View Full Version : About ideologies ...


Mītiu Ioan
Apr 07, 2002, 11:38 AM
I know that ideologies isn't exactly history, but is very close to this subject.

I read some posts here and I belive that there are many confusions related with this subject.

I will present my opinion related with this and wait your critics/comments.

Personnaly I belive that all ideologies is based on consideration on human nature and first question raised to a ideology is the next : "How is the human conditions?".

Here are two mainly answers :

1. Human nature are preponderently good

In this moment appear a new question : How to unleash the potential of this good human condition?

Here I see two possible answers - based mainly on two principles :

1.a) Principle of concurence

This is the fundament of liberal ideology. ( here I speak in european terms, I know that in U.S. the word "liberal" have a little different sense ).

Of course here exist nuances :
- Is the human condition good enough that only the promotion of this principle is enough? - If you choose to answer "yes" probably you're a libertarian or anarchical liberalism ( I put both term - in romanian books their sens is equivalent - but I don't know if this situation is general, and I want to be well-understood ).

If choose "no" then - as a logical consequence - appear the necesity of state-institutions to protect and implement policy for this principle. But even in this situation appear nuances :
- how far should applies this principle? In a moderate manner or a radical one? - If someone answer "moderate" - it's probably adept of welfare liberalism. If someone answer "radical" than it's probably a adept of neoclasical liberalism.

1.b. ) Principle of cooperation

This is fundament of socialist ideology.

Here also exist nuances :
- exactly as previous - there exist a anarhical or utopical socialism for a "yes" answer.

But the same answer "no" give us two nuances :
- if choose for a moderate manner than will result social-democracy[/b]. If choose a radical manner will result [u]communism. I must tell here my opinion that so-called communist country wasn't communist in fact - they ( my contry always during 1947-1989 :( ) was "bolshevism" !! The only country which may be called "communist" was probably Yugoslavia.

Of course - there doesn't exist in real life a "pure" ideology applied - some elements are interconected of course - but this are IMHO ideatic constructs needed to analyse real-world society.

I stop myself here to see your opinions ... :)

P.S. : The used term wasn't inteded to make any offense or something like this ...
P.S.S. : Excuse-me my bad english ...
P.S.S.S. : I had to sustain a exam on this subject in two weeks - so I want to check my ideas and my clasification.
P.S.S.S.S. : I hope I don't say something wrong to close or delete this thread ... ;)

Alcibiaties of Athenae
Apr 07, 2002, 12:51 PM
Your post is fine, but you forget something.

Most people and nations are guided by enlightened self interest, and this often overrides morality.

Mītiu Ioan
Apr 07, 2002, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Most people and nations are guided by enlightened self interest, and this often overrides morality.

Will came soon second part ... ;)

Ideology exist to translate this principles in corresponding measures. For e.g. - what kind of fiscality to have for implement a principle give different results based on applied principle ( at least in printed law ... ;) ).

Regards

History_Buff
Apr 07, 2002, 05:31 PM
Yes, most democratic countries are not driven by the descisions of the people at all, just the fact that because most representative democracies give different amounts of seats to different regions, you dont need a majority to win, just a majority in two or three regions.

Mītiu Ioan
Apr 08, 2002, 02:55 AM
I wil torture you again - hope you will not kill me :).

First of all - the fact that human condition is good doesn't mean neccesary good in ethical sense. For e.g. the liberal ideology is based on idea that people are rational enough to apply with great succes for whole society some economical rational calculus. And for this liberal ideology claims that concurence is the supreme principle which must be at the base of a society.

Now follow the next part of my "exposeum" :

Fundamental question about human nature may have another answer.

2. Human condition are mostly bad

Here exist two nuances :

- a - is bad, but may be improved ( even not 100% ;) );
- b - is completely bad. No chance at all. :(

For (a) point exist two alternative :
- to take tradition and especially the "spirit" of tradition as a guide for govern the society and implement some changes. The main idea is to not have a major re-configuration of society, but a number of "small" steps. This is the way of conservative ideology.

Suplementary - in Europe and U.S. this mean, mainly, to be based on republican and christian tradition.

- the other alternative ( unfortunatelly far the most historical and geographical present :( ) is the elitist ideologies.
Of course that, de facto exist elites in any society. But a elitist ideology claim that only one elite should govern the society because their members are more competent than the other member of society ( so the reason for this is that the members of this elite aren't "bad human nature people" ) - and this fact should be implemented also de jure. Also the member of this elite is supposed to be the only one which may implement a key-policy for a better society ( at least in theory ;) ).

IMHO here are some exemple of elitism :
- theocracy - the elite are formed by the priest and the key-policy is the divine intervention;
- fascism - the elite was formed by NSAPD headquater and the key-policy was the racial purity;
- bolshevysm - the elite was the headquater of Communist Party and the key-policy was the supreme social justice.

Probably exist more others ...

Here is a particular case of a elitist system - a plutocratic one. I said special because a plutocratic sistem have a huge practical advantage - doesn't need to claim a key-policy !! Corruption and/or wealth are, in many cases, enough to legitimate and make such a elitist sistem a de facto existing one. Sad, but true ... :(

In fact such a plutocratic sistem have now a modern name - corporatism ... Maybe my opinion are wrong, but this is.

Regards,

P.S. : I wonder myself if someone have enough patience to read this ... :(