Can someone explain the way ideologies work? How did they enamour such vast masses of people? Is there root for new ones or rehashed variants of the old ones to take root again in the 21st century (in civilized nations I mean)
Printable View
Can someone explain the way ideologies work? How did they enamour such vast masses of people? Is there root for new ones or rehashed variants of the old ones to take root again in the 21st century (in civilized nations I mean)
Well that's a vague question. Which one do you want to know about? The 20th century had a lot of ideologies if we explained every single one we'd be here for years.
Would look into the 19th century to understand most that happened in the 20th
They are all variations on collectivism vs. individualism.
Ideology is the word used to describe systems of political belief other than the one that currently holds sway. The current "ideology" is just "the way things are/should be".
Fixed.Quote:
They are all variations on collectivism
That is one of the biggest falsehoods one can find in ideologies and is used to hide often bad deals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
No man is an island, nor any civilization a singular being. By definition civilization is a collective, and the most civilized tend to be the most respective of individual rights.
They are not a versus axis unless someone is trying to take something away from you. Collective strength by robbing you of choice or individual rights whilst taking away collective privacy, security in place of freedom etc
Indeed "individualism" is usually just the ability for the powerful to be allowed to exploit the weak. Capital freedom, low tax, freedom to use economic wealth to influence politics, ability to direct state funds to capitalist and profit making projects. While at the same time attacking attempts by the weak to respond by controlling their collective power (outlawing protest, union action, etc).
All that "profit making projects" means is that there is more utility in the outcome than the resources required to make it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
The Government is very skilled at failing to undertake profit making projects - somehow even managing to make the Millennium Dome a failure when it is a massive auditorium with good links to London. Since selling it for a pittance given it now earns the owners a vast sum of money.
If projects are undertaken that are not "profit making" more resources are required than the output is. Then we are in the "good old days" where we dug up coal that was sold at a loss, produced cars that no one wanted to buy... Unions organising strikes given that they can demand infinite money from government-owned companies with concomitant inflation... aaaaah nostalgia!
Unsurprisingly there needs to be a balance between both of the ends of the scale since the stark reality is that it is difficult to pay people more than the value of service that they offer - as where does the excess resource come from - but equally not to pay them as little as possible.
~:smoking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
No, is it; the individual is only of value as they interact with the collective, or the individual is of value in their own right and bring value to others in their own self interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Is the individual able to make choices or do they submerge themselves and only do what the collective wishes? The collective is always the state and the wishes are those of the state or more rightly those who control it. Rights are alway individual. The individual is the ultimate minority.
Those who say that the individual should have no choices and must be forced to do what is good for the collective are just saying let the government control everything.
Humans are social animals. They like being around others of their type so they naturally interact. It is a matter of to what extent that interaction is voluntary or compelled.
Much in the same way they do today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Ideologies are typically created under the purpose of structuring reality so as to make societal problems easier to identify and diagnose. Some ideologies had very appealing means of diagnosing the public's various problems.Quote:
How did they enamour such vast masses of people?
There is nothing new under the sun since the 400s BCE.Quote:
Is there root for new ones or rehashed variants of the old ones to take root again in the 21st century (in civilized nations I mean)
I'm curious on how you're going to link that to the political sides. For reference, World value survey has Sweden as the most individualistic country in the world and the Hofstede study has it scoring very high on individualism globally (less so compared to other western countries).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Rural areas vote more right wing than cities, yet "village mentality" is communal.
Anarchists want to remove the state. And private property (generally).
For the mass movements in the 20th century. The short version is that the social structures of old fell down and that communism and fascism are mass movements that gives promises of liberation (c), a chance of self control (c), unity (c, f) and belonging (f). And yes, something similar could show up, although in a different form. The most obvious example right now are that some nationalistic and xenophobic parties are drawing from the same vein as fascism did, but are in general more accepting to democracy than the old fascists did. There's no strong replacement movement for communism currently.
Since we are talking ideologies, I would say that it's rather a triangle than a line, with the edges being Equality (left), Liberty (center) and Fraternity (Right. You could also call it social cohesion). All sides can agree with other main goals, but if they have to pick one above the other, they'll pick their own key word.
What to do, What to do?
Should the state be involved in supplying labor? Even to "social enterprises" like fire-fighting?
At what point does the states need/desire for cheap labor run afoul of state obligations re: protection of rights and oversight of coercion?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...wildfires.html
The terms I used may be too simplistic, breaking it into such black and white analogies but it still comes down to basically those.
Western political thought goes back to the ancient Greeks. The two views are more commonly know as Idealism vs. Realism which are even more vague.
Idealist though is usually attributed to Plato and Realism to Aristotle. The breakdown is between how human nature should be and what we know of human nature from observation.
Those promoting collectivism most generally fall in the idealist camp, where those promoting individualism most generally fall into the realist camp.
All anyone can offer is generalities to such a complex topic. One side wants to remake mankind to be more perfect while the other tries to deal with things as they seem to be. Neither is an absolute.
Today those two streams of though are mostly based on John Locke’s Liberalism in the realist camp and Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism and its evolutions in the idealist camp, at least among the states that identify with Liberal Democracy.
Locke most generally promoted the rights of the individual over the state where Bantham’s concerns, on analyse, are more for the health of the state. Locke’s Natural Rights became privileges provided by the state under the Utilitarian notions. The ideas of Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Malthus also became intertwined with Bantham’s when Progressivism evolved into the idealist mix. At first glance one would think it rooted in realism but in practice it promoted the social engineering of society for their ideal outcome.
Socialism and Communism are also from idealist stream and are blended into the Progressivism we find in most states.
I am unsure that either stream should be associated with what we call the political right and left as those terms in their original meanings stood for order on the right and change on the left.
Today, what we appear to have is one side pushing for a more ordered and structured society in the name of change and the other for a less regulated or structured one based more on Locke’s ideas. Both are working for change but it is the ones who identify with the left that clearly are seeking more order in a stronger state of governance.
John Locke thought up the concept of a human right and imposed its structure on society: realist.
Bentham argued that consequences of our actions are the only pragmatic way to determine the value of said actions: idealist
Wut?
I am not the one who classified them. Blame political science.
The collective doesn't need to be the state. In socialism it is the state, but it can be the local community (in communism). It can be the family (in tribal societies) or it can be the workplace (in anarcho syndicalism).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Locke didn’t dream up Natural Rights. Those too go back to Ancient Greece too. He is not the only one who worked along those lines either.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
As I said there are not absolutes.Bentham seemed to start from a Realist point of view. But his was for the ultimate benefit of the state as things shook out. It is not where it began but where it went.
Perhaps, in my own view, a clearer measure is to decide which is more favourable, political ideas which favour the people or ideas which favour political institutions which are to rule them.
If rights come from nature and your humanity then governments cannot legitimately take them. If rights are merely privileges granted by rulers or governmental institutions it is also in their power to change or withdraw them as they desire.
Either government is for the benefit of the people and their liberties, or the people are subject to the government without reservation and the institution serves to manage the people subject to its dictates.
Were you looking for a hairsplitter award?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Definition; A state is an organised political community living under a single system of government.
If anyone is responsible for making decisions for others it can be termed a state.
Inevitably there is a semantic discussion that needs to occur as a preface to discussion of any concepts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
That's not the definition of a state. That definition could describe smaller tribal societies. It could describe a single community.
The definition of a state is the same as a definition of polity. It need not be large at all. Just to be organised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Seems to me that the left and the right in this thread cannot even agree on a definition of what is left and what is right.
Thankfully I pretend to be (lie to myself to be) in the middle of all of them so I have nothing to worry about. :clown:
Attachment 16716Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar