Core Political Ideas

What is an ideology? The analytical framework#

FoundationAQA 7152/3: Political ideasDfE GCE Politics subject content

The framework for analysing an ideology

Fig. 1An ideology's view of human nature underpins its views of the state, society and the economy - the framework for analysing each.

A political ideology is a more or less coherent set of ideas about human nature, society and politics that provides a basis for organised political action - it offers a critique of the existing order, a model of a desired future, and a view of how to move from one to the other. Studying an ideology at A-Level is not a matter of vague generalisation but of grasping a structured set of interconnected ideas, and the most useful way to do this is through a common analytical framework that can be applied to each ideology: its view of human nature, of the state, of society, and of the economy. Applying this framework consistently is the key to analysing the ideologies precisely and to comparing them.

Human nature is the foundation, because an ideology's view of what human beings are essentially like shapes everything else. Is human nature fixed or malleable? Are people essentially rational, self-interested, cooperative, competitive, good, imperfect or perfectible? Liberalism tends to see humans as rational, self-seeking individuals; conservatism as flawed, imperfect and dependent on society and tradition; socialism as social, cooperative creatures shaped by their circumstances and capable of fraternity. From these different starting points flow different conclusions about how society should be organised - which is why a strong answer always begins an ideology from its view of human nature.

The view of the state and of society follows from human nature. On the state: how large and active should it be, and what is its purpose? Liberals want a limited state that protects individual rights (classical) or an enabling state that expands freedom (modern); conservatives want a strong but pragmatic state that maintains order and tradition; socialists want an active state to deliver equality (or, for revolutionaries, its eventual transformation). On society: liberals stress the individual and are wary of collective claims; conservatives see society as an organic whole, more than the sum of its parts, bound by tradition and shared values; socialists stress class, community, cooperation and solidarity. These views of state and society are the practical expression of each ideology's assumptions about human nature.

The view of the economy completes the framework and is often where the ideologies clash most sharply. Should the economy be organised around the free market, or around planning, common ownership and redistribution? Classical liberals and the New Right favour free markets and private property; modern liberals accept a regulated, mixed economy; conservatives are pragmatic, historically accepting a mixed economy (one-nation) or embracing the free market (New Right); socialists range from the common ownership of the means of production (Marxists) through the mixed economy and redistribution (social democrats) to the regulated market with social investment (the third way). Mastering this four-part framework - human nature, the state, society, the economy - equips a student to analyse each ideology systematically, to locate its internal strands, and to compare the ideologies against one another, which is exactly what the higher-level essays demand.

Worked example

Applying the framework to contrast two ideologies

Use the framework to contrast the liberal and conservative views of human nature and the state.

Liberal human nature
Humans are rational, self-interested individuals capable of directing their own lives - an optimistic view.
Liberal state
Because individuals are rational and self-directing, the state should be limited and by consent, protecting rights and freedom, not directing lives.
Conservative human nature
Humans are flawed and imperfect - intellectually limited, morally fallible, psychologically dependent on order and tradition.
Conservative state
Because humans are imperfect, the state must be strong enough to maintain order and authority, though pragmatic and rooted in tradition rather than abstract theory.

Result: Liberalism's optimistic view of rational, self-directing individuals yields a limited state by consent, while conservatism's view of flawed, dependent humans yields a strong, pragmatic state for order - showing how each ideology's politics flow from its view of human nature.

Typical mistakes

Describing an ideology as a loose collection of policies rather than a structured set of ideas built on a view of human nature.
Failing to use a consistent framework, so that the ideologies cannot be systematically compared.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three elements of the framework used to analyse a political ideology. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

Liberalism: core ideas, strands and thinkers#

AdvancedAQA 7152/3: Political ideas - liberalismDfE GCE Politics subject content

Classical versus modern liberalism

Fig. 2Both strands are individualist and prize liberty; they divide on the meaning of freedom and the role of the state.

Liberalism is the ideology of the individual, and its core ideas cohere around the primacy and freedom of the individual person. Its central principles are: individualism (the individual is the central unit, and society exists to serve individuals, not the reverse); freedom or liberty (the supreme value, with individuals entitled to the greatest freedom compatible with the like freedom of others); rationalism (a faith in human reason and in the individual's capacity to make their own decisions and to improve society); equality (foundational equality - all individuals are of equal worth and entitled to equal rights and equal treatment, though not necessarily equal outcomes); and a belief in a limited, constitutional state that governs by consent and is checked to prevent it threatening individual liberty. These ideas interlock: because individuals are rational and of equal worth, they are entitled to freedom, and the state must be limited and accountable to protect it.

Liberalism divides into two main strands, and distinguishing them is essential. Classical liberalism, the earlier form, emphasises 'negative' freedom (freedom as the absence of external constraint - being left alone), a minimal 'night-watchman' state confined to protecting individuals and their property, and a laissez-faire free-market economy. Its foundational thinker is John Locke, whose social-contract theory holds that individuals possess natural rights (to life, liberty and property) that pre-date the state, that legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed and exists to protect those rights, and that government must be limited and constitutional - if it becomes tyrannical, the people may resist. Mary Wollstonecraft extended liberal principles to women, arguing in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman that women are rational beings entitled to the same rights, education and formal equality as men - an early liberal feminism grounded in the universal reason liberalism prizes.

Modern liberalism, developing from the late nineteenth century, revised classical liberalism in response to industrial society. It embraces 'positive' freedom (freedom as the ability to develop oneself and fulfil one's potential, not merely the absence of constraint), and argues that genuine freedom requires an enabling state to remove the social obstacles - poverty, ignorance, ill-health - that prevent people from being truly free. John Stuart Mill is the transitional figure: his On Liberty defends individual liberty through the 'harm principle' (the individual is sovereign over themselves, and liberty may be restricted only to prevent harm to others) and prizes individuality and self-development, pointing beyond classical liberalism towards the developmental concerns of the modern strand. John Rawls provided modern liberalism's major theory of social justice: his 'veil of ignorance' thought-experiment argues that rational people, ignorant of their own place in society, would choose principles of justice that protect the least advantaged (the 'difference principle'), justifying a redistributive, enabling state on liberal individualist grounds. Betty Friedan, in The Feminine Mystique, applied liberal principles to the position of women, arguing that women were confined to a domestic 'mystique' and should have equal opportunity to fulfil themselves in the public sphere - modern liberal feminism.

The tension between the two strands is the key evaluative theme, and the prescribed thinkers can be used to develop it. Classical and modern liberals share the foundational commitments - individualism, liberty, reason, equality of worth, a limited constitutional state - but divide sharply on the state and the economy: classical liberals see the state as a threat to freedom and favour negative liberty and free markets (Locke's limited state), while modern liberals see an enabling state as the guarantor of a fuller, positive freedom and accept economic intervention and redistribution (Rawls's difference principle). A sophisticated answer shows that both strands are authentically liberal - each derives from the shared premise that the individual and their freedom are supreme - but that they reach opposite conclusions about how freedom is best secured, and can deploy Locke and Rawls (or Mill as the bridge) to argue the point. This internal debate over the meaning of freedom and the role of the state is what a top-band liberalism essay explores.

The strands and key thinkers of liberalism

Fig. 3Liberalism's prescribed thinkers span the classical strand (Locke, Wollstonecraft) and the modern strand (Mill, Rawls, Friedan).

Worked example

Worked comparison: Locke and Rawls on the state

Compare Locke's and Rawls's views of the state, and explain what their difference reveals about liberalism.

Locke's state
A limited, constitutional state by consent, whose sole purpose is to protect natural rights (life, liberty, property) - minimal, and a potential threat to freedom if unchecked.
Rawls's state
An enabling, redistributive state justified by the difference principle - inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit the least advantaged, so the state must act to secure fair opportunity.
The shared premise
Both start from the individual and from freedom and equal worth - both are authentically liberal, deriving the state from the needs of free, equal individuals.
The divergence
Locke reads freedom as being left alone (negative), so the state must be minimal; Rawls reads freedom as fair opportunity to develop (positive), so the state must be active.
What it reveals
The classical/modern divide is not a disagreement about liberal fundamentals but about what securing individual freedom requires - the same premise, opposite conclusions about the state.

Result: Locke's minimal, rights-protecting state and Rawls's enabling, redistributive state both derive from liberalism's core commitment to the free, equal individual - so their disagreement is about the MEANING of freedom (negative vs positive) and what it requires of the state, not about liberal fundamentals, which is the heart of the classical/modern divide.

Typical mistakes

Confusing negative freedom (classical - absence of constraint) with positive freedom (modern - self-development requiring an enabling state).
Misattributing thinkers' ideas - keep Locke (classical, natural rights) distinct from Rawls (modern, social justice), and Mill as the transitional figure.

Active revision

'The two strands of liberalism have more in common than divides them.' Analyse and evaluate this statement with reference to key thinkers. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

Conservatism: core ideas, strands and thinkers#

AdvancedAQA 7152/3: Political ideas - conservatismDfE GCE Politics subject content

The strands and key thinkers of conservatism

Fig. 4Conservatism's prescribed thinkers span the traditional strand (Hobbes, Burke, Oakeshott) and the New Right (Rand, Nozick).

Conservatism is the ideology of order, tradition and human imperfection, and its core ideas cohere around a sceptical, pragmatic disposition rather than an abstract blueprint. Its central principles are: human imperfection (human beings are flawed - intellectually limited, morally fallible and psychologically in need of security and order); pragmatism (a preference for practical experience and 'what works' over abstract theory and grand schemes); tradition (respect for institutions, customs and ways of life inherited from the past, which embody accumulated wisdom); an organic view of society (society is a living whole, more than the sum of its individual parts, bound together by shared values, duties and institutions); and a strong attachment to property (which gives individuals security, a stake in society and continuity). These ideas interlock: because humans are imperfect and reason is limited, we should trust tradition and experience over theory, and preserve the organic institutions that maintain order.

Traditional conservatism is the foundational strand, and its central thinker is Edmund Burke. Reacting to the French Revolution, Burke defended tradition and gradual, organic change - 'a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation' (change in order to conserve) - and attacked the attempt to remake society on abstract, rationalist principles. He saw society as a partnership between the living, the dead and the yet unborn, valued the 'little platoons' (the local communities and institutions that bind people to society), and preferred the accumulated wisdom of experience to the arrogance of individual reason. Thomas Hobbes, though earlier and in some ways distinct, supplies conservatism's stark view of human nature and order: in Leviathan he argued that in a 'state of nature' - without a common power - life would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short', so that self-interested, insecure individuals rationally consent to an absolute sovereign to guarantee order and security. Michael Oakeshott expressed the conservative disposition philosophically: 'to be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown', a preference for the tried over the untried and for present laughter over utopian bliss - conservatism as a temperament of pragmatic scepticism rather than a doctrine.

The New Right is the second major strand, a later development that fused two elements and pulled conservatism in a more radical, free-market direction. The neo-liberal element revived classical-liberal economics - free markets, a minimal state, low taxes, privatisation, individual responsibility and self-reliance - arguing that an over-large state had sapped freedom and enterprise. Its thinkers include Ayn Rand, whose Objectivism celebrates radical individualism and rational self-interest ('the virtue of selfishness') and a laissez-faire capitalism in which the individual pursues their own rational happiness, and Robert Nozick, whose libertarianism defends the minimal 'night-watchman' state, self-ownership, and an 'entitlement theory' of justice under which redistribution by the state is illegitimate because it violates individuals' rights to what they have justly acquired. The neo-conservative element, by contrast, stressed a strong state on law, order, defence and traditional social and national values - so the New Right combined a free economy with a strong state.

The tension within conservatism - between the traditional/one-nation and the New Right strands - is the key evaluative theme, and it can appear paradoxical. Traditional conservatism is pragmatic, organic, paternalist and cautious about change, valuing tradition, social duty and a mixed economy; the New Right is more ideological and radical, championing the free market, individualism and a smaller economic state (while a strong moral and national state). The two even clash over human nature and the individual - traditional conservatives see humans as socially embedded and imperfect, needing the guidance of tradition and community, whereas Rand's and Nozick's individualism owes more to classical liberalism than to Burke's organic society. A sophisticated answer can argue that the New Right sits uneasily within conservatism - that its free-market individualism is in tension with traditional conservatism's organicism and scepticism of abstract theory - and can deploy Burke and Oakeshott against Rand and Nozick to explore whether conservatism is one ideology or an uneasy coalition of a pragmatic tradition and a radical free-market creed. This internal argument is what a top-band conservatism essay develops.

Worked example

Worked comparison: Burke versus Nozick

Compare Burke and Nozick, and explain the tension their difference reveals within conservatism.

Burke's conservatism
Organic society, tradition, gradual 'change to conserve', the little platoons, scepticism of abstract reason - humans are socially embedded and imperfect.
Nozick's position
Libertarian individualism: self-ownership, a minimal night-watchman state, an entitlement theory of justice that condemns redistribution - drawn from classical liberalism.
The tension
Nozick's atomistic individualism and abstract theory of rights sit awkwardly with Burke's organic, tradition-rooted, anti-rationalist conservatism.
The evaluative point
This suggests the New Right's free-market individualism may be closer to classical liberalism than to traditional conservatism, so conservatism may be an uneasy coalition rather than one ideology.
Judgement
A defensible line is that the strands share a concern for order and property but diverge fundamentally on the individual and society, so the New Right does sit uneasily within conservatism.

Result: Burke's organic, tradition-rooted conservatism and Nozick's atomistic, free-market libertarianism reveal a deep tension - the New Right's individualism and abstract rights-theory owe more to classical liberalism than to Burke's organicism - supporting the judgement that the New Right sits uneasily within conservatism, which is better seen as a coalition of a pragmatic tradition and a radical free-market creed.

Typical mistakes

Confusing the two New Right strands - neo-liberalism (free-market economics) and neo-conservatism (strong state on order and values).
Misattributing thinkers - keep Burke/Oakeshott (traditional, organic, pragmatic) distinct from Rand/Nozick (New Right, individualist, free-market).

Active revision

'The New Right sits uneasily within conservatism.' Analyse and evaluate this statement with reference to key thinkers. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

Socialism: core ideas, strands and thinkers#

AdvancedAQA 7152/3: Political ideas - socialismDfE GCE Politics subject content

The strands and key thinkers of socialism

Fig. 5Socialism's prescribed thinkers span the revolutionary (Marx, Luxemburg), evolutionary (Webb) and social-democratic (Crosland, Giddens) strands.

Socialism is the ideology of equality, community and cooperation, and its core ideas cohere around a critique of the inequality and division produced by capitalism. Its central principles are: collectivism (human beings achieve more, and live better, through collective effort and community than through individual competition); a common humanity (people are naturally social, cooperative and fraternal, and are shaped by their society rather than being fixed, self-interested individuals); equality (the defining socialist value - a commitment to reducing or abolishing inequality, understood by different strands as equality of outcome, of opportunity or of welfare); social class (society is structured by class, and the interests and experience of the working class are central); and common ownership or the social control of the economy (in some form, so that wealth is shared and production serves need rather than private profit). These interlock: because people are social and shaped by their circumstances, changing the unequal structure of society - above all its economic structure - can produce a more equal, cooperative and fulfilling human life.

Revolutionary socialism (Marxism) is the first major strand, and its founding thinkers are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They developed a materialist theory of history in which societies are driven by class conflict over the ownership of the means of production; under capitalism the bourgeoisie (the owning class) exploit the proletariat (the working class) by extracting the surplus value of their labour, producing inequality, alienation and crisis. Marx and Engels argued that capitalism would be overthrown by proletarian revolution, private property and class abolished, and a communist society of common ownership and true human emancipation established. Rosa Luxemburg developed revolutionary socialism in a democratic, internationalist direction: she defended revolution and the mass action of the working class, criticised reformism (in Reform or Revolution she argued that reforms within capitalism, however welcome, could not by themselves deliver socialism), yet also warned against undemocratic, elitist forms of revolutionary organisation - insisting that socialism must be built by, and preserve the freedom of, the masses.

Evolutionary and reformist socialism is the second major strand, which seeks socialism gradually and democratically rather than through revolution. Beatrice Webb, a founder of Fabian socialism, exemplified this approach: the Fabians believed in 'the inevitability of gradualness' - that socialism would come not through revolution but through the steady, democratic extension of the state, expert administration and reform, as an educated electorate voted for collective provision. This tradition looked to the state, the ballot box and rational reform to build a more equal society within, and by transforming, the existing constitutional order. It provided much of the intellectual foundation of democratic-socialist and Labour politics in Britain.

Social democracy and the 'third way' form the third strand, revising socialism's economic prescriptions while retaining its commitment to equality. Anthony Crosland, in The Future of Socialism, argued that socialism should be defined by its ends (above all equality) rather than by the means of wholesale nationalisation, and that a managed, mixed, Keynesian capitalism could deliver growing prosperity which redistribution and strong public services would use to advance equality - so common ownership was no longer necessary. Anthony Giddens's 'third way' modernised social democracy further: accepting the market and globalisation and moving 'beyond left and right', it redefined equality as social inclusion and opportunity, and looked to a 'social investment state' (investing in education and skills) rather than to nationalisation or heavy redistribution. The tension between the strands is the key evaluative theme: revolutionaries (Marx, and in part Luxemburg) hold that capitalism must be abolished and reformist socialism is a delusion, while social democrats (Crosland, Giddens) hold that equality can be pursued within a reformed capitalism - so a sophisticated answer can deploy Marx against Crosland and Giddens to ask whether socialism requires the abolition of capitalism or its humane management, and whether the third way remains socialism at all or has abandoned it. This internal debate over means (revolution vs reform) and over the economy (common ownership vs the managed market) is what a top-band socialism essay explores.

Worked example

Worked comparison: Marx versus Crosland

Compare Marx and Crosland on capitalism and equality, and explain the division it reveals within socialism.

Marx's position
Capitalism is inherently exploitative and must be abolished by revolution; only common ownership can end class exploitation and deliver genuine equality.
Crosland's position
Capitalism can be managed (Keynesian, mixed economy) to deliver growth, and equality can be advanced by redistribution and public services WITHOUT wholesale nationalisation.
The shared goal
Both are socialists in prizing equality and rejecting the inequalities of unregulated capitalism - the END is shared.
The division over means
Marx: equality requires abolishing capitalism (revolution, common ownership); Crosland: equality can be achieved within a reformed capitalism (reform, the mixed economy).
Judgement
The division over means (revolution vs reform) and over the economy (common ownership vs managed capitalism) is real and deep, but both remain recognisably socialist in their commitment to equality.

Result: Marx's demand to abolish capitalism through revolution and Crosland's confidence that a managed capitalism can deliver equality reveal socialism's deep division over MEANS - revolution vs reform, common ownership vs the mixed economy - while both remain socialist in prizing equality, so the division is over method and economics rather than over the goal itself.

Typical mistakes

Treating all socialism as revolutionary/Marxist - the social-democratic and third-way strands pursue equality within a reformed capitalism.
Misattributing thinkers - keep Marx/Luxemburg (revolutionary) distinct from Webb (Fabian gradualism) and Crosland/Giddens (social democracy / third way).

Active revision

'Socialism has been fatally divided over the means of achieving its goals.' Analyse and evaluate this statement with reference to key thinkers. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

Tensions within, and comparison between, the ideologies#

AdvancedAQA 7152/3: Political ideasDfE GCE Politics subject content

Comparing the three core ideologies

Fig. 6The ideologies share a concern with human welfare but diverge on the individual, the state and equality.

The highest-level essays require candidates to handle both the tensions WITHIN each ideology and the differences BETWEEN the ideologies, and a strong answer keeps these two dimensions clearly in view. Within each ideology there is a foundational internal tension: liberalism divides over the meaning of freedom and the role of the state (classical negative freedom and the minimal state versus modern positive freedom and the enabling state); conservatism divides over the individual and the economy (the traditional, organic, paternalist strand versus the New Right's free-market individualism); and socialism divides over means and the economy (revolutionary abolition of capitalism and common ownership versus evolutionary and social-democratic reform within a managed capitalism). Recognising that each ideology is a family of strands in tension, held together by shared core commitments, is the mark of a sophisticated answer.

Comparing the ideologies against one another is best done through the common framework, so that the comparison is systematic rather than impressionistic. On human nature: liberalism sees rational, self-interested individuals; conservatism sees flawed, imperfect, socially-embedded beings; socialism sees social, cooperative, malleable creatures shaped by their circumstances. On the state: liberals want it limited (classical) or enabling (modern); conservatives want it strong but pragmatic, rooted in tradition; socialists want it active to deliver equality (or, for revolutionaries, transformed). On society: liberals prioritise the individual; conservatives see an organic whole bound by tradition; socialists stress class, community and solidarity. On the economy: the ideologies range from free-market (classical liberalism, the New Right) through the regulated mixed economy (modern liberalism, one-nation conservatism, social democracy) to common ownership (Marxism). Setting the ideologies side by side on each dimension of the framework produces a precise, analytical comparison.

Some of the most revealing comparisons cut ACROSS the conventional boundaries, and noticing them lifts an answer. Classical liberalism and the New Right share a commitment to the free market, negative freedom and a minimal economic state - which is why Rand and Nozick can look more classical-liberal than Burkean, and why the New Right is sometimes said to sit uneasily within conservatism. Modern liberalism, one-nation conservatism and social democracy share an acceptance of a mixed, regulated economy and a substantial (if differently justified) role for the state in reducing hardship - a broad 'social' centre. And on the individual-versus-society question, liberalism and Marxism stand at opposite poles (the sovereign individual versus the primacy of class and community), with conservatism's organic society closer to the socialist than the liberal end in its stress on the whole over the part. These cross-cutting affinities and oppositions are precisely what the comparative, evaluative essays reward.

The evaluative pay-off is to be able to argue, with named thinkers, both about tensions within an ideology and about the fundamental disagreements between the ideologies, reaching a clear judgement. A strong answer might argue, for example, that the deepest fault-line in modern politics is the disagreement over the individual and the state - with liberalism and the New Right on the side of the individual and the market, and socialism and traditional conservatism (for very different reasons) on the side of the social whole - and can deploy Locke or Nozick against Marx or Burke to develop the point. The essential higher-level skills are to treat each ideology as a family of strands in genuine tension, to compare the ideologies systematically through the framework, to notice the cross-cutting affinities, and always to argue with the prescribed thinkers rather than in the abstract - the requirement that most distinguishes strong ideology answers from weak ones.

Worked example

Model named-thinker essay plan: liberalism vs socialism on the individual

Plan a 25-mark answer evaluating whether liberalism and socialism disagree fundamentally about the individual, using key thinkers.

Introduction and thesis
Frame the individual-vs-society question; signal a judgement - the disagreement is fundamental, though modern liberalism and social democracy narrow it. Name the thinkers to be used.
The liberal individual
Locke: individuals with natural rights prior to society; Mill: the sovereign individual and self-development - society exists to serve the free individual.
The socialist view
Marx: the individual is shaped by class and the economic structure; humans are social, cooperative beings - class and community, not the isolated individual, are primary.
Narrowing the gap
Modern liberalism (Rawls) and social democracy (Crosland, Giddens) both accept an active state and social obligation, so the divide is narrower between these strands than between Locke and Marx.
Judgement
Conclude that liberalism and socialism DO disagree fundamentally about the individual - the sovereign individual versus the socially-constituted person - even though their modern, moderate strands converge on an enabling state, so the fault-line is real but not absolute.

Result: A top-band plan argues with named thinkers (Locke and Mill on the sovereign individual; Marx on the socially-constituted person; Rawls, Crosland and Giddens narrowing the gap) and judges that liberalism and socialism disagree fundamentally about the individual - the sovereign individual versus the person constituted by class and community - while acknowledging their modern strands converge, a clear line grounded in the prescribed thinkers.

Typical mistakes

Comparing the ideologies impressionistically rather than systematically through the framework (human nature, state, society, economy).
Writing about ideologies in the abstract without the prescribed named thinkers - the single most common reason ideology answers underperform.

Active revision

'Liberalism and socialism disagree fundamentally about the individual.' Analyse and evaluate this statement with reference to key thinkers. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

Key points

Applying the framework to contrast two ideologies

Key points

Worked comparison: Locke and Rawls on the state

Key points

Worked comparison: Burke versus Nozick

Key points

Worked comparison: Marx versus Crosland

Key points

Model named-thinker essay plan: liberalism vs socialism on the individual

Sources

Core Political Ideas

Key points

Applying the framework to contrast two ideologies

Key points

Worked comparison: Locke and Rawls on the state

Key points

Worked comparison: Burke versus Nozick

Key points

Worked comparison: Marx versus Crosland

Key points

Model named-thinker essay plan: liberalism vs socialism on the individual

Sources