Political Philosophy of the Movement

Socialism, Conservatism, Communism, Which is it? Philosophies are only relevant as much as the relevance of the prevailing objectives of a society. For e.g. Would the people of Somalia embrace conservatism? How about the Rohingyas in Myanmar, Which philosophy might they be inclined to? The utility of Philosophy lies in its ability to explain to us the nature of humans, and tell us what is right, and what is wrong. Philosophy is like walking into a Haute Cuisine Restaurant and looking at the menu, while the server waits on you. But when you are stranded on an island as a castaway, and all you have is a bag of chips and a bottle of water, you don't have any use for philosophy. If you are thinking, at the best, you might be thinking about "hope" and hope does not need any philosophies.

Philosophy is for situations where there is freedom of choice. Though Philosophy can suggest something, a man who is forced to do hard labour in a mine at gun point does not have many choices. Morality, or the choice of doing the right or wrong action is a privilege of free people. This is the reason why humanity should strive for freedom, so that humans can exercise their morality. The output of a moral society is much higher than an immoral society.

Choice
The choice of political philosophy should be that of the people. However, we cannot expect people to understand philosophy. In order to arrive at the underlying philosophy of the people, the society has to look at the values and expectations of the people in general. The second entity that should dictate the political philosophy are is the nature and value of the place, that the History and Geography of a place.

For e.g. America could only sustain capitalism because of its always growing exports as well as innovation. This brings income from all around the world and feeds the people indirectly by way of economic prosperity. Getting a job is easy in America and India than in Russia or Canada.

Another example is Britain at the time of the French Revolution. Edmund Burke, the British Philosopher, and also considered the father of conservative philosophy took a critical position on the French Revolution. However, a philosopher from Britain, a country which was awash with resources from colonies have no right or relevance to criticize the political philosophy of a country which had much different social issues. Britain, or America, or Australia or even Canada for that matter can afford Conservatism only because it was sustainable as a philosophy due to the incoming wealth. But, if it was a country that had no incoming wealth, and no innovation, then that country will by default, veer towards socialism, communism or revolutionary authoritarian governments or dictators. Even Muammar Ghaddafi was loved by his people.

Whether it is Conservatism, or Socialism, or Communism. The people should be the deciders of such philosophy. And in that way, in a free country, all philosophies should co-exist and people should be free to choose the philosophy. However, America as a state had chosen that it will oppose Communism and Socialism. And this is no secret that all their establishments and policies were once.

It is no secret that the wealthy, and the powerful control the political philosophies. They do this by their donations to various political, non-political organizations, as well as patronage of the media. Sometimes the difference between Democrats or Republicans are so blurred that both have to resort to aggressive branding tactics, like the adoption of an issue that immediately appears to establish thier brand, for e.g. BLM or Gun Rights Issue.

For this purpose, The movement will stay of from political branding issues like BLM, Gun rights etc. Because clearly these issues are of no use to the value system, but more of a "brand assertion exercise"