Ideologies, do you have one?

20Cent · 29-10-2010 04:37PM #1

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 · 29-10-2010 05:40PM

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater · 29-10-2010 07:32PM

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 · 30-10-2010 11:38AM

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 · 30-10-2010 01:06PM

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 · 30-10-2010 01:49PM

Old school PJ O'Rourkean pessimistic conservative.

20Cent · 30-10-2010 05:09PM

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 · 30-10-2010 08:13PM

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 · 30-10-2010 09:40PM

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 · 30-10-2010 11:31PM

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 · 31-10-2010 03:03PM

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 · 31-10-2010 05:07PM

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 · 31-10-2010 05:17PM

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 · 02-11-2010 08:28PM

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 · 04-11-2010 01:13PM

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 · 04-11-2010 06:47PM

That makes you Canadian

simplistic2 · 05-11-2010 01:16AM

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 · 07-11-2010 11:58PM

Marxist libertarian, the former not as ideology

Dr. Baltar · 08-11-2010 05:47AM

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 · 08-11-2010 06:16AM

My ideology? - Clothing optional;)

TheUsual · 08-11-2010 06:30AM

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 · 08-11-2010 01:06PM

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 · 08-11-2010 01:54PM

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 · 08-11-2010 03:07PM

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 · 17-11-2010 08:34AM

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 · 17-11-2010 10:28PM

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 · 25-11-2010 01:33AM

Anti-state. That's about it.

deise go deo · 27-11-2010 04:56AM

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

newmug · 28-11-2010 02:15AM

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 · 29-11-2010 05:36AM

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 · 29-11-2010 01:58PM

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

Ideologies, do you have one?

Comments