4 ms·

"The greatest trick the devil ever played on mankind is to believe you can be free from ideology." Alternatively: "If you don't have an ideology, you just end u

by hnbad 2y ago

"The greatest trick the devil ever played on mankind is to believe you can be free from ideology." Alternatively: "If you don't have an ideology, you just end up creating your own inconsistent ad hoc ideology from scratch." I'm not sure who first started promoting the lie of being "free from ideology" or ideology being bad, although I could imagine it being tied directly to the rise of Third Way politics (e.g. New Labour in the UK) - which, ironically, very much is a political ideology (although one so incoherented and conflicted it has fallen victim to right-wing populism throughout the West). Actually the Democratic Party's politics (think Obama and Biden, not AOC and Sanders) generally closely align with Third Way politics. I can understand opposition to ideologues as the term is usually applied when talking about people who only talk about their ideology rather than applying their ideology directly (e.g. I could at lengths explain the ideas behind Democratic Confederalism or Anarchism but that would do nothing to help with concrete policy decisions in the present system or day-to-day problems in real life). After all, when people say e.g. "Trump says it like it is" they don't mean he speaks the truth but that he talks about problems people perceive as directly affecting them and then talks about things he wants to do about them (whether or not they're helpful for addressing those problems is beside the point) - the distinction is that he offers a concrete solution at all rather than waffling on about the spirit of the light of the hope of the nation at the dawn of the greatness etc etc. Ironically this waffling is actually compensating for a lack of an explicit ideology but it is indeed quite off-putting.

hollerith 2y ago
>If you don't have an ideology, you just end up creating your own inconsistent ad hoc ideology from scratch. I'm not sure that is accurate (when applied to individuals). If we define an ideology as a way of assigning moral value to things that is comprehensive enough so that almost any decision can be viewed through "the ideological lens", then some people are many orders of magnitude less influenced by ideologies than other people are. What is futile is to ignore or prevent the effects of ideologies on a society or a large organization because people who share an ideology cooperate much more effectively than people who do not, and this has powerful effects on politics and the management of organizations.
- DeathArrow 2y ago
  >people who share an ideology cooperate much more effectively than people who do not While that might be true it doesn't follow that the effect of their cooperation is a net positive.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    I emphatically agree.
DeathArrow 2y ago
Do you have an example of an ideology for which most people in the world agree it produced more good than harm? Why should I trust an ideology? Why should I buy into a fixed set of doctrines? Supposedly, an ideology is not a religion, so faith shouldn't be an argument. Adopting a fixed view of the world doesn't allow me to be pragmatic. It doesn't allow me to adapt in a dynamic and ever changing world. And most of the times something isn't absolutely bad or good, but it depends on a set of factors. Immigration can be good in some circumstances and bad in other. Taxes can be good in some circumstances and bad in other. I might value both ideas which can be on the left or the right side of the political spectrum. Usually ideologies are promising some kind of Paradise on Earth and saving something. But the results are mostly loss of freedoms which is justified by the supposedly "greater good". Also, ideologues and activists doesn't produce anything of value for society, they just are into convincing people into following their ways. While they are benefiting greatly from it.

by hnbad 2y ago

hollerith 2y ago

>If you don't have an ideology, you just end up creating your own inconsistent ad hoc ideology from scratch. I'm not sure that is accurate (when applied to individuals). If we define an ideology as a way of assigning moral value to things that is comprehensive enough so that almost any decision can be viewed through "the ideological lens", then some people are many orders of magnitude less influenced by ideologies than other people are. What is futile is to ignore or prevent the effects of ideologies on a society or a large organization because people who share an ideology cooperate much more effectively than people who do not, and this has powerful effects on politics and the management of organizations.

DeathArrow 2y ago
>people who share an ideology cooperate much more effectively than people who do not While that might be true it doesn't follow that the effect of their cooperation is a net positive.
- hollerith 2y ago
  I emphatically agree.

DeathArrow 2y ago

Do you have an example of an ideology for which most people in the world agree it produced more good than harm? Why should I trust an ideology? Why should I buy into a fixed set of doctrines? Supposedly, an ideology is not a religion, so faith shouldn't be an argument. Adopting a fixed view of the world doesn't allow me to be pragmatic. It doesn't allow me to adapt in a dynamic and ever changing world. And most of the times something isn't absolutely bad or good, but it depends on a set of factors. Immigration can be good in some circumstances and bad in other. Taxes can be good in some circumstances and bad in other. I might value both ideas which can be on the left or the right side of the political spectrum. Usually ideologies are promising some kind of Paradise on Earth and saving something. But the results are mostly loss of freedoms which is justified by the supposedly "greater good". Also, ideologues and activists doesn't produce anything of value for society, they just are into convincing people into following their ways. While they are benefiting greatly from it.