx’s theory, socialism (*) represents a stage that will be succeeded by the communist society. Marxism (*) interpreted as Marxism-Leninism (*) posits a strong distinction between socialist and communist parties.

DOGMATISM

Mode of thinking that accepts certain opinions, doctrines and norms as unconditional postulates or principles, valid under any circumstance and accepted without criticism or rational judgment. It closes off the path to acquiring new knowledge and introducing innovations. It is characteristic of a narrow religious consciousness that upholds traditionalism and conservatism. The struggle against dogmatism facilitates the free development of science and the spread of knowledge concerning nature and society.

Dogmatism has always been and continues to be an obstacle to spiritual and social progress, ultimately leading to the objectification of the culture, to its isolation and destructuring (*).

Humanism developed historically in the resolute struggle against medieval dogmatism, introducing and putting into practice momentous cultural innovations. The universalist, open and creative spirit of New humanism carries forward in today’s world the struggle against all dogmatism, which artificially limits the creative capacities of human beings. The new dogmatism is the politically correct ism of many groups and organizations. Per ex. since the few years in many universities across Canada and in the U.S. teachers experiments difficulties to 

EQUALITY - Egalitarianism

Principle that recognizes in all citizens the capacity or possibility for the same rights. Human beings cannot be equal, because each one is a distinct person unique among its kind, unrepeatable in history, irreplaceable. However, in economic activity the worker and the manager are fully replaceable in their technological functions, social roles, etc. This alienation of the human being creates the illusion of universal equality.

Egalitarianism arises from such a foundation. Historically, two fundamental conceptions of egalitarianism have developed: equality of possibilities and equality of results. Very important here is the problem of the relationship between the contribution and the remuneration of the individual, between abilities and needs, as well as mechanisms for the redistribution of income. The social-democratic approach attempts to establish and bring about various forms of compromise between these two conceptions of egalitarianism.

Communists affirm the egalitarianism of persons with respect to the ownership of the means of production, rejecting private property as the cause of alienation and exploitation.

Conservatives reject the egalitarianism of results as a violation of the principles of freedom and human nature, as a deplorable practice that undermines the effective functioning of the social system.

New Humanism acknowledges the social egalitarianism of citizens before the law and nations with respect to their international rights as established in the charter of the United Nations, but does not accept egalitarianism as a social and political doctrine. At the same time, New Humanism condemns the neo-conservative orientation that seeks to preserve the privileges of both the elite of money and a tiny group of states at the expense of those social groups in greatest need and of developing countries.

EVOLUTION

The gradual and natural self-development of systems – social and organic – excluding abrupt or sudden transformations, especially artificial interventions, in the course of the natural process.

Evolution comprises an accumulation of changes that proceed toward growing complexity through a process extending over a more or less prolonged period of time.

In biological science the doctrine of evolution attempts to explain natural phenomena as successive transformations of a single primary, material reality subjected to perpetual movement, by virtue of which it passes from simple and homogeneous to compound and heterogeneous. 

This presents serious theoretical problems, though, because certain important cosmologies (and their derived biological positions) have attempted to prove that from an initial state everything continues being gradually transformed until the energy and order are dissipated. In recent years, however, following the study of dissipative structures (due especially to the work of Ilya Prigogine), the concept of evolution has been radically modified, altering not only the old conceptions but current ones as well still based on a simple entropic principle. In light of these conceptual changes, a fundamental revision is required, not only in the idea of evolution, but also, for example, in the field of the social sciences, in the idea of revolution, which implies a rupture or discontinuity in an evolutionary social process.

GLOBAL PROBLEM (*planetarization)

Refers to the complex of problems currently affecting all inhabitants of the Earth. Of interest to all peoples, and their solution demands coordinated action by all the world’s states and international organizations.

Among these problems priority needs to be given to the protection of the environment on a global level; effective guarantees of human rights in all spheres; guarantees for the free development of all cultures with equality of rights for all states and nations; guarantees of peace and disarmament; the prevention of nuclear war and local conflicts; balancing the growth of population and the resources of food, energy and raw materials necessary to sustain that growth; appropriate use of the resources of the world’s oceans and outer space; and the elimination of poverty and overcoming of underdevelopment.

These diverse global problems share a common nature in that they are the result of social progress, of the secular struggles in the course of the development of humankind, and their solution cannot be other than joint and systemic, a product of effective international cooperation by all states, institutions, organizations and movements.

Solving these problems calls for the formation of a mentality that is systemic and global, capable of counteracting and moving beyond national and group egoism, while manifesting respect for cultural diversity, national sovereignty and human rights – above all the right to a decent life.

PLANETARIZATION versus globalization

Planetarization is radically distinguished from the concept of globalization. Globalization corresponds to the trend toward imposing a worldwide homogeneity, driven by the financial interests, and international banking interests. Since, Berlin Wall felt globalization was advanced at the expense of diversity of expression, ideas, the autonomy of nation states, and at the expense of the identity of cultures and subcultures. Those that had preached globalization since the last few decades had sought to establish a worldwide system New Order based on an ostensibly “free” market economy. Both liberals, democrats and right wing political groups had preached globalization which has brought more mess and chaos to the global situation and in the daily life of billions of people.

NEW SURPASSING THE OLD

General tendency of the development of living structures, society and of human consciousness. If life is taken, not as an isolated and singular occurrence, but as a step of greater complexity in the structure of nature, then the universe itself can be considered as developing in an irreversible direction (following the arrow of time), in which simple structures tend to surpass their initial condition, interacting, grouping together, and finally achieving a greater complexity than that of the previous moment. On the other hand, if life is viewed as an isolated case and likewise the universe, as another singular phenomenon, then one cannot speak of the tendency of the surpassing of the old by the new. But, at the same time, such a view will render general science impossible ―there is no science of the singular and non-repeatable. Cosmologies as well as the biology of earlier eras opted for the tendency to imagine a universe that tends to lose energy and order. In this way, the organizations of increasing complexity were seen as singular cases, as phenomena of hazard.

For New Humanism, the new surpassing the old is a general tendency of the development of the universe. In the case of society, this tendency is expressed in generational dialectics, in which the new generations finally prevail. In the consciousness it is expressed in the temporal dialectic in which future time has primacy; and history, as the surpassing of present moments by other, more complex ones that advance toward an irreversible future. It is in the destructuring  of any system where the rupture brought about by the new surpassing the old is verified. Nevertheless, the most progressive elements of the previous stage are incorporated into the new evolutionary step, and the elements that do not adapt to the changed conditions are discarded.

CONCLUSION

I would like to conclude with the presentation of the humanist attitude, which is shared by many people from various political backgrounds, mostly from the left to the centrism. Obviously when we speak of a humanist attitude we are not referring to a specific political party. Beyond any theoretical definition, the humanist attitude can be understood as a “sensibility,” a way of approaching the human world in which the intentionality and freedom of others are acknowledged and in which one assumes a commitment to non-violent struggle against discrimination, racism and violence. 

HUMANIST ATTITUDE

The humanist attitude existed long before words such as “humanism,” “humanist,” and others like them had been coined. The following positions are common to humanists of all cultures: 1) placement of the human being as the central value and concern; 2) affirmation of the equality of all human beings; 3) recognition of personal and cultural diversity; 4) a tendency to develop knowledge beyond conventional wisdom or that imposed as absolute truth; 5) affirmation of the freedom of ideas and beliefs; and 6) repudiation of violence.

___________________

Reference - the World Center for Humanist Studies which presented a short series of vocabularies intended to familiarize readers with the themes most frequently encountered in the texts of Universalist humanism.