Ideologies, do you have one?

20Cent

Just interested in people with or without ideologies. Do you apply this to every situation Most people I think are left wing on some issues right on others, pragmatic. Sticking to one ideology usually ends up with bad consequences as seen with countries that have done this.

What you think?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

20Cent wrote: »

Most people I think are left wing on some issues right on others, pragmatic.

I think this idea that "pragmatism" is some kind of political ideology is wrong.

Everyone has a different value system, and that will factor in greatly when they are deciding on what they think is best in a given situation. Joe Higgins, for instance, believes that services should operate under "direct democratic accountability". I believe that most services operate best under some general private control. So when it comes to judging an ideal health system Mr Higgins and I will come to contrary conclusions: he will argue for a completely public system and I will argue for a Dutch-type system. Both of us will think we're being pragmatic because both solutions satisfy our respective ideas of what is desirable and good.

This is the point at which the mathematician stands up and shouts "but A is not equal to B, hence the initial assumption (that there is some kind of universal 'pragmatic' solution) is proven false by contradiction!"

In short, people have different priorities and different beliefs about what works and what doesn't, and so it is very easy for two 'pragmatic' people to arrive at different answers.

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't forget wanting to take over other peoples wealth and use it for own (personal|party) gains.

As seen in parallel threads today in politics forum...

Gary L

In terms of the economy I guess I'm trotskyist. I dont think its ever heplful to have the levers of the economy in the hands of the minority, be that self interested capitalists or self interested state bureaucracy. I dont see that as an ideology so much as just an opinion.

Manach

Old school PJ O'Rourkean pessimistic conservative.

20Cent

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think this idea that "pragmatism" is some kind of political ideology is wrong.

Everyone has a different value system, and that will factor in greatly when they are deciding on what they think is best in a given situation. Joe Higgins, for instance, believes that services should operate under "direct democratic accountability". I believe that most services operate best under some general private control. So when it comes to judging an ideal health system Mr Higgins and I will come to contrary conclusions: he will argue for a completely public system and I will argue for a Dutch-type system. Both of us will think we're being pragmatic because both solutions satisfy our respective ideas of what is desirable and good.

This is the point at which the mathematician stands up and shouts "but A is not equal to B, hence the initial assumption (that there is some kind of universal 'pragmatic' solution) is proven false by contradiction!"

In short, people have different priorities and different beliefs about what works and what doesn't, and so it is very easy for two 'pragmatic' people to arrive at different answers.

Not saying that pragmatism is an ideology. Just that most people seem to look at something such as health care and think that a mixture of public and private is good. An ideologue would only select one system.

And pragmatism does involve a lot of disagreement.

Denerick

Like most people, I verge from left to right, with generally pragmatic opinions. I care little for ideology, partisanship, populism or dogma, every problem that requires a solution should avail of as wide a theoretical pool as possible. If I was an economist I'm sure there'd be a little Keynes here, a little Friedman there, a little Smith here and maybe a teensy weensy bit of Marx at the end

Above all I admire Edmund Burke and if I was to have a 'favourite philosopher' he would easily be it. Extremism is probably the greatest scourge of mankind - the conviction that one tiny elite group may decide, largely in your name, that they may kill or try to form some perfect society. I believe man has a dark heart, but a good soul. Generally all politics should be about trying to find some balance between the devil that lies in our temptation and the angel within our aspiration. Which is why I adore Burke.

Anonymous1987

In the past I was leaning libertarian however in recent times I find myself drifting left on economic matters while the rest of the world seems to be moving right. I've come to believe that ideological consistency can often result in narrow mindedness and the best approach is to keep an open mind regardless of ideology.

Lockstep

I'm a mixed bag politically.
Economically left wing/Keynesian, all over the shop on social issues.

Political ideology quizzes always put me in different categories; if you were to ask what I personally think, my answer would be very different to what I think the laws should be (socially, my personal views are fairly conservative/traditional, but I don't think my moral views should be enforced on society)

HavingCrack

The problem with ideologies is you end up with a tonne of co-existent beliefs you end up having to support. For example in the US conservative style economics are associated with Republicans. However the same people are also in favour of regulating the morals of society eg "all drugs are BAD and if you use them you HAVE to go to jail", end of, no debate on the issue. So you are expected to back the party on both issues even if you only agree with one.

ei.sdraob

My "ideology" is that of free market competition as described by Hayek,

Despite being called "right-wing" before I find it insulting since it shows ignorance and I do not agree on a lot of things with classic conservatives (think US republicans) and socially quite liberal for example i have no issues with drugs, gay marriage and so on I believe people should be free to do what they want to do, just dont come looking for bailout when that 120% mortgage backfires or needle infects you with deadly disease.

In recent years everyone and their dog is blaming the "free market" for what has happened. But they fail to realise that in a world where currencies are controlled and manipulated by central banks who in turn are obvious puppets to politicians (despite claiming independence), there is no "free market". And there is no true competition in a world full of subsidies, tax breaks and trade barriers and of course monopolies and cartels.

Some also think I am against regulation and some sort of anarchist, I believe in regulation in as far as it produces a competitive level playing field and no more, any more and you get into authoritarian controlled economies.

msteiner

I would have to say that I am a libertarian and a strict constitutionalist. I am extremely far to the left on social issues (for my societal view) and extremely far to the right on economic issues. Maybe I'm sort of an authoritarian anarchist!

sarkozy

From a less narrow discursive, and philosophical, viewpoint, I'd like to add that one philosopher once said: 'There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.'

Another philosopher has suggested an extra category: unknown knowns. Things we don't know that we know. This, he says, is ideology.

I'm not being sarcastic. It is these unknown, peripherally acknowledge rules which we use to make sense of and act in the world which are the very essence of ideology which we have ourselves encoded in our body and mind.

So we all have ideology.

Selkies

My ideology is mostly about getting people to stop yelling at me, and in the absence of yelling directed at me I try to stop yelling in general.

It changes depending on where I am at the time, who I'm talking to and what the conversation is what I will actually believe at that given time.

I like to think of myself as open minded mostly, willing to change my belief in the presence of overwhelming yelling, or even persistent moaning.

The problem I've found with my own ideology is that often people will ask you a question on politics before you have got a chance to get your bearings, I generally highlight the complexities of the question and avoid answering entirely.

This is often not acceptable in the case of issues like the holocaust, however mostly you can adopt a kind of moral relativism in defence of pretty much anything. Really a kind of neutrality is the goal, you don't want to kill anyone, get involved by starting a war or accepting refugees.

I'd like to call it Nicism, it's based around being nice to everyone.
Not actually doing good things like helping people, but not stabbing them in the face either or stopping the stabbing from happening.

I'm probably just guessing here but I think that most of my beliefs come from not really caring about anyone or anything aside from myself.

Does that make me left or right wing?

Gary L

That makes you Canadian

simplistic2

Fully support the non-aggression principle as the only moral way of organizing society meaning all associations should be formed freely with no threat of force.

To sum it up with a few concepts I'm pro - free markets and anti- statism which makes me an anrchisty!

Ostrom

Marxist libertarian, the former not as ideology

Dr. Baltar

I like my government small and my laws. But not too few and not too small.
I guess you could call me a Liberal Conservative. I believe in privatisation for everything except the Military, Police, Healthcare and Education.

newmug

My ideology? - Clothing optional;)

TheUsual

I hate this modern left and right wing political definitions.
It's an American (USA) disease as they have only two parties and their media is divided along these two parties. Childish, in my modest opinion.

I think that people in the invented 'right wing' labels can be very socialist/communist in their actions and also that people in the invented 'left wing' definition can be very conservative and controlling when they want to be.

Also voters are a lot more of a mixed bag - like here in Ireland. You may have a very strong conservative view on one topic and then be very liberal (whatever that means) on another subject.
Life is more complex than left and right, red and blue, CNN and Fox News.

I feel sorry for yanks sometimes. They need another two political parties at least. Must be boring as hell over there for elections.

Selkies

TheUsual wrote: »

I hate this modern left and right wing political definitions.
It's an American (USA) disease as they have only two parties and their media is divided along these two parties. Childish, in my modest opinion.

I think that people in the invented 'right wing' labels can be very socialist/communist in their actions and also that people in the invented 'left wing' definition can be very conservative and controlling when they want to be.

Also voters are a lot more of a mixed bag - like here in Ireland. You may have a very strong conservative view on one topic and then be very liberal (whatever that means) on another subject.
Life is more complex than left and right, red and blue, CNN and Fox News.

I feel sorry for yanks sometimes. They need another two political parties at least. Must be boring as hell over there for elections.

I think in the dail we would need about 166 political parties.

In america they need to remove the powers that are given to their president and make a prime minister.

HavingCrack

efla wrote: »

Marxist libertarian, the former not as ideology

Surely the two are incompatible ? I'm actually quite interested as to how they would compliment each other.

Ostrom

HavingCrack wrote: »

Surely the two are incompatible ? I'm actually quite interested as to how they would compliment each other.

In most respects they dont, but it depends on the kind of Marxist you are talking to. Most current socialists subscribe to strict historical materialism which logically leads to the inevitability of socialiam - this in turn positions them as facilitators - which in my opinon is fundamentally flawed.

I believe Marx correctly identifies the mechanisms of social change, and exploitation - but ultimately there is no inevitability of changing modes of production. Basically I accpet his analytical approach and historical method as far as the suggested future outcomes (to which he made little remark). From this point, voluntary rather than facilitated association would be my preferred outcome.

sarkozy

efla wrote: »

In most respects they dont, but it depends on the kind of Marxist you are talking to. Most current socialists subscribe to strict historical materialism which logically leads to the inevitability of socialiam - this in turn positions them as facilitators - which in my opinon is fundamentally flawed.

I believe Marx correctly identifies the mechanisms of social change, and exploitation - but ultimately there is no inevitability of changing modes of production. Basically I accpet his analytical approach and historical method as far as the suggested future outcomes (to which he made little remark). From this point, voluntary rather than facilitated association would be my preferred outcome.

Or, would you say you accept the 'marxian' (small 'm') approach and that this analytical approach and method shouldn't be considered the theory of one person? It's my understanding that key strands of the marxian tradition (e.g. German critical theory) evolved away from the determinism that soviet followers of Marx imposed.

Then you have the autonomist left (e.g. Antonio Negri) who is broadly Marxist but also libertarian.

Ostrom

sarkozy wrote: »

Or, would you say you accept the 'marxian' (small 'm') approach and that this analytical approach and method shouldn't be considered the theory of one person? It's my understanding that key strands of the marxian tradition (e.g. German critical theory) evolved away from the determinism that soviet followers of Marx imposed.

Then you have the autonomist left (e.g. Antonio Negri) who is broadly Marxist but also libertarian.

I think an awful lot happened between the communist manifesto and theories of surplus value. Capital is based on an analysis of german idealism, british and french political economy and utopian socialism - all established before or during his time. He didn't coin many of the terms or concepts he is usually associated with either (labour theory of value, dictatorship of the proletariat). Not that it matters, its just many critics refuse to view it in context, and these areas are usually flagged as sufficient reason not to persist reading.

I think as more of his later works are translated and published, the idea that the 'ism' can be so simplified is questonable. This guy has done a better job of presenting it

Sorry for going off topic, rant over

amacachi

Anti-state. That's about it.

deise go deo

Im a republican, Not overly interested in SF but they are better than some.

newmug

Republican too. FF always were the party representative of my views, but they started to go wrong with haughey. It all went downhill from there. FF no longer represent my views, I would be closer to SF now.

Mahatma coat

I'm somewhere in the Middle Ground Between Jackbooted Rabid Nazi and Tree Huggin Anarchist, Dependin on the Issue. Health, Education,Infrastructure, defence I'm Very Nationally Socialist and in Favour of High Taxes to facilitate these services

Dugs, Censorship, Security, Personal freedoms, I'm very Left Leaning on these topics

Surprised no one has posted this yet

best answer to the question I've heard ina while

sparkling sea

I would be an Egalitarian and really wish we could follow a Rawlsian type political theory here.

I really like the ideology behind the liberty principle which doesnt allow over infrigement but allows for the diffence principle which states; whenever you changed society you had to make sure that things would improve for the people on the bottom of the heap. So the rich could get richer only if the poor were not left behind.

How is it possible to be a Marxist libertarian or even a Libertarian Marxist - don't they repel each other?

The core principle of Marxism is state control ownership for the benefit of the people and the other support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters.

Libertarians advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties. So little or no taxes and harldy any or no social welfare systems

Cannibal Ox

sparkling sea wrote:

I would be an Egalitarian and really wish we could follow a Rawlsian type political theory here.

I think Rawls has his problems, but the Veil of Ignorance is a lovely idea! At the same time, I don't really like that tradition within liberal philosophy of extrapolating principles from thought exercises.

sparkling sea wrote:

The core principle of Marxism is state control ownership for the benefit of the people and the other support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters.

Noooooo, see Lenin! The state is absolutely repressive in Marxist theory, it arises from the economic base, a base defined by the economic domination of one class by another, and serves the dominant class in repressing the other class.


I don't have any kind of coherent ideology because I can't seem to decide between them all. I like some liberal theory, I like some marxist theory, and I like some lefty-French/Italian theory.

ChocolateSauce

Classical liberalism is the ideology I best fit into, although I don't "subscribe" to it as such. I'd be a bit redder than the likes of Adam Smith though, especially since the recession.

sparkling sea

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I think Rawls has his problems, but the Veil of Ignorance is a lovely idea! At the same time, I don't really like that tradition within liberal philosophy of extrapolating principles from thought exercises.


Noooooo, see Lenin! The state is absolutely repressive in Marxist theory, it arises from the economic base, a base defined by the economic domination of one class by another, and serves the dominant class in repressing the other class.

When I say state control ownership within Marxist theory I mean when the Proletariat controls the means of production, leading to communist regimes which is totally at odds with Libertarian rights to life, liberty and property.

I can't understand how it is possible to be a Libertarian Marxist, its a contradiction?

Ostrom

sparkling sea wrote: »

When I say state control ownership within Marxist theory I mean when the Proletariat controls the means of production, leading to communist regimes which is totally at odds with Libertarian rights to life, liberty and property.

I can't understand how it is possible to be a Libertarian Marxist, its a contradiction?

It is possible because 'Marxism' is nearly always reduced to a determining relationship between economy and society. There are thousands of pages of history and analysis in Marx; the base superstructure analogy appears only as a footnote. The distinction is between Marx and the ism. The issues you mention above are implied in the analysis (and mostly developed by later theorists), but they are only one possible direction. In the context of Marx's complete body of work, the notion seems even more absurd.

The compatability (according to my own twisted reading) is between Marx's historical analysis of coercive accumulation and its relationship to the struggle of labour for autonomy. In light of the evidence of the past century, I would conclude that these crises are a symptom of corrupt state bureaucracies rather than an inevitable symptom of capital. Once you discard the notion of inevitability you remove most of the socialist nonsense.

bhovaspack

For me, Marx's theory on commodity, value, labour value and use value is a thing of sublime beauty which altered the way I look at society and its produced objects. I would also regard it as his key idea.

However, I have difficulty conceiving of a way in which these concepts might be translated into a political position without also proposing an unwelcome and impractical degree of state control over the economy.

For this reason, I prefer to think of Marx as a philosopher rather than an economist or political theorist, and I regard Capital as primarily a guide to understanding the modern world, rather than as the basis for a political doctrine.

Having said that, I think politics might work best as an adversarial, dialectic of opposition between left and right that never arrives at its conclusion. I think that in an industrialised society some kind of welfare state is right and necessary, but you also need those who espouse the opposite view to harangue the left, and to eventually take power and reverse some of the more impractical measures of the previous administration, and to promote further industry; but then you still need the left in opposition to make sure the new government don't go too far with their convictions. In the long run, this should help to keep that state lean and competitive, while still retaining a duty of care towards its citizens. Checks and balances, and nobody can really be trusted for too long, which is why, I suppose, governments that have been around for over a decade really begin to stink.

Obviously, in practice things rarely run as smoothly as I have outlined above. But then again, is there any political system that does?

Eliot Rosewater

Mahatma coat wrote: »

best answer to the question I've heard ina while

I don't buy that populist line. Most people have a set of core ideals and core beliefs about the way in which the world works. I, personally, have a bias in favour of personal liberty and a belief that the market can provide efficient services. These are things I have thought about and things I basically believe in, on a more abstract level. When approaching a specific issue my thoughts will be coloured by my abstract beliefs.

Consider two opposing beliefs: mine, that services can be run privately and be in the interests of consumers, and Sinn Fein's, that privatisation of certain services result in poor quality results for consumers. When deciding whether or not to subcontract the operation of a hospital to a private company, we will use these differing abstract beliefs to arrive at different conclusions. Sure, you could argue that we had the issue decided before it cropped up. However that is only a bad thing if the considerations involved with the issue could not be preconceived, or if they bear no relation with any other issues, or abstract thought.

The suggestion in the video is that every single issue in the world is completely separate from every other issue, that no commonalities can be found between issues and thus that abstract beliefs or notions (that, for instance, private enterprises are good) cannot be held. I disagree with that.

KeithAFC

Im a unionist.

silverharp

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't buy that populist line. Most people have a set of core ideals and core beliefs about the way in which the world works. I, personally, have a bias in favour of personal liberty and a belief that the market can provide efficient services. These are things I have thought about and things I basically believe in, on a more abstract level. When approaching a specific issue my thoughts will be coloured by my abstract beliefs.

Consider two opposing beliefs: mine, that services can be run privately and be in the interests of consumers, and Sinn Fein's, that privatisation of certain services result in poor quality results for consumers. When deciding whether or not to subcontract the operation of a hospital to a private company, we will use these differing abstract beliefs to arrive at different conclusions. Sure, you could argue that we had the issue decided before it cropped up. However that is only a bad thing if the considerations involved with the issue could not be preconceived, or if they bear no relation with any other issues, or abstract thought.

here is another example to see "how people think" , its my "belief" that government subsidies are wrong, in the sense that by free market standards they lead to waste of scarce resourses, I could cite property reliefs in Ireland, subsidised educational loans in the US or corn ethanol also in th US that all end up creating unintented consequences, so when I hear about the next set, I dont need to weigh up the pros and cons I revert to my "model". what is the counter argument? A: I'm wrong , B: We know but politics is above economics.................

Ostrom

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't buy that populist line. Most people have a set of core ideals and core beliefs about the way in which the world works. I, personally, have a bias in favour of personal liberty and a belief that the market can provide efficient services. These are things I have thought about and things I basically believe in, on a more abstract level. When approaching a specific issue my thoughts will be coloured by my abstract beliefs.

Consider two opposing beliefs: mine, that services can be run privately and be in the interests of consumers, and Sinn Fein's, that privatisation of certain services result in poor quality results for consumers. When deciding whether or not to subcontract the operation of a hospital to a private company, we will use these differing abstract beliefs to arrive at different conclusions. Sure, you could argue that we had the issue decided before it cropped up. However that is only a bad thing if the considerations involved with the issue could not be preconceived, or if they bear no relation with any other issues, or abstract thought.

The suggestion in the video is that every single issue in the world is completely separate from every other issue, that no commonalities can be found between issues and thus that abstract beliefs or notions (that, for instance, private enterprises are good) cannot be held. I disagree with that.

The assumption in the video is that Americans tend to partition their abstractions into one of few well defined sets - I dont know much about U.S. politics on the ground, but it seems reasonable. Our party ideologies are more implicit, whereas their grounding principles are typically expressed more concretely in policy terms during campaigning (i.e. McCains's 'no more conservation funding or publically funded healthcare').

I dont know if I'm being fair in making this distinction?

oscarBravo

silverharp wrote: »

...its my "belief" that government subsidies are wrong, in the sense that by free market standards they lead to waste of scarce resourses...

Which is fair enough - if free market standards are the only standards you ascribe to. There's a case to be made for the argument that a perfectly free market isn't always the ideal situation.

Grafton_st

Ideologies infer a believe in some principles. Traditionally these have been categorised left and right. At least if principles or ideologies are stated then people know what they stand for. What does FF now stand for? Not even FF know the answer. FF and FG have been guided by opinion polls and what will get them voted in the following election. The problem has been no ideologies. Personally I would welcome a party whose ideologies consisted of being pro indigenous enterprises, smaller government, and a society not run for an elite public sector who borrow €20 billion a year (in our name) to keep themselves in the comfort they have becom accoustomed.

Farrahy100

Ideology is another way of saying "This I believe, regardless of the evidence to the contrary."

Some believe that privatization is always the best solution. They ignore the fact that when you privatize a state monopoly you turn it's primary function from, for example providing a telephone service, to creating the largest profits for shareholders. I'm not saying that is a wrong thing. I am saying this is what you are actually doing.

British rail, London buses, Eircom. All disasters.

If you want a politician to do the right thing. You need to explain what it is to them first. They tend to operate on the "Women and children first, unless the ship is really sinking! Theory of the Universe.

Wolfe Tone

Im a republican

[Jackass]

Hi all,

I'm just curious as to where my political view point lies on the spectrum and what it would be defined as. I think I'm centre-left and favour Social Liberalisim...

Basically, I'm strongly in favour of liberal civil rights, such as Gay marriage should be legal, pro-divorce (I know that's an old one), pro-choice re abortion, pro-stem cell research with certain limitations (human cloning / experiments) etc., but I am not in favour of a welfare state.

I think Government support should be there for those who need it as a basic human right (disabled people etc), but I also feel like people who have the capacity to work have a responsability to contribute to the work force in a general sense. (rather than be supported by the state).

I like the idea of the ability to study and be academic and for the state to support this. Essentially, I have no problem with the state supporting someone who genuinely needs it or is doing something constructive, but I don't believe just not working should be a choice and absolute minimal support should be available for able workers not working during boom / good times / with low unemployment, but believe good support should be given to those not working during bust times, i.e. when it is genuinely needed. (I suppose the oppisite to the Irish Governments past policies of giving welfare handouts during boom times and vastly reduced during bust times - and making this provision Economicly sustainable by contributing to a welfare fund during the boom time and putting it away for bust time rather than giving it away, to force people to work when there's plenty of work, instead of having such a high surplus and trying to give it all away, I'd put it in a "rainy day" fund and actually reduce benefits during the good times.)

Regarding the market, I like the mix of a free market and private trade etc., but I don't trust a free market to be a fair market, and I think Government intervention is required to protect consumers and to prevent greed.

This may include policies such as pricing ceilings and encouraging maximum competition to drive down price etc., but all from privately owned enterprise. (i.e. private enterprise is encouraged, but I believe in moderate regulation where required to control markets).

I believe health care should be a free Government provided service, as with education, but in areas of transport and energy, I beleive it should be mainly a highly competetive privately owned industry, but this would be a major area where regulation and price controls would exist to cap the amount that can be charged for essential services to the public where private companies supply it.

Is there a political stance for that? Does it have a name? I've just always been curious as to where my views would be on a spectrum and what exactly they would be called, if I was to pigeon hole it.

Thanks for any opinions.

recedite

KeithAFC wrote: »

Im a unionist.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Im a republican

Not the most inspiring contributions, but nicely balanced :pac: :pac: