Commentary

Humanitarian Government Section 7, Part 2: A Government Primer

Our latest in a series of articles in making the government human again.

The Midnight Goddess Nyx

26 Oct 2025 • 33 min read

Hello all, I'm fairly hopeful this will be the second and last part of government (also, the footnotes on this is extensive). Then, yeah, the hard part would start next: what might be a solution. I'll warn you now, despite not being there yet, it will be messy, radical, and it will be more or less slow to institute.

Last time, I went into a good portion of the various forms of Democratic, Non-Democratic, and Hybrid governmental systems.

Today, I'll be doing fill-ins, Geo-Cultural issues, and I'll also make it fun if you make it down far enough: Sci-Fi forms of governance.

Why am I doing this? It's an honest question. As I've harped on: no government is a pure government. None.

So what I'm doing is educating you, the reader, so you will see the building blocks of what might be a pathway for change. Not that the idea of America is wrong. It's not perfect because humans aren't perfect, but we're working on a document whose pillars are nearly 250 years old, mainly a patchwork of Amendments (the Amendments aren't my issue(s)...don't scream please), and because of structures and thinking is notoriously hard to change. Being 'free' and having pathways to 'greatness' and all the 'diamonds and roses' that is the American Dream isn't bad. That's goals to strive for. What is wrong is that American Dream put out wasn't full reality to start with.

What I will propose isn't necessarily easy. Nothing worthwhile is. What I'll propose will take new thinking, changes in socioeconomic systems/thoughts, and more.

Description: Governmental Systems-Geo-Cultural Attributes (1,2)

We've got nearly all of these involved in the running of America today. I'm going to be quick and describe the five main topics here.

National government (1,3): It's AKA is 'Federal Government'. For a nation like ours, think: The United States of America'. We are. The American government had to allow the incorporation and inclusion into that Union whatever state that was created. That's to start. We have a centralized group electorally delegated to make decisions. Other governments are also like this when it comes to Geo-Cultural Attributes, but also cross the entire spectrum of governmental systems and influences.

City-State (1, 4, 5, 6, 7): Sovereign states or micro-states. Ever hear of places like Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Vatican City and even Monaco? Those are nation-states or city-states. They are small, independent countries that are usually a single city and dependent territories.

Commune (1, 8, 9: From the Medieval Latin word: communia. It's an intentional community of folks living together that share common interests, values and beliefs. In addition, it normally shows something of shared property, possessions, resources, and sometimes even work, income or assets.

Intergovernmental Organizations (1, 10, 11,: AKA IGOs. Think the UN (or Organization of Islamic Conference-OIC), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe-OSCE), Counsel of Europe-COE, International Labour Organization-ILO) or International Police Organization-INTERPOL). These geo-political groups are made up in some way 'Sovereign States' or AKA 'Member States'.

World Government (1, 12, 13): OK, you probably heard the right and/or Christian groups (I point this group out not as religious per se, but the thinking that some have) that a common authority for all of humanity with a single state that also exercises authority over the entire Earth. In a religious framework, they also push it to a single language and anti-God/Bible. I would say their version is possible and only if the theory of this comes about through violent and compulsory world domination. Humanity in general have too many ways of thinking and behaving. However, it can also come about voluntarily and peaceful.

Description: Governmental Systems-Pejorative Attributes

Some of these other than the first of these, you might have heard about. Or, you might know the description but not the word. Which...like all of the Governance and Economic voodoo has it's own mystical language and 'the common person' doesn't have the time or depth of knowledge to know of those things. I'm not blaming much anymore on those who end up working before high school is even done with, or working more than one job, etc. No, those of you who end up having next to no time for anything but doing bare living aren't to blame. I'll do more of my finger pointing elsewhere later.

Banana Republic (1, 14, 15): This one has many unsavory connotations to it, and for good reasons. First and foremost, this didn't come about from what or even when I thought it did until I was doing research. I had thought it was from a lesser known military action (I will NOT go into that history or go deeper than the superficial on this) based on banana plantations, a government system change, and a disagreement between at least one US company and what that company wanted. Nope...not gonna go further down that. Put in your search parameters and keep you AI off so you can get clean results (hopefully). Anyhow...this is a term coined by American writer O Henry when he was in Honduras in 1896-1897 in the book 'Cabbages and Kings' (published in 1904) which is a compilation of thematically related stories. At that time, he was hiding out for bank embezzlement. Gee, great, right?

But it's essentially a politically unstable and kleptocratic form of government that economically depends on a limited amount of exports (like fruits, or minerals) and usually has a stratified social class as a feature. Most of those strata are an impoverished ergatocracy (government by the people) and a ruling plutocracy (government by the wealthy). Those who belong to the plutocracy are business leaders, political personalities, and the military. The political science version of this definition goes into 'primary-sector' and oligarchy and such. In short: a more educated and refined definition. In American literature, there is more of a looser definition: look up a fictional nation-state called 'Republic of Anchuria'. It describes a servile dictatorship is either abetted or supported by kickbacks, and exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture-more specifically banana.

So, by all ways, it's all defined the same way, just the wording and refinement is different.

Bankocracy (1): This is just what it sounds like. A rule by banks. With excessive power or influence by banks and other financial authorities when it comes to public policy making or straight out ruling society. This would tie into many forms of oligarchy from what I've researched and a weakness of a consumer/capitalist form of socioeconomics.

Corporatocracy (1, 16, 17, 18): Another 'just what it sounds like'. A socioeconomic system controlled by corporations or corporate interests. If one looks around, reads about Peter Thiel and his version of what he wants America to look like and governance, this is what that would be called in a pure form. Look up 'company rule in India' and business voters for the City of London Corporation. I'd throw in Coal or Company towns generally in Appalachia areas during the hey day of coal mining in the US.

Kakistocracy (1, 19, 20): This...heavens above...we have this in action right now. 'Rule by the worst'; in short, the least qualified citizens govern or dictate policies. See what I mean?

Kleptocracy (1, 21, 22, 23): I'll put it this way 'legal thievery'. That's because the government is a 'rule of thieves'. The officials and whoever belongs in the ruling class at the time pursue personal wealth and political power at the expense of the wider population. You might even call this a form of ideology or a characteristic of a government who has this as a facet. Again, look around.

Nepotocracy (1, 24, 25, 26): It translates to 'Rule of Nephews'. In this, and I'll keep saying this often-look around, favoritism granted to relatives and disregards any form of merit. Relatives of those already in power are given more importance. It's the old 'I know someone that knows someone' on getting positions. Yes, this is mainly for family members. Although in this age, I'd stretch it to 'friends', too.

Ochlocracy (1, 27, 28): This is 'Rule by the Crowd'. Call it 'mob rule' or 'mobocracy': where masses of people intimidate legitimate government or authorities. It's a pejorative for majoritarianism, and has several forms on it's own. I won't be going into that beyond this term, however. In today's world, this form of government are often democracies spoiled with demagoguery which is 'tyranny of the majority' and has passion over reason and can be as oppressive as autocratic tyrants. Look around, tell me what you see, and make your decisions.

Description: Governmental Systems-Other Attributes

Yes, more terms. When it comes to poli-sci (political science) it's as filled as any other science on terms. But knowing these terms is important. Again: there is no pure form of any type of government and all have a mixed bag of attributes, forms, workings and interconnections with socioeconomic issues. What also makes things a bit more difficult is the cross-pollination of some terms in 'attributes' versus systems.

I put all these in, along with ideologies in this writing, because if you look around, identify what is going on, put the pieces together and such, you know or can identify why our system is as it is and advocate for changes if at all possible.

So, on with the show:

Adhocracy (1, 28, 29, 30): This is the opposite of bureaucracy. So it's disorganized in principles and institutions.

Anocracy (1, 31, 23, 33, 34, 3: This particular term, in all honesty, introduced me to a 'has critical methodology and connection issues'. One: it's Americentrism, basically it considers everything under an umbrella of issues and how they are dealt with via the lens of American government structure. The second is its connections to the CIA. Yup! Who would know the CIA would play host to something about governments and if they are democratic enough or not?

This data series is used in political science research along with others, helps determine what category a government is in: full democracy, democracy, open anocracy, closed anocracy and autocracy. I'm not going into this more because, well, I'm not a poli-sci expert nor am I qualified beyond what I'm already telling you. In all seriousness, the entirety of this series is one American born and bred, and educated citizen to others on various things. I've tried to make that very clear from the start.

As you can see, though, there are open and closed anocracy. Open has a broader political competition ecosystem and closed restricts. But I'm certain you want more information.

Anocracy is literally a mid-point between autocratic and democratic systems, usually transitioning between the two. It's also the least resilient political system to short-term shocks. Not to mention it creates the promise but not the actuality of an inclusive and effective political economy, threatens members of the established elite, and is very vulnerable to disruption and armed violence. My question to you, the reader, is simply this: is the US in this transition?

Algocracy (1, 35, 36, 37): You've heard of algorithms, dang near the entire planet has. Well, this is a rule by algorithms used in diverse levels of bureaucracy. AKA as 'algorithmic regulation', 'regulation by algorithms', 'algorithmic governance', or (lengthy name here) 'algorithmic legal order of government by algorithm'. Yeah...I wouldn't want this even on my worst enemy.

Authoritarianism (1, 28, 29, 39, 40, 41): I've gone over this one in the last article, but I'll give a short description since this is under attributes rather than system. It's either an autocracy or oligarchy with power predicated on a political party or statocracy and rejects political plurality.

Band society (1, 42, 43, 44): A small unit (usually family) rule with a semi-informal hierarchy with the strongest (physical or character) person as a leader.

Bureaucracy (, 45, 46, 47, 48): This is what we have. With over around or over 340 million people and the needs of the populous in general in mind, I honestly some form of bureaucracy would be needed. That is, unless somehow, someway things like NOAA, CDC, NASA and other agencies that are social in nature can be put into the hands of a non-political, independent groups that can create and/or get donations to run and perform their functions effectively and efficiently. Remember: government is needed to work in large part or in whole for the population. So, in the US, do we need 50 versions of NOAA, CDC, etc and repeat or overlap ways of gathering information to be used for the general good, or ways of using information to help socioeconomically the most amount of people possible instead of insulating things?

So, in short: in this you'll see bureaus, administrators, and petty officials. But like all systems for humanity, I'll also point out hierarchy issues and that so each level does something and each bureau or administration has leadership.

Consociationalism (1, 49, 50, 51, 52): Rule by consensus democracy. Yes, I can see potentials, and pitfalls. I won't go into those right now though.

Cyberocracy (1, 53, 54, 55): Rule by computers. Yeap, in Sci-Fi this is often used. The computer uses code and 'efficient use of information' and the rule is based on that. It's also linked to Cybersynacy (this is data fed group of secluded individuals that regulated aspects of public and private life using data feeds and tech but also having no interactions with the citizens but uses a 'facts only' to decide direction). Again, I've read enough Sci-Fi, computer articles, studies, AI and all that to not want this. Not even on my worst enemy.

Isocracy (1, 56, 57): Everyone has equal political power. That's it. Short and simple.

Military junta (1, 58, 59, 60): I'm sure most have heard this form. It's simply a government run by a committee of military leaders.

Nomocracy (1, 61, 62): Well, we're 'supposed' to have this. I'm not going to weigh in any further on the question. However it's rule under the sovereignty of rational laws and civic right as opposed to theocratic systems of government. The law is the ultimate and final authority (sovereignty).

Description: The Two Power Ideology Systems

Simply put, we've monarchy and republic in this. However, it's not simply one or the other either.

Each has multiple forms within that umbrella. Monarchy is the simplest of the two: just five sub-forms. Republic? For this paper/writing, I'm calling it eleven. So we'll start with Monarchy first.

Sub-Form Description: Monarchy (69)

Absolute Monarchy (1, 63, 64, 65): I've mentioned before Medieval Europe and Kings/Queens. In this, the monarch (King/Queen) holds and exercises the ultimate governing authority as head of state and government. In today's world, few exist but Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Brunei, and Eswatini have monarchies.

Constitutional Monarchy (1, 66, 67, 68): I've gone over this also. In the United Kingdom (there's like four or five terms that describe England, the Isles, and all that there. For now UK/United Kingdom is best to use) the Magna Carta was the first step to Constitutional Monarchy. Now, my research calls Australia, Canada and the UK as Constitutional Monarchy's. I'm not familiar with their governmental Constitutions or structures but I do also know that the British Monarchs allowed for Canada and Australia autonomy rather than straight out colony status. So, I'm taking that as a huge indicator that somewhere along the line the British Crown still figures in but in a limited capacity. Spain, Norway and Japan are also the same: Constitutional Monarchies.

Crowned Republic (1, 69, 70): This is where the Crown is officially ceremonial and has no political power. The Royal Family and Crown are intended to represent the country and performs certain functions but nothing more.

Elective Monarchy (1, 71, 72, 73) : This is strange to me. The Monarch/Crown is elected. Yes, I know, those of us (including myself) know that monarchies are generally family controlled and ran. However with the example of Vatican City and the Popes, I can see it in action and how it works. Cambodia has a King and is chosen by the Royal Council of the Throne. Of course the Pope is from the College of Cardinals decisions.

Self-proclaimed monarchy (1, 5, 6, 7, 74, 75): Well, another odd-ball: a monarch claims the title without a nexus to any previous monarch dynasty. Several micro-nations have this and include the Principality of Seborga: a 14 square kilometer area in Italy.

Sub-Form Description: Republic

Classical Republic: Essentially a classical republic has a complex system of assemblies and magistrates and draws on an idea of a 'civic sector'. That 'civic sector' is a representative sample of the population. This is also has selected persons to represent those populations and rule (or should rule) in accordance with mutually agreed upon laws.

Constitutional Republic (1, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80): In this form, the government's powers are limited by law or a form of Constitution and voting is necessary to chose leadership. In this, laws can't be passed that would violate the Constitution unless that Constitution is amended or changed in some legal way. The thinking is that this sort of set up serves to protect minority groups from being subjected to the tyranny of the majority or mob rule. The US is just one of many who have this form of government.

Democratic Republic (1, 79, 80, 81): When you have laws that are ultimately decided by popular vote (either a body or directly) and there is no restrictions on which laws are passed so long as they have majority support, this is that. In this, too, a Constitutional form of law is either very weak/obstacle to any form of legislation or is non-existent.

Federal Republic (1, 82, 83, 84): This too is another form we share in common with many nations. Of course every child knows that we have fifty states (and further along they should also learn we've territories). That is considered a 'federation' of sorts. Now, in this you've the federal/national law that covers the whole, but also each state or province is free to have their own laws and enforcement of those laws as long as federal and state issues don't collide.

Islamic Republic (1, 85): Islamic Law govern these forms. Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran), Pakistan (Islamic Republic of Pakistan) and more are run on these premises.

Parliamentary Republic (1, 86, 88)): India and Singapore have this. You have an elected head of state and a head of government. Each are separated with executive powers invested in the governmental head but a parliament votes for a head of state.

Presidential Republic (1, 87, 88): With this: the head over government is also the head of state and are elected. Yet another facet of US Democracy/Government.

People's Republic(1): OK, China, in today's world, is shortened from 'The People's Republic of China'. Vietnam is also under this form of republic. Somewhere along the line, there may have been a republic before some form of revolution happened and toppled the previous government. In practices officially recognized (de jure) these are governed for the people and by the people.

Semi-Presidential Republic (1, 88): If you look at France, Portugal, and Egypt, the president is elected by the people, and is the symbol of national unity and foreign policy. Now, the other 'half' is either appointed by the president or elected by the parliament, and handles daily administration of the government. This isn't Parliamentary nor is it Presidential, more like a hybrid of the two.

Directorial Republic (1, 89) : In this power is divided up among a college of several people. This group exercises the powers of a head of state and/or a head of government. Of course, like all nations or power structures, whatever works for that area/nation, then that's what works.

Merchant Republic (1, 91, 92): Hmm...Venice, would be a good example of this back in the day. There was a time where Venice was a small but wealthy and trade-based city. It also had republican ideals. Venice isn't the only one though and the Baltic areas had their fair share too. This was also during the times of monarchs and these small pockets had either little or no absolute monarchy control. Like all other republic-based systems, the citizens elected the leaders. But I will say these republics also would be called 'unrestrained capitalistic', too: the government systems primary duty was to increase the wealth of the city-state. These are also called Maritime republics.

Description: Political systems on Theoretical and/or Speculative Attributes (1, 94, 95)

Most of these are 'fun'. Not necessarily 'ha-ha' fun, just that they have been featured in Science Fiction, or are theoretical in nature and never been seen. I'll add one here that I didn't see, tell you where it came from and all that. In the footnotes, you'll also find a source that ties back to various literature to not only these sorts of governance, but also real world versions of government. Enjoy!

Corporate Republic (1, 96, 97, 98, 99): Essentially, Corporations run the nation/world. Even Mercantile Republics fall under this, too. Venice, Florence, Dutch East India Company and such could all fall into the Corporate Republic umbrella. But in many Science Fiction 'worlds' this is also common. Even today Peter Theil is proposing his version of this.

The government is run more like a corporation/business with a board of directors, and executives. Everything privatized, social welfare doled out as a form of benefits to employees (populace). Depending on the poli-sci specialist you talk to, even state socialist nations could be forms of Corporate Republics.

Collective consciousness (1, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104): Well, you have a tech form of telepathy? Or just biologically developed telepathy that everyone can read everyone's minds? Ever hear of 'hive mind' principal? Well, that's this. If you want, also check into technological singularity. Essentially, every mind (person) makes a decision while connected and that connection is more like a biological equivalent to a supercomputer. I can see benefits, but I also want my private time too, damnit!

In the 'real world' though, it's also real. Not quite as what sci-fi/fantasy puts out, though. More as of either philosophy or psychology of people, decision making structures and outcomes. I've put some links to sources here ( ).

Secret Society (1, 104, 105, 106, 107): Illuminati. Shadow Government. Deep State. I can go on and some of which could get me into deep doo so..

But I'm sure you get where this is going: some version or another of government behind a government but the membership is hidden, inner workings and rules buried, and all that. Rabbit holes abound on the internet about this form of government.

Theonomy (1, 108, 109, 110, 111 112): This, um, is purportedly a hypothetical Christian form of government that the societal aspects are ruled by divine law. That divine law is usually from the Old Testament, should be observed by modern societies and...well...

Let's just say: Sharia Law is religious law, however Islamic in nature. This? This would be the same but for Christianity. Look up Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, and/or R. J. Rusdoony for more information.

Magocracy (1, 113, 114): Now, even non-gamers know this one. Just didn't recognize it as one. Jedi Council, Order of the Phoenix from Harry Potter, Aes Sedai from the Wheel of Time. There is an endless list. When a government or ruling body where the highest authority is primarily of magicians, sages, sorcerers, wizards, witches or some other form of 'magic' use...that this. Yes, usually over other, lesser ranked forms of the same portions of whatever the rulers are, but still, it's a fun jaunt of governing.

Synthetic Technocracy (1, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119): If you follow Japanese Manga or Anime, you might know 'Appleseed'. Congrats if you do. In a Synthetic Technocracy, AI experts in a given domain rule over humans or even human-cyber cross-breeds (for lack of a better term). I will use the word 'supposedly' (because AI is programmed by humans and even if AI starts to breed AI, it's still a human construct and fallible) AI ran government is dispassionate, rational, and free of all the flaws that humans inevitably have. It has many facets of meritocracy forms of governments.

This one is the 'bonus content' and I'm going to call it 'Voting Weight'.

Voting Weight (120, 121, 122, 123, 124): Donald Kingsbury published in the US in 1982 a book called 'Courtship Rite'. I'm not going into plot and all that, just say it's a good read and if you're not squeamish, you'll enjoy it more. Not that it's 'gross-gross', just some of the topics might make some squirm a bit. Also, 'Voting Weight' is my name. In the book it's called Kalothi System.

However, the main protagonists in this belong to a nation/society that runs on 'voting weight'. Here's the premise:

You're of an age to make decisions and are trusted by others for you to make decisions or vote for them. A form of representation. OK, so you know their names and you make it your business to know what those folks need, know what can be given at least in theory by the nation/society. Those names you have to give out whenever asked when you vote: because each name you remember is marked to start with (any forgotten will be stricken) and the amount of people equals your 'voting weight'.

That's not the end, though. In this 'world' dreams and predicting outcomes are a major item to this, too. You 'record' at various times and before you put in your vote and register long-term, much longer than 'normal' outcomes. This nation/society also votes near constantly...however selectively. So, say you know more about medicine and you need something special and your constituency has been asking. So you've reason to vote. You go in, you've done your research , you come up with a pro-con list, show your math for economic viability, and THEN you say 'ya' or 'nay'. It's not a simple process and requires careful consideration. Outcomes are monitored and not just by those around you on the same rung of voting weight either. Your constituents watch and see if you're consistent on outcomes and if you're not, they'll turn to someone else to represent them. The higher up you go into government, the more accurate you need to be, and the outcomes need to cover more than just those you represent.

It's a whole thing, and I suggest (again) having a read at least once to get the entire feel of that. The archive.org link allows you to 'check out' the book. Enjoy!

Description: Political Ideology-a short breakdown (125)

Now, ideology is more of a school of thought: ideals, ethics, principles, doctrines, and essentially a blueprint of that and even down to symbology and mythology of whatever system. It's a HUGE part of any governmental system, as per the description.

So knowing that, there are two detrimental parts: how society should be and by what methods would be most appropriate to achieve the social goal. This is why most if not all governmental theory or proposed systems go into the socioeconomic areas so deeply. This series doesn't disappoint in that area. We just haven't gotten quite that far yet.

First, a form of government needs to be agreed on (if in a group) or picked (if individual—this is is mostly the case with this series). Since I've already gone over governmental forms, I'm not going to go into definitions or minute details. So which form do you like better? Autocratic or Democracy?

The next step is to pick out an economic system. You can't run any government, even tribal, without some minor form of economic systems. So, I give you another choice: Capitalism or Socialism.

I've mentioned before that there is cross-pollination of terms in poli-sci. As in, a term can be an ideology, economic or social system, or straight out form of government. So, context is key in any form of political chatter. Today, the middle of October 2025, one of the 'buzz' words is 'Marxist'.

Let me clarify something right now. One, 'Marxism' isn't a form of government. As stated, ideologies are more like a school of thought than anything else. Karl Marx created this school of thought as a critique of capitalism. In this, he wanted a classless society and that was in part because of the class struggles of the time. Can it be a part of a government? Yes because ideologies are employed in the creation of governments, a source of influence on how that government works.

Marxism ended up being wed to Communism. That's because in some Communist governmental systems Marxism was woven into their system, not the other way around. Not to mention, Marxism is based on revolution and kicking capitalism to the curb in a hurry. Here is a short, four point comparison along with Socialism:

Marxism: Definition: A theory and ideology; Focus: Class struggle and socioeconomic analysis; Nature: a worldview and analytical framework; Goal: Transition to a classless society.

Communism: Definition: A political system based on Marxist principals; Focus: Common ownership and absence of social classes; Nature: a form of government and societal condition; Goal: Achieving a stateless, classless society.

Socialism: Definition: An economic and political system (separate, in part, or fully together), Focus: Ownership or regulation of production are by the community or state (in part or full) to reduce class disparities but not necessarily eliminate. Nature: If in the form of governance, it comes in many forms with similar facets, Goal: A society and government that attempts to balance out class, economic and political powers to more of a win-win.

Yes, very close. But also, if you look around, you can see Marxist touches, but also Socialism. Now, personally, I know just enough sociology to understand that humanity might never 'grow up' out of it's hierarchical tendencies. So, I also don't ascribe to Marxist ideals of a classless society. Humans just aren't built that way. Not saying in the future we can't be that way, just not right now. Not only that, the way they come about are vastly different.

Socialism is gradual, not revolutionary as a rule. We already have some in our lives right now: police and fire departments, first responders, social security, and Medicare/Medicaid. If we were fully capitalistic, every time you needed a cop for whatever reason (or any first responder) you'd have to have either some sort of insurance or pay out of pocket for the services and, well...in the case of LEO, you'd also have to pay the hours of manpower needed to solve those cases. So, what happened? Cities or other entities pooled resources together, spread out the costs and access to the public at large and wa-la! A police, fire, whatever was created. School districts are much the same. I'll get into issues on that later and yes, I've many. In theory (not necessarily practice) these sorts of services are supposed to not look at 'class' (by any definition)--meaning Marxist in nature.

So, all these ideologies and even governmental systems are interwoven, mixed, and something comes out of all of that which society just labels 'government'. My hope is that those governments work for the people as a whole, not just the top few.

There is a very large range and sub-types of ideologies. I'm not going into all of them. In the top of this sections title, it's one of the footnotes, so if you want to read near two dozen main types, have at it. I'm going to cover only about a dozen with a short overview description. Each has it's own lists of sub-flavors and actions, I'm not going that deep. For one, I'm not a Poli-sci PhD and I'm not writing out a book only on ideology either. Two: I'm not going to go into the minutia because I don't want to have you end up reading for well over an hour just on ideologies even with brief definitions. Mind you again: terminology for poli-sci is very contextualized. This is ONLY via the lens of ideology:

Anarchism (125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130): Abolishing all institutions that perpetrate any authority, coercion, or hierarchy especially in the targets of state and capitalism. It's associated closely with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. It's considered left-wing.

Authoritarianism (125, 132, 133, 134): Rejects political plurality, uses strong central power to preserve a political status quo and reduces the following: democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and rule of law.

Communitarianism (125, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139): This centers more on the connections between the individual and the community. Community relationships mold a persons' social identity and personality. It keeps individuality, however it's less than on straight individualism.

Communism (125, 140 141, 142, 143): Centered on common ownership of property and the absence of social classes. It also goes so far as a money-less society and an elimination of the state in advanced forms.

Conservatism (125, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148): This promotes and preserve 'traditional' institutions, customs, and values. In today's US, that means wanting a version of life with a nuclear family, Christianity as a recognized 'official' religion, Constitutional Original-ism (which is kind of hilarious considering the amount of changes done in less than 250 years), and more. Based upon Britannica's entry on the subject, what is touted today in the US isn't what those who are 'conservative' are practicing in reality or theory.

Corporatism (125, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153) : If you've heard of 'collective bargaining', that is associated with this. I add this in for future reference. Groups (corporate groups) in various associations or goals come together on either side of the spectrum and negotiate contracts or policy. The governmental term is 'corporatocracy', but this is the ideology term and was developed to be a response to classical liberalism and Marxism.

Democracy (125, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158), : As stated, it's not just a form of government and comes in many forms. The statement 'for the people, by the people' describes it fully because it normally has guarantees of civil liberties and human rights. I've already

Fascism (125, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164): A far-right of 'right', authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist ideology that became prominent in early 20^th Century Europe. I won't name the two most prominent people, however one was Italian, and another German and the German one was horrendous in his quests. This ideology is marked by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of any opposition, a belief in a 'natural social hierarchy', that individuality is subordinate of either nation or race, and a regimentation of society and economy.

Identity Politics (125, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169): When you base your politics on a particular identity running the gamut of ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination of religion, gender or sexual orientation, social background, political affiliation and any of the other billion and one forms of dividing up people, you get this. 'Nuf said.

Liberalism (125, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175): If you're concerned about the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of those governed, political equality, right to private property and also equality under the law, this describes your ideology. Is it messy? Yes, because some of the items you can believe in are opposites of each other. Currently in the US, being a 'liberal' isn't just a ID of what you believe in, it's increasingly becoming a form of personal belief that is under threat.

Libertarianism (125, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181): If you go further than Liberalism, espouse a concept of freedom and personal sovereignty/liberty as primary values and it's in accord to a non-aggressive principals, this is what you get. Essentially 'You can do as you please if you don't force me to do it too' by any means of force or fraud.

Nationalism (125, 182, 183, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189): In this, the nation (the social structure where a collective identity has emerged) and state (the political entity that regulates society and/or population within a defined area/territory) should be be fully in line with each other. It's mindset is that it presupposes the existence and promote the interests of a particular Nation. This promotion is with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty over it's territories and be free of outside interference and the nation is the only rightful source of political power. It's also an exclusionary ideology as it wants a combination of shared characteristics as part of the 'national identity', a particular history and more. Two major forms are ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism. I'll leave it to you on what is going on today.

Populism (125, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195): This is a mine field. Part of it is that the very origin, translation, and more has been either in debate or has had language drift enough to have so many philosophical, social, and political debates as to have a lifetime and still not get a fully fleshed-out and agreed upon definition. Currently, it's associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiments. In short: the 'common people' in opposition to whatever structure or people considered 'elites'.

Progressivism (125, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201): Yet another left-leaning ideology that is more associated with a reform movement. It seeks to advance humanity/human condition through social reform. In today's lexicon, it's associated with social liberalism and social democracy. There are many ways and forms of this, and as said: if you want to know more, you'll have to do your reading homework.

Social democracy (125, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207), : I mentioned this as a form of democracy in my last article. I'd call this not just a form of government or even ideology. It's a bit of almost the philosophical to political thinking spectrum with economy thrown in. It's got the facets of democracy, socialism, progressivism, and more all rolled into one. If you look to Europe and Scandinavian nations, some of which have Social Democracies, you'll see why I say this.

Socialism (125, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214): Again, another term that has many facets to it in the poli-sci arena. Mainly economic but also a political philosophy, its main issues are of social ownership of production as opposed to private ownership. Some translate into Social Democracy or even into Democratic governments (such as in the US), however this is more of a pure ideology and whatever group: public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee; have the ownership and even direction of production.

Syndicalism (125, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220): This is more of a labor movement that uses unionizing workers according to industry and the tool of strikes to advance worker's demands along with other direct actions. The goal, however, isn't just a fulfilling of demands. Rather, a gain of control over production and the economy at large via social ownership.

Transhumanist Politics (125, 221, 222, 223, 224): EEK! OK, lets not let the nightmares begin quite yet. Wait till you sleep after reading this.

This isn't just one ideology, more than a group of political ideologies. That's just the beginning of the nightmare. To ease that, those theories express a belief that through science and tech, you can improve humans. Now...to shatter that: ever hear of Eugenics?

We've a group of 'Tech Bros' right now pulling political strings that believe in this. It comes in all sorts of flavors and ways and let me tell you, this has been around for a lot longer than the 2000's. I won't go into this more. Just to say: I'm not for this.

Epilogue

So that's concluded today's lessons.

I'll give you official homework: If you haven't read the entire series so far, that's all fine. But you might want to read #1, #2, and #5, also potentially #3 to prepare. There are three parts to #4 and cover economic baseline. That might be good for future reference, or at least keep them bookmarked for reference.

Footnotes

Sorry, but when you're talking about ideology-more is better. Being philosophy and such, one might explain better than others. That's why this list is LONG!