Submitted by TuvixWasMurderedR1P t3_yd1jb3 in philosophy
Amphy64 t1_itpwtf3 wrote
Reply to comment by Mkwdr in Peter Singer Is the Philosopher of the Status Quo by TuvixWasMurderedR1P
>The problem with ‘overthrow the whole system and put in my ideologically pure alternative’ is that it tends to be undemocratic ( but for their own good because they are too stupid, evil or brainwashed to know what good for them of course) and all ideologies tend to have unintended consequences when faced with real life that may be worse than the one overthrown (and often the intended methods are morally suspect.)
Not really, it tends to assume false consciousness and that people would already agree if they weren't being mislead. Most people in our society -UK here- even already easily agree animals have moral value, claim to care about them, back laws protecting them and want further such legislation, frequently express horror at footage of animal agriculture or outright refuse to watch it yet continue to act according to the status quo and counter to their own apparent beliefs, for various reasons. I can't think of an actual instance of such an ideology being implemented with unintended consequences, examples?
Charity also is not counter to ideological consistency aimed at systemic change - I donate to vegan charity Viva, for example.
Mkwdr t1_itq1g4e wrote
>Not really, it tends to assume false consciousness and that people would already agree if they weren't being mislead.
Indeed. Which I think is covered in “they are too stupid …. brainwashed”. I didn’t say the assumption was always necessarily wrong ( though I certainly don’t trust ideologues Of any flavour on the subject).
>Charity also is not counter to ideological consistency aimed at systemic change - I donate to vegan charity Viva, for example.
No indeed the two are not mutually exclusive , one can do what you can on a micro(?) level while working for wider macro change. My problem is while I can see a change in our eating habits and people being persuaded of that over time , it’s far harder to come up with an alternative to “capitalism” that would work better overall and be accepted to populations.
Bear in mind that I absolutely agree with the social limitation of capitalism. But the article seems to be promoting replacement not reform.
Amphy64 t1_itq3gxk wrote
But what I mean is, there's a difference between imposing something over people's heads on the mere convenient assumption they're too brainwashed, and aiming to unbrainwash them and letting them join the calls and action for change. Mostly those wanting systemic change aren't even assuming it's possible, or remotely logical -those with more power are not the ones likeliest to dismantle their own power-, to impose top down like that.
Mkwdr t1_itq4l0k wrote
I absolutely agree.
But I think it’s hard work persuading people they are wrong or misled and takes time - much easier to complain about them being ‘sheep’ and feel righteous? But I ( being not at all an expert) have a theory that ideologues become authoritarians because “people just won’t make the obviously right choices so must be made to for their own good’.
Though I wonder if ( on the two ends of a horse shoe principle) there is a link between right/left ( I use the words vaguely) ideologies , authoritarianism , and underlying Hobbes/Rousseau social beliefs. That is the right think people are inherently crap and need whipping into shape right from the start - while the left think people are inherently perfect … and need punishing and controlling when they inevitably disappoint. Just a random thought.
Amphy64 t1_itqdbxg wrote
>ideologues become authoritarians because “people just won’t make the obviously right choices so must be made to for their own good’.
Again would need an example because cannot think of any: only of supporters of the status quo claiming it's the case. Us vegans are always getting accused of somehow pushing veganism on people despite evidently possessing vastly less influence and access to power than the animal ag. industry. Usually what it actually means is 'vegans made me think about how my actions aren't in accordance with my beliefs and that made me feel bad some I'm going to blame them and call them pushy'.
Rousseau is not nearly as idealistic as he gets accused of being - he suggests people will act in self-interest and is not expecting perfection, or even, on the worse side, that means of control like religion aren't useful. It is the eighteenth century, I'm never sure why anyone expects idealism as some might mean it today from it. Which, in terms of arguable improvements, suggests 'idealists' have a point. This debate could easily be had about slavery using worryingly similar language to that applied to the oppression of non-human animals. Leftists assume the system creates the bad outcomes, not inherently the people.
Mkwdr t1_itqdwzd wrote
Well I’m thinking of practically every group that has tried a form of communism, national socialism or theocratic government as an ideology.
Amphy64 t1_itqek9k wrote
That's not a specific example of an ideology being adhered to the point of unexpected bad outcomes, though. Nazism had the bad outcome built in and intended, so do theocratic governments.
Mkwdr t1_itqhdtx wrote
You seem to have shifted the point.
I wrote..
>ideologues become authoritarians because “people just won’t make the obviously right choices so must be made to for their own good’.
(Now admittedly I implied so could have made clear “for their own good” according to the ideologues.)
You asked for examples where that happened.. not
>example of an ideology being adhered to the point of unexpected bad outcomes
So ?
But I would suggest that no ideology thinks of itself as the bad guy ( shout out to Mitchell and Webb “Are we the bad guys”.) I think that those ones mentioned are wrong in principle and practice. My point is that when the inevitable failure occurs then they need to blame someone and ratchet up the authoritarianism.
Amphy64 t1_itqjb2r wrote
Think Nazism is likewise different to your original point though, because as well as the deliberateness, there is a lack of cohesiveness to the ideology, making it more of an excuse for what was done than an example of what can unexpectedly happen if following ideology -that was mentioned in the first post I think-, it was with considerable public support, not just imposed from above.
Lack of coherence and consistency suggests lack of sincerity - eg. demands for pre-marital chastity combined with a sexual double standard where all the emphasis is on the demand that women should be modest, but intimate examinations are apparently acceptable, and rapists are enabled. People may not think of themselves as the bad guys but that's not what good faith looks like either.
Mkwdr t1_itqkqac wrote
To me you are identifying the problem with all ideologies. The contrast between theory and practice. While no doubt some are more thoroughly worked out than others - Is there a political ideology which hasn’t been open to exploitation and hypocrisy by those with the power to implement it?
I think I’d say with that in mind that it’s true that powerful believers in charge use authoritarianism as a method to try to compensate for the system failing , while powerful free loaders do it to keep themselves in a privileged position? Though that makes my wonder the balance between those two groups in any specific example of an ideology.
But I’m only thinking aloud.
Amphy64 t1_itqqb7v wrote
But exactly - it's easy to come up with examples of deliberate exploitation, human error/idiocy, impossible circumstances and simple panic, not so much of bad outcomes originating from someone sincerely trying, sticking to principles and expecting a good outcome with legitimate reason for that expectation. Almost like maybe it doesn't actually happen and supporters of the status quo just claim it does to try to undermine positive change - and I think we should be clear this accusation gets thrown at the left, not the right, despite the ideology frequently having then being accepted with time.
Using authoritarianism would often intrinsically represent a failing in belief, not consistency. Although another accusation thrown at the left is that of being authoritarian just for defending their position against the status quo and reactionaries.
Mkwdr t1_itqrxz0 wrote
You’ve lost me somewhat.
All I’m suggesting is that throughout history organisations based on a specific ideology ( in which the ideas matter more than actual individuals - who become a means to an end) have a tendency when faced with the reality of failure to shore up the system or punish scapegoats by greater authoritarianism. Individuals matter less than preserving the ideology.
If you are saying there are no genuine believers at the top and it’s their own power they seek to maintain with the increasing authoritarianism then I think you have a very good point.
Though I think it’s possible there may be examples in which the action taken in the name of the ideology actually undermined their power and a more pragmatic approach would have been better for them?
Amphy64 t1_itquhj7 wrote
>
Depending on the ideology, the idea individuals mattered less would tend to be an inherent contradiction, certainly to leftwing movements that are intended ultimately to benefit a people consisting of individuals. If said 'individuals' actually means 'clear enemies who are outright trying to destroy the progress and murder those trying to establish it', then it's only leftist movements that seriously get blamed for this and it has darn all to do with those making such accusations thinking it just went ideologically 'too far', and everything to do with thinking they had no right to try to oppose the status quo to begin with, it's just a bad faith conflation. It's not that individuals matter less than some kind of assumed-abstract ideology in such a case, if the ideology was supposed to benefit the majority and not the minority totally deliberately trying to sabotage its application.
No - genuine believers may be around, but are then up against the opportunists, the people who are just bad/inexperienced at applying an ideology, consistency issues that already existed, legitimate differences in ideology that may be hard to resolve, the weight of the status quo, all the mistakes and pressures of the situation itself, the people behind deliberate internal and external opposition, and likely do not want to be an authoritarian even if they could. So the explanation for what went wrong was still not the typical lame accusation of 'ideological purity': the people who were ideologically at least fairly consistent may not have stood a chance. Which does not make them wrong nor the aim of consistency wrong, it just suggests it's hard, which is more the actual problem imo than anyone ever being overly ideologically consistent on any scale. If more aim for it, it may get easier for others to do, ie. veganism again.
>Though I think it’s possible there may be examples in which the action taken in the name of the ideology actually undermined their power and a more pragmatic approach would have been better for them?
Possible but I've more often seen the reverse argued. Whether a specific action was just a bad idea/misguided/stupid is a somewhat different question.
Mkwdr t1_itqzdzh wrote
I find the suggesting that ostensibly left ideologies such as communism put the welfare of the individual over the collective somewhat difficult to take seriously. Similar with the idea that the millions that they imprisoned or killed through commission or deliberate omission were clear enemies. I would say that pretty much all political ideologies claim everyone is better off even if it’s because the hoi poloi are better of in their place.
I would suggest that ideologies by their nature put conceptual factors above realistic pragmatism and when the two clash authoritarianism attempts to reconcile the problem. Ideologies don’t survive the test of being implemented.
So far like democracy could be said in practice to be the worst system apart from all the others , capitalism is the same.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments