ideological brands

laoch na mona

Why do people brand themselves with one political ideology and then try and force situations to fit their views. Socialism, Liberalism, Republicanism, Anarchism, right-wing, left-wing etc

No ideology is perfect but all have valid points.


Let's not let this turn into people having a rant about certain ideologies

Denerick

Some people will argue from first principles as they believe that following this course/plan/objective will lead to optimum results. Different ideologies have different views on what optimum results are. What distresses me is when someone on the left or right follows a course of action which in theory would be beneficial but in reality will not. This is when the ideology trumps the obvious; you reform in the context of the circumstances in existance; you shouldn't pretend those circumstances don't exist.

AhSureTisGrand

laoch na mona wrote: »

No ideology is perfect but all have valid points.

Nazism?

Suryavarman

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Nazism?

To the average moderate centrist voter Nazism has a lot to like.

Even in the US Hitler can easily beat any of the founding fathers in an election.

Yahew

Suryavarman wrote: »

To the average moderate centrist voter Nazism has a lot to like.

Even in the US Hitler can easily beat any of the founding fathers in an election.

Thats an utterly biased "test". It left a lot out.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

laoch na mona

that's why i think people shouldn't just go with one view because none of them are completely right or wrong

Baked.noodle

Ideologies are incoherent by design. They appeal to a variety of class world views and serve to engage people in incoherent and ineffectual debates. The problems of the world require physical practical solutions, not ideological perfection.

laoch na mona

Baked.noodle you are wise before your time

Baked.noodle

I will add that ideology is always destructive, but integral to society. In it's most benign form it maintains the dysfunctional status quo which is unjust. It is also the vehicle for political upheaval, which usually establishes an equally unjust order. Ideology is always incoherent, so the distinctive characteristic is the unwillingness of the ideologue to enter into reasonable discussion. It is useful to control people, but inherently unstable.

matthew8

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Or even better, it is entirely conceivable that one socialist should want a progressive tax system that ends at 60% while regulating industry but another socialist wants only 5% flat tax for the bare needs while handing over control of all the nation's means of production to the workers, trusting them to provide health, education and social security to their fellow workers.

AhSureTisGrand

Seems to me any worldview, if not utterly apathetic, could be construed as an ideology

Valmont

I find it ironic that the proponents of a pragmatic and non-ideological approach to the problems of the world rest their hopes on a powerful, pragmatic, and non-ideological state-- blissfully unaware of Hegel, Marx, Mussolini and the ideological facets of historicism, central planning, and the very existence of leviathan itself.

Baked.noodle

I could be accused of apathy

I do not envisage a world without ideology. Nevertheless, the inequality of the global system we currently live by is growing all the time, and this makes it very unstable. There will come a point when people will analyse the power structure of the world and use the weakness they identify to undermine it. This will be a global effort. By the way, Socialism can be destructive but necessary in an unequal system. As long as there is a surplus of labour, which capitalism creates, people must be appeased with handouts. Marx shouldn't be dismissed because we find his theorys to be ideological. His analysis of political economy and class struggle are ground breaking*. We may not agree with his conclusions, but none of us can see the future.

*and historical materialism, which I forgot to mention.

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's actually a really funny thing about the Lib Dems. The public perception is far different from the reality. I think it's a case of people believing something, because they want to believe it. They got into power in the UK, because people were sick of voting for Labour, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for the Conservatives.........So, funnyily, they choose to vote Lib Dem thinking they were getting a different kind of Labour, when they were just getting a different flavour Tory.

The Lib Dems didn't set out to fool anyone, people fooled themselves.

krd

laoch na mona wrote: »

Why do people brand themselves with one political ideology and then try and force situations to fit their views. Socialism, Liberalism, Republicanism, Anarchism, right-wing, left-wing etc

No ideology is perfect but all have valid points.

You can never avoid ideology. The tactic of claiming not to have an ideological flavour, is just a tactic for the furtherance of an ideology. Claiming to be more "pragmatic", is taking an ideological position. It's a particularly dishonest position - and even self decieving. Who decides what is "pragmatic" and what isn't. When people claim to be "neutral" and centerist, they usually are not. They could be to the left - to the far left - even to the far right.

Sean Gallagher, and krypto Fianna Fail, tried to flog Gallagher as an "ideology" free, pragmatic "businessman", a political outsider. Let's put politics aside and pump ourselves up with empty motivational slogans and get this country going. Of course it was complete nonsense. The Gallagher project was about ressurecting Fianna Fail.

Baked.noodle

Politics is class conflict so it is ideological. However, we can become aware of the inconsistencies of ideological doctrine, and become more objective. Ideology is everywhere, but the physical world remains. Injustice is a point of view which is prejudice, but paradoxically, it is also a physical inequality that can be addressed. Ideology serves to reinforce the former, whilst practical solutions to inequality address the latter.

Yahew

krd wrote: »

You can never avoid ideology. The tactic of claiming not to have an ideological flavour, is just a tactic for the furtherance of an ideology. Claiming to be more "pragmatic", is taking an ideological position. It's a particularly dishonest position - and even self decieving. Who decides what is "pragmatic" and what isn't. When people claim to be "neutral" and centerist, they usually are not. They could be to the left - to the far left - even to the far right.

Here's a radical thought, with - however - lots of empirical evidence: most people who claim to be centrist, are centrist.

krd

Yahew wrote: »

Here's a radical thought, with - however - lots of empirical evidence: most people who claim to be centrist, are centrist.

Here's a radical question. Who decides where the center is?

Everyone wants to think they're reasonable. Most people like to think of themselves somewhere in the middle.

It's actually very hard to determine where people are. Surveys can give very misleading results. Do a phone poll, ask people if they're centrist, and overwhelming number will say they are. They could have radically different ideas of where that center is.


Even the terms can be very confusing. Like Liberal. To one group it can mean to be economically left-wing to other it can mean to be economically right. An English Liberal will be to the right, whereas in the US Liberal is nearly a derogatory term to describe someone who is to the extreme left.

Baked.noodle

That is a good point. I think people fit politicians and citizens into their own political ideology. Party politics polarise opinion.

Baked.noodle

Baked.noodle wrote: »

I will add that ideology is always destructive, but integral to society. In it's most benign form it maintains the dysfunctional status quo which is unjust. It is also the vehicle for political upheaval, which usually establishes an equally unjust order. Ideology is always incoherent, so the distinctive characteristic is the unwillingness of the ideologue to enter into reasonable discussion. It is useful to control people, but inherently unstable.

Fear and the greed that results from fear are the genesis of ideology.

Baked.noodle

Won't keep going on about it, but I just want to say that whilst ideology masks the injustice of the world, all people are capable of extraordinary acts of justice. Love is very powerful.

snafuk35

laoch na mona wrote: »

Why do people brand themselves with one political ideology and then try and force situations to fit their views. Socialism, Liberalism, Republicanism, Anarchism, right-wing, left-wing etc

No ideology is perfect but all have valid points.


Let's not let this turn into people having a rant about certain ideologies

To differentiate themselves from a crowded field and to get attention for themselves so they will get backing, votes and get into office. What else?

Stocking Drinks Whiskey

Every single person on this planet has some form of philosophy or ideology, everyone has their own views on how to live their own lives, there are those who believe everyone should adhere to their ideology, their view on how an optimum society would be like and seek to spread or preach their views, then there are those who only apply their ideology to themselves, only concerned with how they live their own lives and so on and so forth.

Even things like pragmatism or apathy are philosophies in themselves.

Why people say they're this or that, already existing and well known philosophies and ideologies provide more grounding and weight than a more loose personal set of beliefs which is why people feel drawn to ideologies that appeal to their own philosophy.

To answer your question OP, I'll put it simply, people brand themselves with a well known ideology or philosophy to give more strength to their words, to say "I'm an autocratic nationalist" does not hold as much weight as "I'm a fascist" for example.

Of course, fascism is more sophisticated than autocratic nationalism but just for example's sake, you know.

sarkozy

To me, an ideology is simply a system of thought with political content. Therefore, ideology is important. Especially now. But in all such coherent, self-critical systems of thought, there is a tradition of resisting dogmatism. In other words, preventing systems of thought - developed to show how men and women can live the 'good life' - from being defended even when they're nonsensical or just plain wrong.

There is an ancient latin phrase, 'qui bono?' - who benefits? This is the key question underlying all political thought and action no matter what ethical, metaphysical or ontological worldview you hold.

swordofislam

Without theory practise is useless.

Belfast

Ideology is just a set of ideas to achieve a goal.
As many people only study one Ideology , that Ideology tends to become the end in it self.

ideologies can have different goals.

eg

Communism goal is social equity, even if this is a the expense of economic efficiency and personal freedom .


Communism tends to appeal to people who want someone else to look after them.

Libertarianism seeks to maximise liberty , but does not try to control sociality. It seek to protect the individual from the government.

Libertarianism tends to appeal to those who abject to other people telling them what they can or cannot do.

it could be at basic emotional level that people choice what Ideology they want and then use that Ideology whether it work or not because of deep seated fears they have.

Emotional brain tends to dominate the logical brain.

Adverts on TV almost never appeal to the logical brain, they most appeal to the emotions.

All ideologies have the same problem the people in charge of the state are only interested in power.

The state may say it is following an Ideology, but in reality the only problem they want to solve is how to stay in power for its own sake.

in the end all ideologies are used by the state to make us feel they are going to make thing better for us.

Exposing the 3 Card Monte - Ep15 Brian Brushwood on the Road

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aFOmOusuUI

Study: Emotion rules the brain's decisions
"The evidence has been piling up throughout history, and now neuroscientists have proved it's true: The brain's wiring emphatically relies on emotion over intellect in decision-making.

A brain-imaging study reported in the current Science examines "framing," a hot topic among psychologists, economists and political hucksters.

Framing studies have shown that how a question is posed — think negative ads, for instance — skews decision-making. But no one showed exactly how this effect worked in the human brain until the brain-imaging study led by Benedetto De Martino of University College London.

De Martino and colleagues asked 20 men and women to undergo three 17-minute brain scans while being asked to gamble — or not — with an initial pot of English pounds worth about $95. When told they would "keep" 40% of their money if they didn't gamble, the volunteers chose to gamble only 43% of the time. Told they could "lose" 60% of the money if they didn't gamble, they rolled the dice 62% of the time.

Their chances of winning the money were carefully explained beforehand, and participants knew the odds were identical. But the framing effect still skewed their decisions significantly. "
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-08-06-brain-study_x.htm