Ideologies and ideological conflict play a key role in contemporary societies. Although religion still influences the thinking and behaviour of many people around the world, secular belief systems or worldviews arguably have come to play an even more significant or dominant role. In part, this can be attributed to the influence of new (non-religious or secular) ways of thinking on the day-to-day lives of people in modern societies. New ways of looking at the world and societies emerged with the development and application of science and technology, with consequences for how people worked and lived, notably through industrialisation and urbanisation. While these new ways of seeing the world are rooted in secular beliefs rather than faith, they have also been equally divisive, leading to conflicts and wars. Secularisation has not led to pacification and harmony.
The main reason why the new doctrines, some of which are discussed briefly below, clash with each other is that they serve the interests of different groups in (modern) society. Inevitably, how one looks at the world depends on one’s position and experiences in society. These shape or influence ideas about how good or bad existing societies (including their political arrangements) are, and whether and how they should or must be changed. Yet, at the same time, people’s views and ideas are shaped or influenced by others (families, friends, schools, media) who do not necessarily share the same position and experiences. How strong these “external” influences are is essentially a matter of power. Power comes in different forms, including the capacity to get into people’s minds and way of thinking. The extent to which (secular and religious) worldviews are supported in societies is largely the result of this “battle for the hearts and minds”. Who wins that battle will decide the future of societies and the world.
The emergence of modernity and secular worldviews
From the 16th century, the belief in observation, human reason, and science as means of gaining a better understanding of the world began to gain currency. Although many early scientists, including Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, René Descartes and Isaac Newton, were all religious men who did not consider that religion and science were incompatible, over two centuries, as Koestler pointed out, science “transformed the mental outlook of homo sapiens and transformed the face of his planet”.[1] The Catholic church was losing much of its legitimacy because of its corrupt practices and the perceived hypocrisy of its clergy. At the same time that Luther and Calvin initiated the Reformation, seeking to create a more authentic form of Christianity free from superstition, idolatry, hypocrisy, oppression, and corruption that they observed in the Catholic Church, the scientific view of the world began to take hold. It combined a belief in the human capacity to manipulate the biophysical world with the view that societies could be changed and improved in the service of human ends and progress. Despite their differences, these beliefs have become the fundamental tenets of modernity and underlie most secular belief systems that have emerged over the past three centuries.
Although religious belief systems did not disappear, new or renewed worldviews emerged that sought to make sense of the discoveries and the changes occurring in societies and the world, brought about by individual and collective human agency. The Scientific Revolution and the Renaissance, which generated a revival of humanism inspired in part by Ancient Greek philosophers, laid the basis for a human-centred (anthropocentric) view of the world. During the Age of Enlightenment, these ideas were further developed and applied to philosophy, political thought, and society. People began to question the political and social order, believing that societies and political systems can and should be changed for the benefit of all rather than the few. Ideologies emerged, including liberalism and socialism, that articulated revolutionary principles of political and human rights, the fundamental equality of people, and democracy, ideas that inspired, among others, the American, French, and Russian revolutions. The tenets of modernity (belief in human reason, progress, science, and technology) became entrenched in Western culture and were internalised by Christians and non-Christians alike.[2]
The modernist worldview, broadly speaking, suggests that humans can enhance their lives by employing reason, science, and technological innovation. However, it is not merely a scientific approach to the world; it also has a normative dimension that places humans and their well-being at the centre of concern. Humans are seen as standing at the apex of (or even above) nature, which justifies viewing (the rest of) nature as resources that can be used for human purposes. Enabled by science and technology, this view opened the door to the unprecedented exploitation of nature, notably through industrialisation. In turn, industrialisation brought about social changes and the emergence of modern societies, characterised by, among other things, large-scale production and mass consumption, rapid urbanisation, changing class systems, and modern education and healthcare systems. As discussed on the Industrial production page, the organisation and regimentation of modern life based on the needs of the industrial production system (like the separation between work and free time, wage labour, working hours, the adaptation of (family) life and residence to work, technology and innovation, consumerism as the reward for work or even the meaning of life, became hallmarks of modern life that are taken for granted no matter the prevailing political ideology and/or political-economic system Virtually all political ideologies, no matter how much they are in conflict, are rooted in this modernist worldview with its belief in continuous “progress” (based on science and technological innovation, with a continuous rise in the standard of living as the leading indicator.
Ideologies and ideological struggles
Yet, the rise of modernity did not imply the emergence of widespread societal agreement on how societies should be changed and/or on what constitutes a better society or world. The term ideology can be defined as a view on human society with two components: first, an interpretation of how and why society is what it is; second, a view of what is a good or desirable society. The term ideology, thus, applies to the human world, not the biophysical world. While a worldview is a view of “how the world works” that encompasses interpretations of the biophysical and human worlds (often seen as closely intertwined), ideologies make claims about “how society works” and how it should work. Nonetheless, the separation is not always sharp, and ideologies are sometimes explicitly and often implicitly grounded in views of biophysical reality (notably, views of human nature, as in sociobiology).[3] Yet, it is essential to distinguish between the empirical and normative bases of worldviews and ideologies, as the former can be challenged on the grounds of plausibility (notably by science). In contrast, the latter are based on values rooted in social and individual sources that can be contested but not disproven or declared invalid. For instance, justice and equality may be core principles of an ideology, but can’t be dismissed as untrue because, in reality, there is much injustice and inequality. At the same time, societies, groups and individuals can hold different views on justice and equality. Although one can argue that all humans (and even primates) have, by nature, a sense of justice and fairness, in practice, what this means is determined by the groups and societies within which they exist. These distinctions and observations are highly relevant to science and scientists’ claims about whether and/or how societies and individuals should be “improved”.
Therefore, the Enlightenment idea that societies and individuals can be improved or even perfected did not automatically lead to societal agreement on what this means. Rather, linked to differences in people’s positions and experiences in society, it led to the development of a wide range of ideas and often conflicting ideologies, among others, within and between the broad schools of liberalism and socialism. At the same time, while many of these views implied the desirability of political-economic and socio-cultural change, others emphasised the importance of conserving the traditional values and institutions on which societies were based, including those of the monarchy and religion. Thus, from the 17th century onward, societies have been locked in a battle for the hearts and minds between rival beliefs, religions, and ideologies competing for dominance and hegemony. In particular, from the 19th century, two ideologies dominated this battle: liberalism and socialism.
Liberalism and Socialism
As noted above, these ideological and political struggles were linked to differences in social positions and classes, including those whose power and wealth were based on feudal institutions, the expanding capitalist class (the bourgeoisie), and the growing industrial working class. Initially, the battle was between liberalism and conservatism, with the rising bourgeoisie seeking to wrest power from monarchs and aristocrats whose power was primarily based on land ownership. From a Marxist perspective, liberalism was (as neoliberalism is now) an ideology that serves foremost the interests of the capitalist class. Its emphasis on liberty implies, foremost, non-interference by the monarch or state with the “free market” of goods and services offered by privately owned businesses, and the protection of their property rights, which are considered natural or sacred. In many Western countries, the capitalist class won this battle through revolutions or by the threat of revolution, resulting in the establishment of constitutional monarchies or republics. The class-based nature of liberalism was revealed by the restriction of the franchise (the right to vote) to property owners, with universal suffrage (for men and women) in most countries only granted in the 20th century. However, it manifested primarily as the pursuit of unregulated (“market”) freedom to exploit people and nature, a practice also justified on economic grounds as leading to the maximisation of efficiency.
Socialism emerged in reaction to the exploitation and misery suffered by the working class. While early socialists (such as Robert Owen and Charles Fourier) sought to develop an alternative economic system from the ground up, Marx and Engels characterised such attempts as Utopian because they did not address the root causes of exploitation inherent in capitalism. Instead, they sought to create an economic system based on the collective ownership of the means of production, one that would serve the interests of workers and society and be guided by egalitarian principles. As support for socialism increased among the organised labour movement and led to the creation of socialist and communist parties, it posed a serious threat to the capitalist class. Due to the social misery caused by economic crises, the Russian revolution, the rise of fascism and the atrocities committed by fascist regimes, and the two world wars, capitalism and liberalism were thoroughly discredited. Capitalism was only saved by allowing non-revolutionary socialists (Social Democrats) to play a major role in its management, leading to the blossoming of social democracy in many Western countries from WWII until the early 1980s.
Social Democracy and Neoliberalism
However, as the contradictions inherent to capitalism reasserted themselves in the 1970s, the advocates of liberalism saw a chance to roll back the power gained by the labour movement and social democrats, offering neoliberal recipes for economic stagnation and “stagflation”, and pushing these through the political systems, starting in the United States and the United Kingdom, with the help of capitalist interests. As a result, in the 1980s, neoliberalism, promoted and often imposed by international organisations like the World Bank and the IMF, became the dominant ideology worldwide.[4] Its rise to hegemonic status was consolidated by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which led political analysts to declare the “end of ideology” as the combination of liberal democracy and capitalism had proved to be the only realistic political-economic system. This claim (“There is no alternative” – TINA) implied that it was now socialism that had been thoroughly discredited as an alternative economic system.
Although in economic and government circles, neoliberalism is said to be grounded on (neo-classical) economic theory that provides the basis for promoting “sound” economic policy, economic growth, and ever-increasing standards of living, it has been argued that it has a weak empirical basis and that it is better regarded as a belief system, religion or a form of secular theology.[5] It is a belief system that has captured the economic profession, which overwhelmingly subscribes to its normative prescriptions and does not question the flawed and unrealistic assumptions on which it is based.[6] These include assumptions that economic growth can continue indefinitely and that environmental problems can best be resolved by creating markets, including for water, specific forms of pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. As such, neoliberalism and the neoclassical ideas on which it is based are fundamentally at odds with the view that addressing environmental problems more effectively requires recognising environmental (including ecological) limits or boundaries. It ignores biophysical and ecological realities, the interconnectedness of the environment, and the interrelated causes and sources of environmental problems. It also rejects the need for collective green planning, as it does not align well with the idea that markets (in practice, businesses), rather than governments, know best how to address environmental problems.
The belief that a self-regulating market is antithetical to environmental and social protection became apparent in the 19th century, in Britain, and other countries where capitalism and industrialisation were given free rein. Karl Polanyi argued that “the idea of a self-adjusting market implied a stark utopia. Such an institution could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society.” [7] This has become increasingly apparent as the pursuit of neoliberal policies, which put abstract economic goals or imperatives above any other considerations, has led to an ever-deteriorating environment as well as the breakdown of the social welfare systems, manifesting itself, among others, in the return of homelessness and beggars even in so-called developed countries.[8] Moreover, it has become apparent that these policies have failed to deliver on their promises (sustained economic growth and improved standards of living), while they have led to increased financial and economic instability and crises, as well as a sharpening of inequality.[9]
Yet, despite growing criticism of neoliberalism and its perceived responsibility for many problems, it has proven remarkably resilient as a hegemonic ideology and continues to maintain a grip on governments.[10] In large part, this can be attributed to the extent to which neoliberal ideology and principles have been entrenched in political-economic systems, which continue to be held up by the most powerful as the only realistic options. This is affirmed by most economists and the mainstream media, which have been captured by this ideology. Unsurprisingly, most people do not and cannot consider that there are other ways to run the economy. Thus, economic thinking and policy have been depoliticised, as political parties across the political spectrum accept the existing economic paradigm as reality and do not offer significantly different views or policies, apart from varying in their willingness to adopt measures to mitigate the pain caused by these policies for the most vulnerable. But, in large part, the depoliticisation of economic thinking can also be attributed to the widespread acceptance of the underlying tenets of modernity mentioned above, notably in today’s industrial societies.
Industrialism: a common and insidious ideology
Over the past three centuries, the general beliefs associated with modernity (human reason, progress, science, and technology) have evolved into more specific forms as industry, science, and technology have developed. “Progress” can be interpreted differently depending on the kind of things (values) it is linked to. For instance, progress can be defined in terms of the eradication of poverty and hunger, the minimisation of crime and violence in and between societies, the minimisation or elimination of pollution, high-quality housing for all people, vibrant community life, highly effective disease prevention, the flourishing of individual talents through education and the cultivation of cultural activities, just to name a few things. However, in industrialised and industrialising societies, “progress” was defined foremost by the scale of production and, by implication, the consumption of an ever-growing number and range of products and services. As these things must be purchased, ever-rising incomes (purchasing power) are de facto used as the primary yardstick of progress. Materialism, consumerism, and a high standard of living became the dominant values of industrial societies, regardless of whether they had capitalist or socialist economic systems. As discussed on other pages, this is not just a matter of “addiction” to growth, but an inherent imperative to capitalism and industrial production. This is reflected in the type of data and statistics that dominate economic reporting and policy-making, as well as in the political primacy of economic growth in virtually all political-economic systems.
This is not to say that people and societies do not hold other values, like those mentioned above. But in almost all political-economic systems, the key to advancing these other values is deemed to lie in continuous economic growth, an inherent imperative of industrialism. All the qualitative aspects or dimensions of improving individuals and societies have become tied up with this overriding priority, even though the adverse effects of the enormous growth of production and consumption for societies and the environment have long become obvious, and increasingly so. Nevertheless, as long as capitalism and industrialism stay the unquestioned pillars of “progress” (linked also to the ongoing development of science and technology), the flow of (in part unforeseen and unforeseeable) adverse effects will also continue unabated.
Although a range of critical thinkers has cast doubt on the desirability of these developments, signalling the poverty (“one-dimensionality”) of materialism and consumerism, their adverse effects on individuals and societies, the risks of the emergence of a totalitarian technocracy, and pointed out their severe environmental impacts, the belief in “industrial modernity” remains very strong, in so-called developed and developing countries. As the idea that improving people’s lives (“progress”) requires, foremost, the expansion of production and consumption has become a virtually universal non-political value.
The end of ideology?
Nonetheless, developments in the decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union did not bring about the “end of history” as some analysts had claimed or expected.[11] The intensifying social pain and misery caused by neoliberal (austerity) policies, accompanied by a sharp rise in inequality and recurring financial-economic crises, eroded the legitimacy of neoliberal ideology and government policies. Brexit and Donald Trump’s election are manifestations of a broader trend in many countries, in which neoliberalism has been eroding the social fabric that once held societies together, leading to social disintegration crises, as Polanyi predicted. Unsurprisingly, various political forces exploit the growing political legitimacy vacuum by advancing competing ideologies to advance their agendas. Again, political and ideological battle lines are drawn. However, as actually existing socialist systems have virtually disappeared (apart from perhaps Cuba), and as most of these countries have adopted capitalism as the motor of economic development (more or less integrated with the “global market”), ideological stances are being recast to serve the interests and goals of their main protagonists under new conditions.
The revival of ideological battles
Although it appeared that ideological differences had disappeared behind the screen of depoliticisation, they have again become more apparent and pronounced as support for neoliberal policies and governments has eroded. The sharpening of economic inequality and social disintegration crises leads to the rediscovery of old truths, such as the importance of society and the role of government in providing collective goods. The intensification of environmental deterioration further underscores the importance of collective decision-making in safeguarding the future of societies and humanity.
Yet, as always, these pressures are interpreted differently by various groups and interests shaped by their social positions. The “new” ideological battle lines are drawn not just based on views on how societies (and the world) can and should be “improved”, but also on the relative power of different groups and their influence on the dominant political discourse. Presently, five main ideological camps can be identified in this contest: fascism, economic cosmopolitanism, pragmatic nationalism, “green” ideology, and democratic socialism. Of these five, the first four dominate public discourse, while democratic socialism struggles to be accepted as a serious contender. The main reason is that the first four ideologies do not challenge capitalism, while democratic (eco-) socialism is (correctly) perceived as a threat to the dominant system and interests.
Fascism
Fascism arguably is the frontrunner in this contest and has already mobilised large proportions of the electorates in many countries, be it under different labels. Although the label fascism is often used loosely and has been defined differently, it can be characterised as an ideology based on the following tenets: first, a belief in the desirability or even necessity of a strong leader; second, a belief in the need for a strong state; third, extreme nationalism; and fourth, the need for a strong military to protect and enhance the state and nation. These four tenets hang together, creating a reasonably coherent (albeit blinkered) ideology.[12] The belief in the importance of a strong leader is arguably the most fundamental tenet of fascism. Groups, hierarchy, inequality and the superiority of some individuals are seen as natural features of humankind. The use of physical force (aggression) is regarded as another natural human characteristic or tendency. It is natural for individuals to subject themselves to (strong and superior) leaders in any group context. This is also justified by the primacy of the group, whose interests have priority over those of individuals. In the modern world, this means the primacy of the state and nation (the nation-state). Nations are deemed (or meant) to be culturally homogeneous, and to have well-defined geographical bases and deep historical roots. Pride in the nation and its culture is the glue keeping societies together. Families and state institutions play a key role in transmitting and sustaining that culture. The state is the political arm of the nation. The use of force by the state is justified to protect and pursue the interests of the nation-state.
It is not difficult to see many of these features in the political-ideological sphere of many countries, even though they are not labelled or referred to as support for fascism. Fascism, of course, has been widely and officially condemned because of its atrocious record, in particular in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. For that reason, few people openly admit to advocating or supporting fascism, which is now often referred to by the label “far-right”. But although there is always scope for different interpretations of political stances, frequently used to discredit particular political leaders and/or movements, it is difficult to deny that tenets of the ideology of fascism can be found in the proclamations and actions of a growing number of political movements, leaders, and people around the world. In many countries, “strong leaders” have gained power, and nationalism and the far right are flourishing, even in the heartlands of liberal democracy. Although such authoritarian regimes tend to be referred to euphemistically as “illiberal democracies” [13], one would be justified in calling them breeding grounds of fascism. Arguably, the Trump presidency in the USA was such a breeding ground.
It is easy to condemn fascism. It is much more difficult to uproot its causes or sources. Much of the blame can be attributed to hegemonic neoliberalism. Neoliberal regimes set out to systematically dismantle social democracy, the power of the labour movement, and abolish or weaken state institutions and policies aimed at meeting the fundamental needs of people and societies. The extreme concentration of wealth and power that has resulted from virtually unbridled capitalism, within and across countries, has subjugated states and governments to the imperatives of capital. Noting the incapability and unwillingness of governments and all the mainstream political parties to protect the vital needs and interests of people and societies, many people have lost their faith in the prevailing political-economic systems (“the establishment”) and are switching their support to those who promise to put their interests, and those of their country, first.[14] At least initially, Hitler was seen as a saviour, as he lifted Germany out of a severe economic depression, among other things, by building motorways and a formidable arms industry. Credited with making the trains run on time, his government was perceived as controlling the economy rather than as a plaything of capitalism. Thus, people can be easily trapped by the promises of fascism, especially as it comes in different guises.
It would be a mistake to see fascism as an anti-capitalist ideology. Although fascism advocates a strong state, this does not imply nationalisation of the means of production or introducing other forms of collective ownership. Rather, fascist states co-opt the capitalist “captains of industry” (now commonly referred to as billionaires) to run the economy, offering them privileged access to power and economic advantages in exchange for their support for the “great leader”. By contrast, fascists hate socialists and communists. Fascist regimes have a history of suppressing workers, trade unions, and of “eliminating” socialist leaders and intellectuals. Not surprisingly, fascist regimes and capitalism go well together.
Economic cosmopolitanism
Nonetheless, there are indications of a growing awareness of the risks posed by the re-emergence of fascism in liberal-democratic circles. Rather than pushing further for unregulated economic globalisation, they now admit that governments have a legitimate role in regulating and stabilising the global economy to distribute the benefits of globalisation more fairly between and within nations. I refer to this enlightened version of the ideology of global capitalism as economic cosmopolitanism.[15] Economic cosmopolitanism does not abandon economic globalisation but borrows from cosmopolitanism the moral stance that we should care about the basic human needs and potential of people (their essential human nature) wherever they reside. This ideology opens the door to global economic regulation, addressing the drivers of financial instability and crisis, international debt restructuring, and international measures to control tax evasion, crime, and corruption. It could also introduce a form of global taxation to achieve a more equitable distribution of income and investment, ultimately benefiting the most vulnerable populations.
A more radical idea advocated by its proponents is the abolition of national borders and the granting of the right to migrate wherever one chooses, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, but also because it is expected to bring about a levelling of standards of living (and wages) worldwide. Arguably, economic cosmopolitanism can be understood as applying certain tenets of social democracy at the global level, aiming to create fairer societies without abolishing capitalism. Like social democracy saved capitalism (very successfully) in the aftermath of World War II, economic cosmopolitanism is now seen as a possible saviour of global capitalism.
It is not difficult to identify the primary basis of support for this ideology. It serves the interests of international and global capitalists to keep alive the idea that economic globalisation is both inevitable and in everyone’s interests. However, recognising that unbridled global capitalism has had severely adverse social consequences for many people, and admitting that it is prone to recurrent crises, they now acknowledge that there is scope, or even a need, for international regulation and softening the sharp edges of neoliberalism.
Yet, it is more difficult to see that economic cosmopolitanism will garner much support worldwide. Although many people have come to accept aspects of globalisation (notably in the spheres of communication, entertainment, and commerce), they have become increasingly aware and wary of the extent to which it has weakened local and national industries, hollowed out sovereignty and the power of states, and contributed to mass migration. Also, whether or how economic cosmopolitanism can be made to work (lacking global consensus as well as practicality, and if so, what difference it would make to the well-being of most people) are largely matters of speculation and/or faith. Yet, given the enormous (cognitive) power wielded by international capital, this ideology is often portrayed as the most “realistic”, moral and desirable.
Pragmatic nationalism
However, actual developments, including a global pandemic, serious environmental threats, and rising public demands for more decisive government action and protection, push governments and societies in a different direction. Faced with the immediate threats posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, governments were compelled to implement stringent measures, including border controls and economic support packages, to safeguard their citizens. Even in the European Union, countries reverted to their own sovereign powers to impose controls. Similarly, with climate change and other aggravating environmental problems and disasters (droughts, floods, heat stress, more damaging cyclones, all kinds of pollution, worsening food security, and others), governments are forced to boost their capacity to organise major relief operations and to undertake large-scale infrastructural works to reduce their country’s vulnerability. Economic stagnation (in part due to the slowdown in global economic integration) compels governments to assume a more active role in the economy to address adverse socio-economic effects. All these pressures favour an ideology that may be termed pragmatic nationalism. The central tenet of this ideology is that people and governments should reclaim the right and power to protect their citizens against all kinds of developments and threats.[16] This does not necessarily imply a pursuit of self-sufficiency or autarchy, nor does it entail abandoning international trade and cooperation. However, rather than placing one’s faith in strengthening international or global regulation (as advocated by economic cosmopolitans), pragmatic nationalism entails selective de-globalisation and the restoration of national sovereignty in the collective interests of a country’s population and domestic economy.
Pragmatic nationalism should not be confused with fascism. It does not claim or advocate strong leaders, is not based on notions of cultural or racist superiority, does not advocate extreme nationalism, and does not emphasise the importance of building a strong military. However, it does advocate recognising the importance of states in meeting the fundamental needs of citizens, rather than leaving this to the (global) market. It can be seen as an ideological reaction to the social and environmental unravelling caused by the “free market”, aimed at the protection and self-preservation of society, as depicted by Polanyi. However, it remains largely silent about what political-economic system is necessary or desirable. In this respect, pragmatic nationalism does not explicitly question or challenge capitalism.
For this reason, pragmatic nationalism may have broad social support. It may be acceptable or attractive to those on the traditional right and left, including small business owners (for instance, those whose businesses are sustained by government support, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, and severe economic downturns).
Green ideology
Green ideology taps into the rich veins of environmental and critical thinking. Although environmental protection (“ecological wisdom”) is one of its key tenets, it is not the only one. In its political form, the green ideology (as exemplified by green parties) has always taken a much broader stance, encompassing social justice principles, nonviolence, and participatory or grassroots democracy. Over time, green parties worldwide have added to these principles. However, green parties have consistently held differing views on how to implement these principles in practice, particularly when they are positioned to serve as partners in, or supporters of, a government coalition. While some emphasise the need to make concessions to gain influence or power, others see this as a betrayal and advocate implementing principles through social action and practices. The mixed record of green parties in government does not help to build their support base. While their pragmatism may make them more appealing to some people in the electorate, it alienates many traditional green voters. Although in many countries, green parties have gained political (electoral) support, which has enabled them to advance some of their goals, their achievements have been controversial and modest at best.[18] And, in all countries, their electoral support has remained well below what is required for them to become the main party in government and to enable them to “green” the political-economic system and policies.
Democratic ecosocialism
By contrast, democratic ecosocialism is clearly and explicitly political and ideological. As discussed on the Political-economic systems and Democratic socialism pages, democratic socialism has not (yet) had an actual counterpart at the national level. Distinct from social democracy, democratic socialism advocates the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of an economic system grounded in socialist principles (collective ownership of the means of production, rational economic planning, and egalitarianism). But it combines these with democracy as a core value. In contrast to liberal democracy, socialist democracy is not confined to the election of representatives; it extends democracy to the economic sphere, granting people the right to participate in economic decision-making at all levels. Moreover, it makes environmental sustainability another core value, as this is the basis for meeting human needs and the functioning of the ecosystems on which all life on Earth depends. Thus, democratic ecosocialism aims to re-embed the economy within societies and embed societies within the (global and sub-global) ecological systems.[17]
While democratic ecosocialism is not an ideology that is widely recognised, let alone supported, it offers a realistic basis for creating more sustainable and desirable societies. It is realistic because it accepts the biophysical reality within which the real economy must operate if human resource use and technologies are to be sustainable, in contrast to neoliberal (or standard) economic thinking that does not accept (or even see) this reality. It also puts people’s (material and non-material) interests above the abstract imperatives of an economic system based on highly flawed premises. It recognises that humans are more than consumers and/or taxpayers, and that democracy implies that all people have the right to participate in how they govern themselves, in multiple ways and across all spheres of life. However, regardless of how realistic and/or attractive such principles are, support for ecosocialism is constrained by the high degree of bias and hostility that socialist ideas face in the Western mass media, especially in the United States.
The ongoing battles for the hearts and minds
Which ideology prevails in the struggle for the hearts and minds is not foremost dependent on the extent to which their empirical (knowledge) basis can be considered the most plausible, realistic and/or supported by science. Rather, it depends on how compelling the protagonists of ideologies are in persuading people that what they advocate is not only “true” but also most closely aligned with their values, interests, beliefs, and feelings. The distribution of power in all its forms, including economic and cognitive power, plays a crucial role in this regard, as those who own or control the media have a clear advantage over advocates of competing ideologies.
In many countries to date, the proponents of economic cosmopolitanism have the advantage. However, they are fiercely contested by the advocates of fascism and are forced to heed the rising support for (pragmatic and extreme) nationalism. As neoliberal tenets have been institutionally entrenched, the former also continue to hold most governments and state institutions (political-institutional power) in their grip. For instance, the “interventionist” approaches adopted by governments during the COVID-19 pandemic, financial crises, and natural disasters are considered warranted only because they are seen as addressing exceptional events or circumstances. While many people thought that the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2009, and/or the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrated the need for a significant “rethink” or reset, governments (like businesses) did everything to return their economies and societies to “business-as-usual” as quickly as possible. At the same time, few people question the central tenets of modernity and industrialism, notably the belief that “progress” means ever-rising living standards and the continuous development of science and technology to improve the lives of people and societies. Thus, changing the dominant belief system to create sustainable societies remains a daunting challenge.
References
[1] Koestler, Arthur Kindle 2014 ed.), The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. London: Penguin Classics, 498.
[2] White, Lynn (1967), “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, Science, Vol . 155, No.3767, pp.1203-1207, 1206.
[3] Wilson, Edward O. (1978), On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Pinker, Steven (2002), The Blank Slate. The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books.
[4] Harvey, David (2005), A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press; Cerny, Philip G., et al. (2005), “Different Roads to Globalization: Neoliberalism, the Competition State, and Politics in a More Open World”, in S. Soederberg, et al. (eds.), Internalizing Globalization. The Rise of Neoliberalism and the Decline of National Varieties of Capitalism. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-30.
[5] Harvey, David, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, 21-22; Hobsbawm, Eric J. (1995), Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991. London: Abacus, Little, Brown and Company, 548; Keen, Steve (2011), Debunking Economics. The Naked Emperor Dethroned? London: Zed Books, Loc 2043-2044.
[6] Keen, Steve, Debunking Economics. The Naked Emperor Dethroned? London: Zed Books, Chapter 8; Raworth, K. (2017), Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Random House; Chang, Ha-Joon (2010), 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism. London: Allen Lane.
[7] Polanyi, Karl (1944, 1957 ed.), The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 3-4.
[8] Klein, Naomi (2007), The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Picador; Klein, Naomi (2014), This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Books; Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network (SAPRIN) (2013, ebook ed.), Structural Adjustment. The SAPRI Report: The Policy Roots of Economic Crisis, Poverty and Inequality. London: Zed Books; Chomsky, Noam (1999, Seven Stories Press 1st ed.), Profit over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order. New York: Seven Stories Press.
[9] Ostry, Jonathan D., et al. (2016), “Neoliberalism: Oversold?”, Finance and Development, June, 38-41; Stiglitz, Joseph E. and Members of a UN Commission of Financial Experts (2010), The Stiglitz Report. Reforming the International and Monetary Systems in the Wake of the Global Crisis. New York and London: The New Press.
[10] Cerny, Philip G. (2014), “Globalization and the Resilience of Neoliberalism”, Critical Policy Studies, Vol. 8, No.3, 359-362.
[11] Fukuyama, Francis (1992), The End of History and the Last Man. New York, Toronto: Free Press; Maxwell Macmillan Canada.
[12] This view of fascism is at odds with those who see it as a set of contradictory views and ideas. See, for instance, Passmore, Kevin (2002), Fascism. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25. However, incoherence can be found within all ideologies, as these often exhibit multiple streams, including liberalism, socialism, anarchism, feminism, and environmentalism. Yet it is helpful to identify the core beliefs shared by most adherents of an ideology.
[13] Zakaria, Fareed (1997), “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy”, Foreign Affairs, Vol . 76, 22-43.
[14] Mounk, Yascha (2018), “Could a Populist Moment Become the Populist Age?”, The Guardian Weekly, Publication date: 6 April, 26-29.
[15] Economic cosmopolitanism is not a common expression, but it seems an appropriate label for those who now sell a form of economic globalisation that is globally regulated and whose benefits are more fairly distributed. The enlightened section of the World Economic Forum (the “Davos Club”) can be seen as the transnational social class basis for this ideology. Robinson, William I. (2017), “Debate on the New Global Capitalism: Transnational Capitalist Class, Transnational State Apparatuses, and Global Crisis”, International Critical Thought, Vol. 7, No.2, pp.171-189. Billionaire philanthropists such as Bill Gates appear to have become increasingly concerned about the well-being of the disadvantaged worldwide. The term philanthrocapitalism has also been used in this context. Thompson, Carol (2018), “Philanthrocapitalism: Rendering the Public Domain Obsolete?”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 39, No.1, 51-67. See also Giridharadas, Anand (2018), Winners Take All. The Elite Charade of Changing the World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
[16] Colin Hines, William Michell and Thomas Fazi can be seen as advocates of this school of thought, even though they don’t use this label. Hines, Colin (2017, ebook ed.), Progressive Protectionism: Taking Back Control. Park House Press: Mitchell, William and Thomas Fazi (2017, ebook ed.), Reclaiming the State: A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World. London: Pluto Press.
[17] Pepper, David (1993), Ecosocialism. From Deep Ecology to Social Justice. London and New York: Routledge; Williams, Chris (2010), Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to the Capitalist Ecological Crisis. Chicago: Haymarket Books;
[18] Poguntke, Thomas (2002), “Green Parties in National Governments: From Protest to Acquiescence?”, Environmental Politics, Vol. 11, No.1, pp.133-145; Rihoux, Benoît and Wolfgang Rüdig (2006), “Analyzing Greens in Power: Setting the Agenda”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 45, No.1, 1-33.