Progressivism

The Red Rose is the symbol of both social democrats and democratic socialists.

Proponents and subideologies

Note: People marked with an asterisk are their countries' starting leaders.

Subideology	Description	Adherents
Default (None)	A moderate response to the excesses of capitalism, Progressivism, composed of moderate social democrats and center left progressives, intends to be a middle ground between social liberalism and social democracy, with a focus on economic efficiency, a moderate welfare state, and a major focus on social justice. Pragmatic and willing to compromise, Progressivism believes in gradual change over time, with a focus on making capitalism more humane while allowing for its best aspects to shrine through. Progressivism believes in allowing room for the free market to take over while maintaining a welfare state intended to catch those who would fall through the cracks. Rather than focusing on economic equality, Progressivism intends to fight against institutional problems that harm equality of opportunity. Racism, sexism and other 'isms' are the main enemy of Progressivism, who believe that it is the government's place to protect the weak. Economically, Progressivism believes that government management is inefficient and that, rather, the private market, with public oversight, could be beneficial to both parties. This extends to matters of infrastructure, healthcare, and even basic government operations. With this efficiency, poverty can be eliminated through saved welfare spending and opportunities for a better life.	Komninos Pyromaglou Kim Beazley Sr.* Edna Lott George Walter Georges Marrie Anne
Gaitanismo	To Colombia, Gaitanismo is not an ideology but a new national ideal for Latin America itself, and an inspiration for left-wing politicians across the region. Born with the entrance of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán into politics, Gaitanismo emerged as liberal socialism, staunchly anti-fascist populism, and a democratic alternative to Bolshevism. Eclectic in its social decisions, Gaitanismo aims to reach as broad a base as possible, to extend democracy through all levels of society. Replacing bourgeoisie and proletariat, Gaitanismo has the national country and the political country, the former the people, the latter the oligarchical elites. The national country must overthrow the political country to create a genuine liberal democracy, united as one by nationality, and a peaceful compromise between owner and worker. Socialist economic policies that welcome foreign investment and reforms that strengthen democracy are the trademarks of Gaitanismo. Geopolitically, it calls for inter-Americanism, namely close cooperation with the OFN and other liberal democracies to fund revolutionary reforms. Gaitanismo brought Colombia four golden years of peace and international admiration. The murder of its founder and the chaos of La Violencia only made Gaitanismo's flame grow brighter, and its legacy of success can be reclaimed, not only in Colombia but wherever Gaitán's flaming speeches left a mark.	Juan Bosch Alfonso López Michelsen Raúl Leoni Gonzalo Barrios
Reformist Socialism	Reformist Socialism is an umbrella term covering leftist movements that for various reasons still wish to operate within a fundamentally capitalist framework. Proponents of Reformist Socialism do not seek the immediate (or even forseeable) abolition of the Market as a defining factor in managing production, but instead place a high value upon democracy in both the workplace and in government, generally believing in at least a minimum input from workers in the production of goods and services. This tends to primarily manifest as a partnership between parliamentary coalitions and organized labor. Typically, Reformist Socialists can trace a vague lineage from the theories of Edouard Bernstein of the SPD, although Marxist roots are not a requirement, and in fact actively spurned by many modern Reformist Socialist parties.	Michael Foot Anthony Crosland François Mitterrand Viggo Kampmann* Jens Otto Krag Axel Ivan Pedersen Gustav Möller* Gunnar Sträng Karl-August Fagerholm Turan Güneş Yasser Arafat Jawaharlal Nehru* V. K. Krishna Menon Lal Bahadur Shastri Yashwantrao Chavan Puey Ungphakorn Arthur Calwell Gough Whitlam Nikolai Voznesensky* Alexander Yakovlev Tommy Douglas Norman Kirk Peter Mohr Dam Atli Dam Emil Jónsson Hannibal Valdimarsson Gylfi Þorsteinsson Gíslason Adda Bára Sigfúsdóttir A. D. Patel* Luis Cardoza y Aragón* José Figueres Ferrer* José Luis Romero Guillermo Estévez Boero
Left-Wing Populism	As the popular masses work all over the world in search of riches, hoping that they someday will attain the level of their masters; as inequality and hunger ravages even in developed countries; as the elites enrich themselves off the backs of the people, some people stand up and say "No". No to poverty, no to hunger, and most of all no to wealth disparity, for injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Left-Wing Populism is the umbrella under which these people fall, although it is not an coherent ideology as much as it is a broad movement: combining anti-elites and left-wing rhetoric with populistic economic measures, those who claim an affiliation to it style themselves as the defenders of the "common people", opposing the economic elites and the establishment who oppress the poor and the little man. However, it is not too rooted in socialist theory, generally eschewing Marx or Lenin in favor of James Connolly or Léon Blum, and its most radical part is quite often its rhetoric, calling for the uprooting of the political and economic elites and for a fairer and juster society made by and for the people. And with a lot of effort and a tad of luck, such a society might even come true.	Alexander Yakovlev Viktor Polyakov Viktor Astafyev Abdulrahman al Bakr Wolfgang Larrazábal*
Left Kemalism	In prior decades, Kemalism held an almost monolithic presence within Turkish politics, encompassing left, right and centre. However, in recent years, Turkey's right flank has steadily drifted away from Kemalism's desire to emulate Western notions of progress, largely due to Kemalist prohibitions on religious expression and growing support for a model inspired by the fascist powers. As a response, many Kemalists have decided to emphasise the progressive aspects of their ideology and Atatürk's legacy, seeking to realign Kemalism to the left of centre, with a much greater commitment to social welfare. Emphasising populism and reformism, as opposed to their more nationalism-oriented orthodox cousins, Left Kemalists continue to espouse a Turkish national identity which may remain alienating towards certain minority groups.	Bülent Ecevit
Neocorporatism	Corporatism, once a fringe belief, has become one of the twentieth century's guiding philosophies. It is the stamp of the new order, but even in the old order's democracies, its influence can be felt. The product of this mix is a new corporatism, like and yet unlike its fascist predecessor. Neocorporatism advocates against the traditional class interests, responsible in their minds for so much of the conflict and wars of the past decades. In its place, they advocate for pillarization, whereby society is organized based on specific interest groups centered around religion, nationality, political background, or another factor, each with their own institutions and social organizations, each orientated to be as inclusive as possible to avoid possible sources of tension and unrest. Ties are created between these groups, reducing conflict between interest groups that would typically oppose each other, like labor unions and corporations, allowing for better coordination and cohesion regarding economic challenges. The end result is turning otherwise economically disastrous labor disputes into structured negotiations between a few committed actors. Overall, neocorporatism abandons the rampant nationalism and totalitarian structures of its ideological predecessors, but some of its ideological adherents hold grander plans regarding it. They believe that the tripartite institutions created to deal with simple economic matters are capable of far more, capable of running the government more efficiently than the traditional liberal democratic model of majoritarian decision-making. Whether or not this belief holds true outside of the textbooks remains yet to be seen.	Gheorghe Zane Jean-Hilaire Aubame*
Popular Front	United we stand, divided we fall. No ideology exemplifies this so clearly as the Popular Front. Most typically drawn from a very, very broadly leftist set of ideologies, the Popular Front can include support from hardcore, insurrectionist communists all the way to democratic liberals and everything in between. Sometimes, in extreme cases, it can even include conservatives in the mix, though that is certainly a rarity. Often, these temporary arrangements are made when there is a significant shift in the status quo, or the threat of such a shift in some cases, and those opposed put aside their differences to fight against it, whether that be electorally, with armed conflict, or by other means. The concept of the Popular Front is as broad in its application as it is in its composition. The Front is usually forged first by finding some bare minimum ground, often of the moral variety, upon which to oppose the nascent threat. In other instances, a common matter of policy or ideology provides the adhesive element that keeps the Popular Front united, if the Front itself might lean more socialist or more liberal in its composition. And then its strategy is solidified, whether it is an agreement to vote in accordance with one another, or to support one another in terms of direct action and conflicts in the streets. The sheer variety of applications of the Popular Front, as it should be clear, makes it hard to define precisely. As such, it may not be considered much of an ideology at all, so much as a strategy that parties and groups of parties pursue to advance their ideologies.	Tevfik Rüştü Aras Walther Bringolf Vasyl Stus Lorenzo Tañada y Martínez Jagjivan Ram Alfredo Palacios Guadalupe Salcedo Unda* Líber Seregni
Social Radicalism	While many in the liberal sphere have utterly rejected Marxist principles and the ideologies that it spawned, others have found common ground on many of its more reasonable points. Equality is a common value between both the radicals and the socialists, after all, and much ground has yet to be gained until true equality is reached. While mainstream Radicalism will reject all socialists and socialist philosophy wholesale as a matter of principle, it is the Social Radical who finds common ground with them, reaching for their mutual goals and putting aside historical rivalries to do so. Above all else, the Social Radical aims for the establishment of equality, an end to want, and the elevation of social programs to aid in the former two ambitions. They are willing to make whatever compromises are necessary to end inequality in whatever forms it takes. Many further to their right call them idealistic, naive even, and those further to their left call them unimaginative, lacking in ambition or true dedication to the cause they profess. Despite this disdain they receive from both ends of the political spectrum, Social Radicalism continues to plow its own road ahead, to finish the work that the Enlightenment had started.	Arturo Umberto Illia Rodolfo Martinovic Luis Batlle Berres Amílcar Vasconcellos Manuel Flores Mora José Acquistapace Zelmar Michelini
Christian Progressivism	Christian Progressivism is a form of Christian Democracy in which a heavy amount of emphasis is put upon the ideals of justice, tolerance and the need to care for the poor and oppressed as preached by Jesus Christ. It differs from most other forms of Christian Democracy by virtue of a greater impetus for social change, as opposed to a call for conservatism, though it still maintains the belief that Democracy is the best means of achieving Christian values. Oftentimes, it seeks to interpret Christianity through the lens of modern knowledge, science and ethics, as opposed to those held at the time of the writing of the scriptures. In terms of economic policy, Christian Progressivism is usually in the center, though it can lean further to the left or to the right depending on the specific application. Socially, Christian Progressivism is usually center-left, being especially likely to be so on issues such as Civil Rights. However, Christian Progressives can often lean conservative on certain issues due to the fact that the ideology is still heavily based on Christian thought. Christian Progressivism also tends to place more weight on Christian values and morality, as opposed to adherence to specific Christian doctrine.	Alexander Men José Antonio Echeverría Luis Bedoya Reyes
Left-Wing Agrarianism	Since before the Russian Revolution of 1917, the world has known a uniquely Socialist blend of rural-oriented politics; Left-Wing Agrarianism. Born from the minds of men like Alexander Herzen and Pyotr Lavrov, this new strain of Agrarianist thought is primarily oriented around typical agrarian goals: prioritization of farming in the national framework, the promotion of the farmer in the ideals of the state, and an attempt at egalitarianism; though Left-Wing Agrarianism comes with its own set of rules. Conflicting with the typical Bukharinist-Marxist divide, Left-Wing Agrarianism heavily prioritizes the rural farmer in the everyday life and function of the state, and sees them as a class in of themselves, no matter how many times the unique strain of Socialism finds itself being called ideological heathens in doing so.	Ion Mihalache*
Social Republicanism	The republic, as is the nation, is just as much for them as it is for us. It can not survive by choosing who it wishes to care for. Only by all people coming together as one can a nation not just survive, but truly thrive. In a world where the ugliest forms of nationalism are on full display, Social Republicanism seeks to create a vision that expands their national ethos to fit all groups within their borders, marching ahead to the future rather than agonizing over the sectarian disputes of the past. Special attention is given to the common man, as their role in spurring social change and reform is mythologized and romanticized, rewarded justly by an increased focus on egalitarianism in all spheres to emancipate all peoples. Going hand-in-hand with this is an economically nationalist focus, prioritizing the liberation of natural resources and institutions from an aristocratic elite to be returned to the people. However, these policies are not to be mistaken for communist inclinations; instead, they primarily align with more popular socialist beliefs rather than basing themselves in Marxism. While not uniform among its adherents, decentralization is usually pursued to some extent to return power to local bodies. Paramount control is still kept within the halls of government, particularly regarding matters of national security such as the army, justified under the auspices of securing the republic from takeover by imperialist forces or a return to a detested aristocracy of old. This has raised eyebrows among some, criticizing the perceived patronizing of the people they champion. Others say it is necessary to protect the welfare of all against the alternative.	Plácido Fernández Viagas Andreas Papandreou Clément Jumelle João Goulart Leonel Brizola
Utopian Socialism	The earliest strand of its kind, Utopian Socialism has been used as both a label of endearment and insult by leftists through the years. Originally pioneered in the early 18th and 19th century, Utopian socialism is primarily based upon both a distinct dislike of class conflict and a belief in the perfectibility of mankind and of society in general. Whether it be through the creation of local communes, making industry more efficient through nationalization of certain goods and services, or just simply a moral belief in raising the entire society as a whole through government and local intervention, utopian socialists believe that mankind as a whole can be brought up to a higher standard of living than what capitalism can currently deliver to us. The biggest distinction between utopian socialists and their Marxist cousins is a distinct dislike of class conflict or revolution, believing instead that all classes would be willing to adhere to such a system through convincing. This places it in opposition to the materialistic worldview that Marxism and more pragmatic socialists who intend on creating working class coalitions to win power. While most utopian experiments have failed, many persist in their experiments, believing that, one day, a perfect system of humanity can be created, and that all of mankind can bask in its glory of a newer, better world.	Dmitri Shostakovich Mieczysław Weinberg Viktor Nekrasov
African Socialism		Julius Nyerere