Related Topics:
radicalism

radical, in politics, one who desires extreme change of part or all of the social order. The word was first used in a political sense in England, and its introduction is generally ascribed to Charles James Fox, who in 1797 declared for a “radical reform” consisting of a drastic expansion of the franchise to the point of universal manhood suffrage. The term radical thereafter began to be used as a general term covering all those who supported the movement for parliamentary reform. After the passage of the Reform Act of 1832, which extended the suffrage only to part of the middle class, a group of Radicals allied with the Whig faction in Parliament continued to press for an extension of the vote to include even the working class. When the Reform Act of 1867 further widened suffrage, the Radicals, notably in London and Birmingham, took the lead in organizing the new voters, helping to transform the Whig parliamentary faction into the Liberal Party of the later Victorian era. Because of their efforts on behalf of the working-class vote, the Radicals earned the loyalty of the trade unions; from 1874 to 1892 every trade unionist who sat in Parliament regarded himself as a Radical.

In France before 1848 the term radical designated a republican or supporter of universal manhood suffrage; open advocacy of republicanism being technically illegal, republicans usually called themselves radicals. After 1869 a self-styled Radical faction led by Georges Clemenceau began to drift away from the moderate democratic-republicanism of Léon Gambetta. These Radicals deemed themselves the true heirs of the French Revolutionary tradition. In 1881 at Montmartre they adopted a platform calling for broad social reforms, and at the turn of the century the Radical-Socialist Party was formed.

The English Radicals of the 19th century were influenced by philosophical ideas assuming that men are able to control their social environment by collective action, a position held by the so-called philosophical radicals. Because these assumptions also underlay Marxist theories of social reform, the label radical in time was affixed to Marxists and other advocates of violent social change, thus becoming inapplicable to the gradualist reformers.

In the United States, although the term is usually one of opprobrium, this was not always true in the post-Depression years of the 1930s; and it is generally not true in less stable Third World societies. In popular American usage, radicalism stands for political extremism of any variety, of the left or right; Communism serves as an example of the former, Fascism of the latter. The term has more commonly been applied to the left, but the expression “the radical right” came to be used commonly in the United States. Various youth movements in the United States, widely labeled as radical, were associated with denunciation of traditional social and political values.

Britannica Chatbot logo

Britannica Chatbot

Chatbot answers are created from Britannica articles using AI. This is a beta feature. AI answers may contain errors. Please verify important information using Britannica articles. About Britannica AI.

anarchism, cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary. Anarchist thought developed in the West and spread throughout the world, principally in the early 20th century.

Derived from the Greek root anarchos meaning “without authority,” anarchism, anarchist, and anarchy are used to express both approval and disapproval. In early usage all these terms were pejorative: for example, during the English Civil Wars (1642–51) the radical Levelers, who called for universal manhood suffrage, were referred to by their opponents as “Switzerising anarchists,” and during the French Revolution the leader of the moderate Girondin faction of Parliament, Jacques-Pierre Brissot, accused his most extreme rivals, the Enragés, of being the advocates of “anarchy”:

Laws that are not carried into effect, authorities without force and despised, crime unpunished, property attacked, the safety of the individual violated, the morality of the people corrupted, no constitution, no government, no justice, these are the features of anarchy.

These words could serve as a model for the denunciations delivered by all opponents of anarchism. The anarchists, for their part, would admit many of Brissot’s points. They deny man-made laws, regard property as a means of tyranny, and believe that crime is merely the product of property and authority. But they would argue that their denial of constitutions and governments leads not to “no justice” but to the real justice inherent in the free development of human sociality—the natural inclination, when unfettered by laws, to live according to the principles and practice of mutual aid.

Foundations of anarchist thought

The first person to willingly call himself an anarchist was the French political writer and pioneer socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. In his controversial study of the economic bases of society, Qu’est-ce que la propriété? (1840; What Is Property?), Proudhon argued that the real laws of society have nothing to do with authority but rather stem from the nature of society itself, and he foresaw the eventual dissolution of authority and the emergence of a natural social order:

As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy. Anarchy—the absence of a sovereign—such is the form of government to which we are every day approximating.

The essential elements of Proudhon’s philosophy already had been developed by earlier thinkers. The rejection of political authority has a rich pedigree. It extends back to classical antiquity—to the Stoics and the Cynics—and runs through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, as illustrated by dissenting Christian sects such as the medieval Catharists and certain factions of Anabaptists. For such groups—which are often mistakenly claimed as ancestors by modern anarchist writers—the rejection of government was merely one aspect of a retreat from the material world into a realm of spiritual grace, and, as part of the search for individual salvation, it was hardly compatible with the sociopolitical doctrine of anarchism. In all its forms, that doctrine consists of (1) an analysis of the power relations underlying existing forms of political authority and (2) a vision of an alternative libertarian society based on cooperation, as opposed to competition and coercion, and functioning without the need for government authority.

Are you a student?
Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.
Britannica Chatbot logo

Britannica Chatbot

Chatbot answers are created from Britannica articles using AI. This is a beta feature. AI answers may contain errors. Please verify important information using Britannica articles. About Britannica AI.