Ideology vs. Free Thought?

KyussBishop

That's pretty inflexible, as it eliminates the possibility of discussing individual policies on their own merits/demerits, and instead forces people to subscribe to entire political/economic frameworks (much of which they may not agree with, but which get applied to them anyway), in order to support a particular policy.

That makes discussing many individual political/economic policies impossible, without having a lot of other stuff attributed to you. My interpretation of the charter, is that it wouldn't invalidate discussion of minimum wage per se (or other individual policies), it would just mean you have to qualify your reasoning (the theory) as to why you support it (or just why it's interesting).

So, that would make it possible to discuss individual policies, but you wouldn't have to describe your entire political framework in order to do so, just enough to back up the ideas behind certain policies.


A better example that minimum wage, would be some of the discussion regarding worker co-ops in the Libertarian Socialism thread; that's an individual business policy that is interesting to discuss on its own merit, relating to the original topic, without simultaneously having to defend any/every other policy that can be associated or tied to Libertarian Socialism or Socialism in general.

Libertarian Socialism isn't a single or complete political framework/theory in any case (still quite undeveloped), so a lot of discussion of it is going to naturally focus on individual policies.

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

and instead forces people to subscribe to entire political/economic frameworks (much of which they may not agree with, but which get applied to them anyway), in order to support a particular policy.

How does identifying the minimum wage law as based on Marxist economics force someone to subscribe to an entire political framework? I will firmly argue that saying one can analyse oneself out of ideological bias is a distinctly Heglian concept but I don't take that to mean the poster propounding the idea by default supports every strand of Hegelian philosophy.

So, do you agree that the arguments in favour of the minimum wage rely heavily on the veracity of Marx's labour theory of value? And that if the labour theory of value is refuted, then the basis of the minimum wage is too? I'm sure you'll disagree but surely we can debate the issue and acknowledge Marx's relevance? For surely without reference to the political theorist in question we can't have a constructive discussion.

KyussBishop

I don't support the labour theory of value, and my support of the minimum wage is more along the lines of wanting people to easily meet a minimal cost of living.

That can lead to a longwinded discussion over quantifying the minimum cost of living, and on all the potential negative effects of the minimum wage, but it doesn't (from my view) relate to the labour theory of value.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

MOD NOTE:

Please don't discuss moderation on thread. If you want to have a debate about this, please take it to the 'Discussion of the Rules' thread.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

None of which justifies repeatedly assigning doctrinal positions to other posters and then attacking them on the basis of the position you have assigned them. If you continue to get up people's noses by doing so it will be treated as trolling/flaming.

If you have any issues with this, please take them to the Help Desk/Feedback thread already linked. Do not comment on moderation on thread - you should, and I'm pretty sure do, know better than that at this stage.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Valmont

KyussBishop wrote: »

That can lead to a longwinded discussion over quantifying the minimum cost of living, and on all the potential negative effects of the minimum wage, but it doesn't (from my view) relate to the labour theory of value.

Why not?

By mandating a minimum wage we are in effect saying that more of the profits -- than the business owner alone would provide -- should be given to the employee. By admitting this much, we are impliedly accepting the fact that without a minimum wage, businesses are exploiting their workers somehow. How are businesses exploiting their workers? Why should more profits be given to the employees? Surely if an employer pays below the standard of living (whatever it may be), his employee won't be able to eat, feed, clothe and get himself to work, no?

I can't see a justifiable answer to the vexing issue of the supposed exploitation of workers that doesn't take the labour theory of value as its basis. Can you explain the idea of worker exploitation without resorting to Marx's original theory?

KyussBishop

I think the minimum wage should be in place to allow more easily reaching a minimum cost of living, regardless of whether or not low wages in particular circumstances could be considered exploitation; so this specific line argument is not linked to exploitation.
A lot of jobs that previously paid less than the minimum wage, were not exploitative, but that previous wage became illegal once the minimum wage was brought in; that's a cost of bringing in the minimum wage, it does not mean every motive for bringing in the minimum wage, is related to exploitation.

I'm not going to get into a semantics game regarding exploitation and the minimum wage (which leads to assertions that in a 'free market' there is magically no exploitation because everyone has a 'choice'), as there are benefits from and reasons to support minimum wage, which don't bring exploitation into the equation.

Remember, the burden of proof is on you, not on me; you need to show that every reason for supporting the minimum wage links to the labour theory of value, I don't need to disprove links to exploitation or the labour theory of value.

Lantus

There is no such thing as free thought.

Its a tough one to digest because we are all products of our environment. Almost everything we have come to learn or know has come from our own culture, our parents, friends and other social circles. Therefore when we consider what freedom is we naturally think of our own culture as being free and an example of freedom. Is that free thought or just a conditioned way of thinking?

Ideology, like patriatism is a curse that afflicts our way of thinking. It is a method of control which I would hope we would one day simply design out of of society. To do that we need to undertake a massive re-education.

20Cent

The ideologue will apply their ideology to every issue and cannot countenance a solution which doesn't fit it. This means that many possible solutions are not available to them. Looking at everything through a narrow view. Maybe the test for a free thinker is one where they would change their minds and propose a different solution under different circumstances. Sometimes a private solution is best but if the situation changes they would go for a public one?

Valmont

Lantus wrote: »

It is a method of control which I would hope we would one day simply design out of of society. To do that we need to undertake a massive re-education.

That sounds menacing! What do you mean be a 'massive re-education'? Surely trying to re-educate a large group of people is ideological in itself?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, the reason I was discussing the minimum wage, and arguing support in favour of meeting minimum cost of living, was to argue that it's possible to support it without subscribing to Marxism/LTV.


From the previous thread way back regarding minimum wage (edgar the exploiter or some such), I made the separation between the effects of minimum wage in low-unemployment times (like pre-crisis) and in high-unemployment times.

There isn't really any evidence showing harm from minimum wage in low-unemployment times (certainly none overriding the evidence of benefit, i.e. workers wages), so that leaves high-unemployment times as the primary time when the potential damage of minimum wage is debatable.

So at the very least, minimum wage is demonstrably beneficial in low-unemployment times, thus it doesn't make sense to abolish it wholesale; more leaves the questions of potential harm in high-unemployment times, and what (if anything) to do about it then.

Waitsian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, it doesn't.

Ever heard of Winstanley? Godwin? Proudhon? Kropotkin? Bakunin?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Belfast

Ideology does not mean you cannot think.

Ideology is a means to a end or solving a problem.
The problem with Ideology is when an Ideology becomes the goal rather than a means of achieving a goal.

The main parties here do not seem very interested in Ideology.
The goal of main parties here seems to be get in to power and stay there.
They see politics as a business and votes as customers and they see a political party that stays in power as a successful business.
Their ideas seem to some from marketing people and focus groups.

Enda Kenny said before the last election that he went around the country asking people what they wanted him Fine Gael to do.
Looked like he did not have any ideas of his own.

Eggy Baby!

I also think that the internet wars sort of prevent this.

LOL "the internet wars" sounds almost genuinely historical.

One of the reasons I love Orwell so much is that he was never afraid to tell his own socialist bedfellows to 'bugger off' from time to time.

As in the USSR communists?


Ideology and nationalism are the two largest factors which hold humanity back. Think of all the times people have failed due to ideological hubris. Hitler underestimated the Russians due to his own ideological arrogance. Politicians offer prepackaged solutions to problems based to appeal to the various ideological archetypes that voters may fit. Sad really.

Let our only ideology be pragmatism!

Valmont

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Let our only ideology be pragmatism!

Finally!:D

20Cent

A quote by Bill Clinton nails it:

"The problem with ideology is, if you've got an ideology, you've already got your mind made up. You know all the answers and that makes evidence irrelevant and arguments a waste of time. You tend to govern by assertion and attacks."

Valmont

I see Bill Clinton misunderstands the word 'ideology' just as much as he misunderstands the word 'is'.

20Cent

Valmont wrote: »

I see Bill Clinton misunderstands the word 'ideology' just as much as he misunderstands the word 'is'.

"You tend to govern by assertion and attacks."

The Bishop!

'Nature abhors a vacuum.'

I heard that from a well known libertarian believe it or not.

Valmont

I see how 20Cent has gradually started using the words 'ideology' and 'ideological' as signifying anyone who isn't swayed by his arguments or disagrees with him. This usage of the word is inaccurate:

Wikipedia wrote:

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things (compare worldview) as in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization).

Now tell me this quote from Bill Clinton doesn't reflect the ideology of the democratic party:

Bill Clinton wrote:

Banning human cloning reflects our humanity. It is the right thing to do. Creating a child through this new method calls into question our most fundamental beliefs. It has the potential to threaten the sacred family bonds at the very core of our ideals and our society...

To reiterate, an ideological person is not somebody who won't agree with your line of reasoning.

KyussBishop

20Cent wrote: »

"You tend to govern by assertion and attacks."

It's a good summation of how an ideology is usually pushed; facts and information are shaped to fit the ideology (and contradicting facts/information consciously ignored), and the ideology is held as true by default in the promoters eyes.

When arguments in favour of it start getting filled with fallacious assertions, personal attacks, and other obfuscatory methods of trying to muddy the waters or derail discussion, that must require either a certain level of cognitive dissonance, or a conscious knowledge that what is being promoted is false.

When you start seeing a conflict of interest in what a person is promoting, and their own personal situation, it's hard not to suspect a dishonest, conscious knowledge that what they are promoting is false.

20Cent

Valmont wrote: »

I see how 20Cent has gradually started using the words 'ideology' and 'ideological' as signifying anyone who isn't swayed by his arguments or disagrees with him. This usage of the word is inaccurate:

That's an assertion.

Valmont wrote: »

Now tell me this quote from Bill Clinton doesn't reflect the ideology of the democratic party:

Human cloning? Not sure where you're going with that one.

Valmont wrote: »

To reiterate, an ideological person is not somebody who won't agree with your line of reasoning.

Who is saying that?
Another assertion?

a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

Valmont

20Cent wrote: »

Who is saying that?
Another assertion?

a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

I quoted Wikipedia's definition of 'ideology' to demonstrate that your usage of the word is wildly inaccurate. That was my support, and your specious use of the term is my reason. You use the word 'ideologue' as a pejorative term to signify your ideological opponents, the libertarians. How can we have a meaningful discussion about ideology if you only use it disparagingly towards someone who you feel isn't swayed by the power of your arguments?

The Free Dictionary wrote:

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Although how you can still claim that you have none of the above is unfathomable to me. What's the point of being pragmatic if you have no ideology to guide your efforts? Do pragmatists have no beliefs concerning what should be the proper political order? Do pragmatists have no doctrine specifying how economic affairs should be organised? Do pragmatists have no vision of how one person should treat another? I'm wondering what the point of being a pragmatist even is now!

20Cent

Valmont wrote: »

I quoted Wikipedia's definition of 'ideology' to demonstrate that your usage of the word is wildly inaccurate. That was my support, and your specious use of the term is my reason. You use the word 'ideologue' as a pejorative term to signify your ideological opponents, the libertarians. How can we have a meaningful discussion about ideology if you only use it disparagingly towards someone who you feel isn't swayed by the power of your arguments?

I'm disparaging to all ideologies not just libertarians. Labelling oneself and painting yourself into an ideological corner is inherintly stupid imo. It is a bit pointless discussing anything with the ideologue same as with a religious fanatic because it doen't make for rational discussion they have already made their minds up and no amount of evidence will change that.

Valmont wrote: »

Although how you can still claim that you have none of the above is unfathomable to me. What's the point of being pragmatic if you have no ideology to guide your efforts? Do pragmatists have no beliefs concerning what should be the proper political order? Do pragmatists have no doctrine specifying how economic affairs should be organised? Do pragmatists have no vision of how one person should treat another? I'm wondering what the point of being a pragmatist even is now!

You think pragmatism is an ideology in itself? Fair enough but I think the pregmatist has a much wider selection of solutions to problems and isn't tied down to one ideology for everything which is a good thing.

Kinski

Ideology is a fairly dirty word in popular discussion about politics - "bloody ideologues!" - but it doesn't have to have those negative connotations. I'd argue that one of the broad strengths of leftist discourse is that the concept of ideology (in a much more technical and heavily-theorised sense) is so deeply ingrained. Ideology is something which we all have as individuals, and which permeates the social and cultural spheres we inhabit, and the institutions which we interact with and through. An awareness of ideology involves an awareness of your own preconceptions and biases, an awareness that you're bringing a particular set of subjective experiences, ideas, impressions to your analysis of the situation.

The problem with bandying it about in the way Clinton is doing in the quote 20cent provides is that he's trying to push the whole notion of ideology away from him; it's something somebody else, with some other (skewed) view, has, and not a problem for me. The ideologues who most need a mirror held up to their own faces are the ones who insist they have no ideology at all.

20Cent

Kinski wrote: »

The problem with bandying it about in the way Clinton is doing in the quote 20cent provides is that he's trying to push the whole notion of ideology away from him; it's something somebody else, with some other (skewed) view, has, and not a problem for me. The ideologues who most need a mirror held up to their own faces are the ones who insist they have no ideology at all.

So what ideology would you say Clinton follows?

He seems pretty pragmatic to me he was very good at bipartisanship working with the republicans when he was president. I think you mean values as in we all have basic values that we have but ideology would mean something different, to me anyway.
Say there is a situation the ideologue already has their solution decided, other ways are dismissed because they are not consistent with the ideology. The pragmatist has a far larger toolkit to find solutions and find a rational answer for that particular situation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.