Ideologies, do you have one?

Cannibal Ox · 30-11-2010 11:48AM

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 · 30-11-2010 11:19PM

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 · 03-12-2010 12:33AM

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 · 03-12-2010 04:50PM

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 · 03-12-2010 08:46PM

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 · 04-12-2010 01:00AM

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 · 04-12-2010 01:41AM

Im a unionist.

silverharp · 04-12-2010 09:32AM

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 · 04-12-2010 07:26PM

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 · 06-12-2010 12:38PM

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 · 28-01-2011 01:03AM

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 · 05-02-2011 06:18PM

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 · 12-02-2011 03:13AM

Im a republican

[Jackass] · 24-03-2011 01:59PM

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 · 28-03-2011 11:00PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Im a unionist.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Im a republican

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

Ideologies, do you have one?

Comments