Politics has been around for ages, and the meaning has changed over time. Previously, it was about how we distribute power and responsibilities amongst humanity. With time, it got more and more complex. Now, it's more about allocating resources (who gets what, when, and how) to policy making, building relationships with other allies, taking care of personal rights, fostering freedom, and much more.
Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle played a big role in shaping these ideas. Aristotle famously called humans "zoon politikon" — political animals — suggesting that engaging in public life and governance was part of what it meant to be fully human.
Evolution of Politics in Mankind
In prehistoric times, when humans were not that developed, we used to live in relatively egalitarian groups, a group or society where everyone is considered equal, especially in terms of Power, Status, and Access to resources. Leadership was usually informal, more based on experience, wisdom, or strength. No one had permanent power, and decisions were often made collectively.
Later on, the Agricultural Revolution took place, we started farming instead of relying on nature to produce things we consume. It led to forming larger communities and fostering cooperation. With land, food surplus, and property, Things got complex and we felt a need for:
- Social hierarchies
- The need for coordination
- Defense from outsiders
As groups became increasingly complex, and humanity's purposes diversified from mere survival and reproduction to a broader range of objectives, humans recognized a need for mentorship and leadership. So people began to accept leaders—chiefs, elders, or kings—who could manage resources, organize labor, enforce rules, and lead in warfare. This is where the concept of someone being 'in charge' arises, and the idea of moving society forward begins to take root.
And now, 10,000 years since the Agricultural Revolution, we have formed a lot of structural systems and political belief systems, aiming to solve societal problems and grow humanity even more. These ideologies are a set of beliefs written on paper on how society should be organized and how power should be distributed and exercised. They shape opinions on governance, economy, rights, freedoms, and social structures; they shape the way the government functions and help it define what it views as a way to prosper the economy.
Early traces of politics in India and the monarchical system
One of the early traces of the theory of structural systems and political ideologies in India was composed around the 4th century BCE during the Mauryan Empire. Kautilya (Chanakya)
Back then, the notion of India didn't exist at all, it was divided into different small parts getting governed by different kings or queens. Monarchs were the only form of government that ruled certain regions of India following the monarchial system.
This monarchical system was not that complex. A single person is considered to be the head of the state for life, until they lose it in war or die. Most often, it is passed down through a royal family line. The monarchic system existed for a long period, but it is not that popular in modern politics; only a few countries still adopted this system, with a few tweaks and iterations. In modern politics, there are two versions of the monarchial system:
- Absolute monarchy: The monarch holds total power over the government and is not bound by a constitution or laws. At present, only Saudi Arabia exercises this form of monarchy.
- Constitutional monarchy: The monarch's powers are limited by a constitution or laws, and real political power is usually held by elected bodies like a parliament. Constitutional monarchy exists in England, Japan, Spain, and Sweden.
So what made the monarchical system fall?
It all lies in the way it is built, which is flawed. The drawbacks were more substantial than the benefits of it, which caused the fall of the monarchical system. The drawbacks are pretty obvious:
- No matter how incompetent a king's son is, he will inherit power.
- Monarchs aren't elected and don't have to answer to the people. That can lead to unchecked power and decisions made in self-interest.
- Citizens typically had little say in governance.
- When power is concentrated in one person or family, there's always a risk of corruption or oppression.
Rise of Democracy
With the increase in the notion of personal freedom, people start to realize that they should have a say in the government rather than being ruled by kings or dictators; it's time that they become a part of the government. This idea of freedom gave birth to a different form of government called "democracy". The idea behind democracy was that power belongs to the people. Citizens have the right to participate in making decisions, either directly or by electing representatives. In the modern world, it is one of the most popular forms of government, and People across the globe seem to like it cause,
- It gives people a voice.
- It encourages peaceful power transitions.
- It allows for freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.
- Lets hold leaders accountable.
- Reduces the chances of abuse of power.
- Creates space for debate, innovation, and change.
It aims to solve the problems humanity has had with monarchy for all these years. It gave people a voice and formed a government that can be held accountable for its actions. But it is not perfect and also has some drawbacks, for example:
- No criteria of education required, anyone with a majority of votes can win the election. People can use their influence of money, media, and other aspects to sway voters unfairly.
- Democratic processes involve debates, voting, and compromise — this can delay urgent actions.
Technocracy: A way out?
These problems led to the creation of a new form of government. To solve these problems, Howard Scott
Again, this isn't perfect, Technocracy has drawbacks as well! I mean, who will choose to keep the person in charge? There will be less democracy and hence less involvement of citizens in the shaping of government.
But these are structural problems, and they can be addressed through structural reforms. One way to solve this is by blending the elements of both democracy and Technocracy. Old Singapore is often considered a successful example of this hybrid approach. Even the current U.S. government, in some respects, reflects a mix of both. These are not the best examples of blending these two forms of government, Still, it's the closest we've come in recent history to integrating the strengths of both systems.
Rise of Political Ideologies
While systems like monarchy, democracy, and technocracy define how power is structured and exercised, they don't always tell us why power is used the way it is, or for whom. This is where political ideologies come in.
These ideologies are the bigger picture ideas about how society should work — who gets what, how things are shared, and what we should value most. To understand modern politics, it's not enough to look at who holds power; we also need to examine the beliefs that guide their decisions.
The rise of modern political ideologies took off between the late 18th and the 19th centuries, largely as a response to massive changes in society caused by revolutions, industrialization, and the decline of monarchies.
Theory of left-wing and right-wing
During the French Revolution (late 18th century), in the National Assembly, a legislative body formed during the Revolution, members physically sat in different sections of the chamber based on their political beliefs.
- To the right of the president's chair: The nobles and conservatives, who supported the monarchy and tradition.
- To the left: The commoners and radicals, who favored revolution, secularism, and change, including the abolition of the monarchy.
Now, even though most political systems don't involve people physically sitting in those spots, the notion of being left and right is similar in modern politics as well. Being left focuses on reforming or challenging traditional systems, and opposes societal inequality and concentration of power. While being right values tradition, free markets, national identity, and individual responsibility, it often opposes rapid social or economic change and favors minimal government interference in people's lives.
With the spectrum of the idea of left and right spread across a line, we separate them by political ideology. To kick things off and get a good grasp of these ideologies, we will start with the right side of the spectrum. That is, Capitalism.
Capitalism
In 1776, Adam Smith
It is a right-wing ideology in which private individuals or businesses can own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and services. Under capitalism, the pursuit of profit and individual self-interest is the driving force of the economy. In a capitalist economy, individuals are free to own property, start businesses, and compete with one another in the market. Prices are determined by supply and demand, and profits are reinvested into the economy for further growth. The government in capitalism doesn't run the economy, but it creates the rules, protects the players, and builds the stadium where the economic "game" is played.
But why do so many countries rely on it?
Capitalism has its own set of advantages, which have led more than 150 nations to rely on it in some way to foster economic growth.
- One of the biggest advantages of capitalism is its ability to drive innovation and progress.
- Capitalism gives consumers a wide variety of goods and services, so you get to choose what to buy, where to buy it, and from whom. This freedom often leads to better quality, pricing, and customer service.
- Capitalism allows individuals to start businesses, invest, and build wealth. If you're skilled, hardworking, or lucky, you can rise economically — social mobility is possible. Many "rags-to-riches" stories happen in capitalist systems.
- You can innovate, build, and create based on your ideas.
- Capitalism promotes international trade, investment, and collaboration.
Criticism of capitalism
Regardless of being more successful than any other ideology in terms of providing financial freedom to citizens, fostering innovation, and more, Karl Marx
This exposes the brutal paradox of capitalism: workers create immense wealth but grow poorer and more powerless.
Karl Marx believed that the workers are the backbone of the economy, yet they are discriminated against by not being paid equally for the value they produce. He believed that the worker class of society does all the work, just to fill the pockets of industrialists, to make them richer. This creates inequality and concentration of wealth in society. According to Karl Marx:
Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole.
Are these claims about Capitalism true?
Yeah, a capitalistic society tends to have an unequal distribution of wealth. Looking at the data from all these years of the nations that are under capitalistic practice, we can surely say that. In the book "Das Kapital," Karl Marx introduced a new political ideology called Communism. It aims to solve the problems that have been caused by capitalism all the years.
Birth of a left-wing idea, "communism"
Communism is a far-left political and economic ideology that aims to create a classless, stateless society where all property is publicly owned, and everyone works and shares the benefits equally.
That means,
- No Private Property: All means of production (factories, land, businesses) are owned collectively by the people or the state.
- Classless Society: No rich or poor — everyone is equal in terms of social and economic status. A guy working at Tesla would make the same income as Elon Musk.
- No Exploitation: Since no one owns businesses privately, no one profits off others' labor.
- Planned Economy: Instead of markets and profits deciding what gets made, the government (or the collective) plans production and distribution based on needs.
- Abolition of the State (Eventually): In Marxist theory, the state would eventually "wither away" once true communism is achieved.
Marx's idea had a strong point; throughout history, one of the major causes of stress amongst humanity has been discrimination and inequality. Looking at what was been happening back a couple of centuries ago, Marx's worries can be justified. He doesn't want another society in which there is a sense of class amongst us, so that certain "superior" classes will cruelly rule over "inferior" classes.
Taking a glance at this, it does make sense. There's equality amongst people, and a planned economy. Seems like he finally solved all of the societal problems, and gave people what they wanted all these years. But did he finally solve it?
Well in theory, marxist idea 'communism' does makes sense and finally we feel like will have a system which is logical, on point and tackles the problems easily, but truth be told, in reality it ceases to exist, even on the basic levels, here are the drawbacks that comes with excercising communism:
- A downward spiral to economic hell: Each position in an organisation has different responsibilities, and some have more workload than others. This raises a question: "Why would you get more work done if you're going to get paid the same as the guy who is doing far less work"?
- Lack of choice: With state ownership of everything, people usually can't choose where to work, what to buy, or how to live as freely.
- No competition: Without market forces, industries often become outdated and uncompetitive.
- Product quality: Goods and services can be poor in quality due to a lack of competition and consumer choice.
The entire approach of communism seems to have a notion exactly opposite to what capitalism is all about. Well, it's bad that the rich get richer in a capitalist environment, but instead of making everyone rich, communism acts quite the opposite; it makes everyone poor. Now you don't own any land, you have no personal freedom, and you do not have any incentive to work any further. The economy would crash, and above all, the lives of citizens would be miserable.
That's why Ronald Reagan
How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
There are no countries today that practice full communism in the way Karl Marx originally envisioned it — a classless, stateless, moneyless society where all property is communally owned. But few countries claim to be communist. They only claim, but in reality, it's some mixture of different ideologies with communism.
- China claims to be a communist State, but in reality, China is a "Red Capitalist" country — communist in politics, capitalist in economy. It's not traditional communism, and it's not democracy either.
- North Korea, another country that claims to be communist but instead technically follows Juche, a unique form of self-reliance with dynastic leadership, is more of a totalitarian dictatorship than textbook communism.
Communism is a bit extreme; that's why it is considered a far-left analogy. The core idea behind communism is economic equality, and that isn't inherently flawed. But its execution has been problematic. But if we want economic equality and move towards being less extreme while being on the left, ideologically, we get to socialism.
What is socialism?
Socialism is also a left-wing idea, but it is not as extreme as communism. Communism and socialism are related but not the same. They share a common root in criticizing capitalism and promoting economic equality, but they differ in goals, methods, and real-world application.
Now in socialsim, instead of a few individuals or corporations controlling everything, as in pure capitalism, socialism argues that key industries (like healthcare, education, transportation, and energy) should be publicly owned or heavily regulated to serve the common good. The idea isn't to eliminate all private property or individual ambition, but to ensure that basic needs are met for everyone, not just the privileged few.
Socialism grew out of the Industrial Revolution, where workers labored under brutal conditions while factory owners got rich. Early socialist thinkers like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Robert Owen, and others argued that labor creates all value, so workers should benefit more directly from what they produce.
But unlike communism, which seeks to abolish all private property and eventually the state, socialism doesn't always reject markets or democracy. It tends to see the state as a tool to regulate capitalism and protect the public good.
In classical Marxist theory, socialism serves as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism — a system where wealth and power begin shifting from private hands to the collective. However, in practice, many socialist-leaning countries remain within democratic capitalist frameworks and do not pursue full communism.
To put it all simply,
- In Capitalism, you own the bakery and keep the profits.
- In Socialism, the community owns the bakery, and profits are shared or used for the public good. and,
- In Communism, there is no bakery owner at all — everyone contributes and takes what they need.
Socialism paints a compelling picture: a fairer world, where no one is left behind and basic needs are guaranteed. But while the goals are noble, the path socialism offers may not be the most effective-or realistic—way forward in a complex, globalized world. Here's why!
- Government-run systems can create a lot of bureaucracy, which means too many rules, delays, and slow decision-making. While the idea of public ownership seems fair, it often leads to big, rigid organizations that can't change quickly, waste resources, and sometimes fail to serve people's needs effectively.
- Socialism promises fairness, but making it work on a large scale is tough. Many socialist countries, like the Soviet Union and Venezuela, ended up facing economic problems, shortages, or harsh governments. While some say these weren't "true socialism," these failures have made people hesitant about the idea.
- Today's world is deeply interconnected. High taxes or heavy regulation under socialism can lead to capital flight, brain drain, or reduced investment. Critics argue we need systems that are adaptable, dynamic, and competitive, not overly centralized or protectionist.
My thoughts
After all this back and forth in our search for the perfect ideology and system of governance, we've come a long way from living as egalitarian groups to creating complex bodies and structures. However, the ideologies and government structures we've discussed so far are just a fraction of the full picture, there are hundreds of different ideologies out there that we haven't talked about.
All of this theory about different ideologies and governmental structures and their flaws makes me want to ask: Is there an ideology that is just perfect? Well, here the notion of liberty and free market capitalism comes into play. But is it the best ideology out there? If yes, why not the entire world moving more towards collectivism or socialism? We gon find out!
We should go back in history once again and look at what caused an economic boom in the 1800s. If we look at a graph of the evolution of economic growth throughout the history of humanity, we would see a graph shaped like a hockey stick, an exponential function that remained constant for 90% of the time, and which was exponentially triggered starting in the 19th century.
There's only one exception with the discovery of America in the 15th century, but apart from that, throughout the whole period between the year zero and the year 1800, global per capita GDP remained stuck with a growth rate of 0.02% annually. So, almost no growth. When you look at per capita GDP since the year 1800 until today, what you will see is that after the Industrial Revolution, global per capita GDP multiplied by over 15 times, which meant a boom in growth that lifted 90% of the global population out of poverty. So what caused it?
During this entire period from the 1800s to now, the epicentre of the economic boom has been America. And during this entire time, we embraced the idea of liberty and capitalism as the way forward. What we saw during this period is no less than a miracle; it fostered an economic boost than any other political ideology before, it fostered innovation, we have airplanes, we can contact each other across the globe, we made rock able to think (Chat-GPT), we sent a rover over mars to collect data about life possibility. Innovation will only happen if you give people the space and the freedom to think beyond covering the necessities. All of this happened because people's necessities were being taken care of, and mainly because of the notion of liberty and capitalism being the central part of democracy.
Why do other political ideologies, like communism or socialism, not ensure the same growth as capitalism?
It all lies in the way these models are built, which is flawed. According to Marxist theory, the solution to the wealth being accumulated in the rich man's pocket is through bringing the rich down and distributing it amongst all of humans, or as in a socialist economy, by taxing the entrepreneurs/ innovators of the society heavily. Taxes are collected coercively, we don't pay taxes of our own free will, the more the taxes the less the freedom.
These guys are the backbone of the economy and of the world; they innovate by looking for real-life problems of humankind and then provide the solution. If they are getting rich by this process, let it be; they have earned it.
If we go through this path of the government being resistant to the growth of these entrepreneurs, they loose incentives to work forward and hence the cake that we built our economic model on to distribute amongst humanity, gets smaller and smaller until it's no longer available for anyone. By that point, we have entirely lost the economy and the spirit to innovate amongst the citizens.
What is liberty?
It is just a state of being free. Freedom from higher authorities on one's way of life, freedom of speech, freedom to do great. It's a foundational concept in political philosophy, law, and human rights. Liberty is central to democratic societies and is often balanced with other values like security, equality, and justice. This gives birth to another political Ideology called libertarianism.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that prioritizes individual freedom, the free market, minimal government intervention, and voluntary association. At its core, libertarianism holds that people should be free to do as they please, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. So, less government intervention, to the extent that the role of government is quite less.
Role of government in libertarianism.
- Protecting Rights — Ensuring life, liberty, and property are safe from violence, theft, and fraud.
- Law and Order — Maintaining a legal system (courts, police) to resolve disputes and enforce contracts.
- National Defense — Providing basic protection from external threats.
So the notion of libertarianism is built around having more innovation and economic growth for a nation. Is it all good? Well, leftists argue for some drawbacks that come from it, and I think we can solve them.
Arguments against libertarianism made by leftists
Claim: Free markets naturally lead to monopolies, where one or a few corporations dominate and exploit consumers and workers.
- exploitation happens when markets aren't truly free — for example, when governments bail out corporations or restrict competition.
- In voluntary exchange, both parties benefit. If workers had more freedom to choose jobs or start businesses, they'd have more power, not less.
- Regulations often protect big corporations, not workers.
Claim: Some services shouldn't be privatized.
- Government-run services tend to be inefficient, bloated, and unaccountable (e.g., long waits in public healthcare systems).
- Competition improves quality and lowers prices, even in education and healthcare, when allowed.
- Many so-called "public goods" could be better provided by nonprofits, cooperatives, or the private sector.
Claim: You're not free if you can't afford to exercise your rights.
- Forcing others to provide for you (via taxation or regulation) violates their freedom.
- The best way to increase prosperity is through economic growth, innovation, and job creation, not government redistribution.
- Wealth creation, not wealth transfer, is the answer to poverty.
Claim: Libertarianism fails in practice.
- Most "capitalist" countries are heavily regulated mixed economies, so failures shouldn't be blamed on true libertarian principles.
- Where markets are allowed to work (like in tech or finance), innovation and prosperity thrive.
Libertarianism is about freedom. Freedom to think, to act, and to create is what gives life a meaning. It was liberty and capitalism not collectivism, that ignited the Industrial Revolution, lifted billions from poverty, and gave rise to the interconnected, high-tech world we live in today.
Of course, libertarianism isn't perfect — no ideology is. But instead of trying to fix problems by giving the state more power, perhaps the solution lies in giving people more freedom and holding them accountable. More openness, more competition, more trust in the individual.
"Long live freedom, Damnit!"
Credits
Mostly, thanks to Javier Milei
Special mention: The Libertarian Party of India is drawing significant attention for its efforts to promote libertarianism in the country. Thanks to my friend Aditya Sharma for helping me understand some of the concepts on a deeper level.