NationStates Jolt Archive

I was browsing wikipedia when I came across this template (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Political_ideology_entry_points). I read it down, Anarchism, Christian Democracy (I shuddered here), Communism (meh), Communitarianism, Conservativism... Wait a second, did that say Communitarianism? What the hell is Communitarianism? I read the article and did some reasearch on line, and I couldn't figure it out. I really think in terms of a Nolan Chart, so what is its positions on issues?

What don't you understand about it?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

So are they like, Nationalist Populists? Except that the nation represents society. Its says their centrist but their policies don't seem centrist to me.

It's another name for fascism. Only this time it is the "community" not the "state" that is worshipped.

So are they like, Nationalist Populists? Except that the nation represents society. Its says their centrist but their policies don't seem centrist to me.

No. They focus on civil society.

Maybe this article will help. http://www.slate.com/id/2380

It's another name for fascism. Only this time it is the "community" not the "state" that is worshipped.

Come now. I'm not a communitarian, but that is rather silly.

No. They focus on civil society.

Maybe this article will help. http://www.slate.com/id/2380
That looks long.

So my guess is Libertarian : Republican :: Communitarian : Democrat? (Which would be unfrortunate because I am a Liberatarian who really hates republicans.)

Come now. I'm not a communitarian, but that is rather silly.

It subordinates the individual to a greater whole; it empahsizes responsibilities over rights; it claims to be a "third way". And from what I can gather, some communitarians are rather prudish/puritanical. All it lacks is nationalism.

Granted I exaggerate somewhat, but fascism didn't start out all death camps and secret police either.

In any case, I am deeply, deeply suspicious of any ideology that purports to improve the polis by improving the individual. It never works, and people should have the right to be anti-social douchebags without the fear of reprisals from the government or government sanctioned organizations.

That looks long.

So my guess is Libertarian:Republican::Communitarian:Democrat? (Which would be unfrortunate because I am a Liberatarian who really hates republicans.)

Look, I've given you several fine articles.

I'm not sure what"Libertarian:Republican::Communitarian:Democrat?" means.

But if you are a hard-core Libertarian, then Communitarianism is not your cup of tea.

Maybe this source (http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/about.html)is simple enough for you. It is definitely a good resource.

Look, I've given you several fine articles.

I'm not sure what"Libertarian:Republican::Communitarian:Democrat?" means.

But if you are a hard-core Libertarian, then Communitarianism is not your cup of tea.
Its standard SAT analogy notation. Your right, when I first read the name I knew it wasn't my cup of jin-tea-Vult mixture with a bit of cream and Kool Cubes (tm).

So why hasn't some highly successful third party (snicker snicker snicker) come out of this wonderful political idea?

It subordinates the individual to a greater whole; it empahsizes responsibilities over rights; it claims to be a "third way". And from what I can gather, some communitarians are rather prudish/puritanical. All it lacks is nationalism.

Granted I exaggerate somewhat, but fascism didn't start out all death camps and secret police either.

In any case, I am deeply, deeply suspicious of any ideology that purports to improve the polis by improving the individual. It never works, and people should have the right to be anti-social douchebags without the fear of reprisals from the government or government sanctioned organizations.

You exaggerate more than somewhat.

I'm not really in a position to defend a political ideology that I don't agree with myself, but a communitarian would say that they don't subordinate the individual to society, emphasize reponsibilities over rights, etc.

They maximize an individual as a political animal rather than an autonomous being. This doesn't subordinate the individual.

They balance strong rights with strong responsibilities. They don't place responsibility over rights.

Etc, etc, etc.

On the one hand I've got Exomina who wants a one-word descriptor and on the other hand you that are willing to vastly oversimplify and villify. Oy vey.

They maximize an individual as a political animal rather than an autonomous being. This doesn't subordinate the individual.


My understanding is the communitarian view is that they reject the notion of a universal theory of justice for that reason. In other words, all of our political and moral choices are goverened by the language and mores of the framework we inhabit (i.e. our community), and therefore establishing 'universal' morality or rights is impossible. I find that disturbing, and for me at least, it does subordinate the individual. (In that it presupposes that our rights can be arbitrarly dictated by the conventions of the day).

I also gather, that communitarians, by viewing the individual "as a political" animal place far greater emphasis on our communal connections as consitutive of our identity, and therefore, when there is a conflict between responsibilities towards the community and matters of individual choice or self determination, communitarians will tend to protect the former rather than the latter. I'm not saying that no individual rights would be protected at the expense of the community of course; obviously it would be an empirical matter to be determined on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, I can see how that could lead to a slide into authoritarianism.

It's a while since I read any of this stuff in depth though. So I could have the wrong end of the stick. I do remember being troubled by it at the time. (Especially the "third way" business, that's never good news).

On the one hand I've got Exomina who wants a one-word descriptor and on the other hand you that are willing to vastly oversimplify and villify. Oy vey.

Yeah, but you know dead tonnes of stuff Cat. That's why we love you.

Its standard SAT analogy notation. Your right, when I first read the name I knew it wasn't my cup of jin-tea-Vult mixture with a bit of cream and Kool Cubes (tm).

So why hasn't some highly successful third party (snicker snicker snicker) come out of this wonderful political idea?

Some of us haven't taken the SAT in over 20 years.

But if "Communitarian is to Democrat as Libertarian is to Republican" is what you were going for: Nope.

Arguably both major parties have espoused communitarian ideas in the last few elections. Many think a "compassionate conservative" is a conservative communitarian.

I find that disturbing, and for me at least, it does subordinate the individual. (In that it presupposes that our rights can be arbitrarly dictated by the conventions of the day).

Most modern political systems already do this. That's why there isn't slavery, &c. Morality changes.

Nevertheless, I can see how that could lead to a slide into authoritarianism.

Any political system can slip into Authoritarianism, from Anarchy to Socialism. No political system is immune from it.

Most modern political systems already do this. That's why there isn't slavery, &c. Morality changes.

Yes they do subordinate, but most of them pay at least lip service to a universal idea of human rights and justice which promotes a progressive agenda. Arguably it would be much harder to advocate something like gay marriage, or the civil rights movement under a communtarian framework. For example, the indian caste system is perfectly just by its own lights, and therefore from a communitarian perspective is not something that obviously needs to be disturbed. Unlike the liberal viewpoint, which emphasizes self-determination, and therefore automatically finds it repugnant.


Any political system can slip into Authoritarianism, from Anarchy to Socialism. No political system is immune from it.

I would argue that political some political philosophies, such as libertarianism or functioning constitutional liberal democracies cannot slide into authoritarianism without compromising their own principals beyond recognition. I don't believe that this is the case with communitarianism however.