Ideologies - what they are there for?

**Rosacrux redux** · April 05, 2006, 08:58 AM

Having read more than a few times in the past couple of days here in the VV forums, several things about ideologies and ideologues, I thought I'd open a relevant topic.

A common misconception that has been reproduced by many posters is that ideolgies are causing wars and ideologues are "bad" and ideologies are to blame for much of the malady we've seen in history.

I am afraid this view lacks perception and is very innacurate.

What is ideology? A set of beliefs, of moral standards and guidelines.

What purpose does it serve? It formulates into a readily available (and easily implementable) set a series of principles, standards and rules.

How did they become "ideology"? How or Why? I'd say, because most people can't actually think for themselves, they need a premade set of rules. Otherwise they either go bananas, or return in the hunger/gatherer stage of social evolution.

Do those principles exist in spite of human beings? Absolutely not.

Do those principles serve some purpose? Yes, they are the standard principles by which some human beings live their lives or they are ways for some human beings to impose their will/manipulate/exploit/whatever, other human beings.

Ideology? Sound leftist to me.... Rubish. If you say "I believe in free market", you are just equally ideologue with the guy who says "I believe in the class-less society".

Can we live without ideologies? The question should be "can we live without a set of standards and rules" and the answer would be: "you wouldn't like that kind of living", because it would be a very straightforward "dog eat dog" slugfest, law of jungle and all. Althoug a couple of ideologies I have in mind, propose exactly that

Can we live only with ideologies? This is a moot question, ideologies are not to be taken out of their historical and social context, otherwise they don't mean much (and cannot be applied).

How firm should our devotion to an ideology be? Ah, but that's a personal thing, isn't it?

I am not an ideologue, I am religious! Another common misconception is that religions are not ideologies. They are, albeit strict and usually not very flexible (and some other ideologies share thos "virtues"...)

Ideology or flexibility? Flexibility is just another way to say opportunist and immoral. The person that has absolutely no ideology (be it political, social, religious or otherwise) has absolutely no restraints and is effectively an animal. It might serve him well, but it doesn't serve his fellow human beings well. Being a monolithical ideologue cannot be equally self-serving and gainfull for the individual, and is supposed to be of good service for his fellow human beings (at least those having the same ideology). But as theory is usually far from reality and seeing that not all people share the same ideology, in some cases can be a serious problem for his fellow human beings.

And it all bears down to...?: Ideology without critical thinking is a very dangerous thing. Ideologues who don't think are fanatics or sheep (depends on predisposition and particular conditions). Ideology with critical thinking is even more dangerous: for those who are holding the power in our society.

[EDIT] Hmm... I think this topic fits better in the political mudpit... I don't know, really. Whatever the mods feel like.

**Valus** · April 05, 2006, 09:10 AM

Moved to the pit, was unsure myself, so dont be surprised if a someone higher up comes in and changes this!

**The White Knight** · April 05, 2006, 09:11 AM

That's very informative, thank you! Very nice post!

**Last Roman** · April 05, 2006, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux

A common misconception that has been reproduced by many posters is that ideolgies are causing wars and ideologues are "bad" and ideologies are to blame for much of the malady we've seen in history.

so then you would say that it was not the anti-Semetic Nazi idealogy that started the holocaust? Or the Communist idealogy that started the Russian revolution? Or the democratic idealogy that started the American Revolution?

I think that your statement about idealogies not starting wars is false.

**Rosacrux redux** · April 05, 2006, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Last Roman

so then you would say that it was not the anti-Semetic Nazi idealogy that started the holocaust? Or the Communist idealogy that started the Russian revolution? Or the democratic idealogy that started the American Revolution?

I think that your statement about idealogies not starting wars is false.

I wouldn't blame the gun that killed Guy/gal X, but the guy who fired that gun (or those who hired him or those who actually persuaded him)... wouldn't you?

Ideology in that context served a purpose: the Nazi ideology was a very strict nationalistic ideology, claiming the Germans are the ubermenschen while the rest are either just menschen or untermenschen. This was a very handy way of turning a self-serving manipulative effort into a "superior" moral system. Specifically the Jew hunt, was a very convenient way of confiscating huge fortunes and bringing (much needed) cash and valuables in. Ideology, per se, had nothing to do with it, you see. It was just used by humans for their own purposes. As the gun of my example is used. Maybe I should add another article in my guid, that would read like this:

Are ideologies "bad"? Is a gun "bad"? It depends on how we use them (or how do we let those who benefit of the ideologies, use us).

P.S. Thank you The White Knight, I corrected it

**Nihil** · April 05, 2006, 09:39 AM

A very interesting argument in favour of ideology (at least you seem to be in favour, on the whole), however, for the sake of discussion I will question this:

How did they become "ideology"? How or Why? I'd say, because most people can't actually think for themselves, they need a premade set of rules. Otherwise they either go bananas, or return in the hunger/gatherer stage of social evolution.

I would argue the very opposite - it is precisely because people can't think for themselves that ideologies are so dangerous. Plain old, honest-to-goodness ignorance doesn't inspire the kind of fanatical sense of empowerment and self-righteousness that a well-placed (or carelessly misplaced) ideology can.

Take a simple, down to earth man and confuse his poor head with ideology, and you have a person who is capable of infinite mischief to himself and others. And all for a bunch of empty rhetoric and abstract values that amount to nothing of practical use.

You might say, and seem to say, that without ideology man is nothing more than a savage beast, but I would suggest that people are capable of rational behaviour that is harmonious with their social environment, without needing any high-flown idealistic or religious basis for it. If they aren't, then all human decency is a sham!

You might argue, validly I guess, that my point of view as expounded in this post is based on my own ideology; and such an anti-ideology ideology is in itself also an ideology.

Hmm...

**Rosacrux redux** · April 05, 2006, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Nihil

I would argue the very opposite - it is precisely because people can't think for themselves that ideologies are so dangerous. Plain old, honest-to-goodness ignorance doesn't inspire the kind of fanatical sense of empowerment and self-righteousness that a well-placed (or carelessly misplaced) ideology can.

Ah, but if you are gonna let the human nature (what you call ignorance) take control, it ain't gonna end up nicely. Human by nature is neither good, nor honest. Human is greedy, self-preserving, violent, egoistic. With no indoctrination human is nothing more than an animal. And whatever indoctrination contains a set of rules, regulations and values = an ideology. So, I'd argue that it is rather impossible to grow up without an ideology.

Take a simple, down to earth man and confuse his poor head with ideology, and you have a person who is capable of infinite mischief to himself and others. And all for a bunch of empty rhetoric and abstract values that amount to nothing of practical use.

Ideology is not something nebulous and abstract, it has very specific uses. If you indoctrinate someone in a given ideology, probably you aim at something. Also, the non-ideologues (the "flexible" ones) fit nicely in the same picture: the fanatics you steer with ideology. The opportunists with promise of gain. The result is pretty much the same, no?

You might say, and seem to say, that without ideology man is nothing more than a savage beast, but I would suggest that people are capable of rational behaviour that is harmonious with their social environment, without needing any high-flown idealistic or religious basis for it. If they aren't, then all human decency is a sham!

Then I am afraid it is...

You might argue, validly I guess, that my point of view as expounded in this post is based on my own ideology; and such an anti-ideology ideology is in itself also an ideology.

I won't because otherwise this whole discussion will go into solipsistic clouds

Hmm...[/QUOTE]

**Nihil** · April 05, 2006, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux

Human by nature is neither good, nor honest. Human is greedy, self-preserving, violent, egoistic. With no indoctrination human is nothing more than an animal.

But is it not possible that a smart and rational human can look beyond immediate, short-term advantage and gratification, and see that he can gain more by cooperating with his fellow humans? This truism is the foundation of what makes us a communal animal. It doesn't depend on any ideology, it's common sense - even animals do it. A man who lives by the greedy, self-preserving and violent nature you describe will not be accepted into society and so will be at a disadvantage.

**MoROmeTe** · April 05, 2006, 12:01 PM

You see ideology goes to the very roots of how we see man and nature and everything else...

Originally Posted by Rosacrux Redux

Human by nature is neither good, nor honest. Human is greedy, self-preserving, violent, egoistic. With no indoctrination human is nothing more than an animal.

This is the basis for conservative ideology... it is in itself and ideology, that meaning a set of values, ideas, axioms through which one sees the world. They were not necesarilly invented cause some people are to lazy to have their own ideas and thoughts. They exists because we require a certain simplification of the world, even the best and brightest of us. Every man has an ideology, even if he is the sole carrier of his particlar ideology. But most men choose to adhere to some pre-made ideology. This does not mean they do not thing. It only means that they thought and decided that this view is best for the, Of course, they can make the wanted changes...

Originally Posted by Nihil

But is it not possible that a smart and rational human can look beyond immediate, short-term advantage and gratification, and see that he can gain more by cooperating with his fellow humans

This is the bases for rather old school liberalism. Cooperation ,emdiated by a higher authority aka the state in its minimal form, is better than fighting. But again this is not a verifiable truth. It is a presuposition. One cannot say if man is good or bad. We cannot discern this...

What I am trying to say is that we cannot say ideologies are good or bad because we cannot apply moral categories to them. They are just lenses, if you will, through which we see the world...

**Garbarsardar** · April 05, 2006, 12:05 PM

You both (RR and Nihil) address ideology as being a static concept. Well the actual meaning of the term as all terms including the suffix "logos", is discourse.

So, a discource on ideas can never stop, as to be reduced to a standarized set of beliefs. Therfore when we speak about Marxist or Conservative ideology we denote the discourse in the confines and limitations of a the specific contextual framework.

Having that in mind, questions like "did nazi ideology=holocaust?" have the direct answer that: Nazi ideology was part of the greater anti-semitic discourse wich preceded the event by at least 1500 years.

Now given the contribuition of other factors (econonic,social) an ideological instance will produce visible repercussions. This will be in a dialectic relation with the discourse, which will not emerge unchanged.

Ideologies suffer from the same fundamental misunderstanding as revolutions. While perceived as static they are infact permanently moving. The end of a revolution is the death of a revolution, and the end of any discourse is Government.

**Boudicca** · April 05, 2006, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Nihil

A very interesting argument in favour of ideology (at least you seem to be in favour, on the whole), however, for the sake of discussion I will question this:

I would argue the very opposite - it is precisely because people can't think for themselves that ideologies are so dangerous. Plain old, honest-to-goodness ignorance doesn't inspire the kind of fanatical sense of empowerment and self-righteousness that a well-placed (or carelessly misplaced) ideology can.

Take a simple, down to earth man and confuse his poor head with ideology, and you have a person who is capable of infinite mischief to himself and others. And all for a bunch of empty rhetoric and abstract values that amount to nothing of practical use.

You might say, and seem to say, that without ideology man is nothing more than a savage beast, but I would suggest that people are capable of rational behaviour that is harmonious with their social environment, without needing any high-flown idealistic or religious basis for it. If they aren't, then all human decency is a sham!

You might argue, validly I guess, that my point of view as expounded in this post is based on my own ideology; and such an anti-ideology ideology is in itself also an ideology.

Hmm...

The problem we face here is the question what we call ideology. If we say that any approach to a problem already is an "ideology" then in fact all actions in life are following a certain ideology. So even the attempt of a "rational approach" or an "open mindend approach" to things would already be an ideology in itself.

Not let me tell you what I think ideology is more about. I can only make an example, and perhaps you can give me feedback on what you think about it:

A history professor at my university is working on early medieval history. As such, he greatly uses documents and archeological findings. So far, so good. However he always explains that he never looks into documents of "law" from the time explored, because he is of the opinion that "laws at that time were only made to illustrate the power of their creator and not to be ever applied" and therefore he never regards them as important, no matter what topic he is working on. So he doesn't even review them. I would call the type of history he makes "ideologically flawed", because he only takes a limited approach on the issues and doesn't even consider if those documents could eventually be valuable in a single case. He simply says that they are "irrelevant" not matter what the circumstances. I would say that is an ideology.

And I think that is the limitation also Garbasadar was talking about.

**Publius** · April 05, 2006, 09:23 AM

Or the Communist idealogy that started the Russian revolution?

Well, communism wasn't a result of the Russian Revolution. An oppressive Czar coupled with many other economic factors as well as multiple failed war endeavors warmed the russians to the ideals of Communism. You might have a point with the Nazi's, however. I await RR's response