I’m not sure there is actually much in the way of evidence for these rather definitive statements.

It isn’t expanding into anything, it is (at least in this context) everything. It’s not really the sort of concept our ‘ape’ brain intuitions cope with very well.

You can get a future tax break if you lose money this year? One might think that they find ways to make it look like it’s loss making which gives then credits for others years in which they slip up and look like they made a profit so they don’t have to pay tax then either? Or the owners make sure that they get paid plenty but the thing they own doesn’t officially make any money…. Nah, I’m sure that can’t happen.

Edit: I feel like I might need to add a /s to my last sentence?

Her poetry is very powerful.

The Hobbit is a great parents/kids book ( shame they didn’t do that with the films). You might want to see if she is ready for the wonderful Northern Lights next. And something to perhaps work towards is the Skullduggery Pleasant series - great books and great female lead character if that is of interest. Also see the Song of the Lioness/Protector of the Small author Tamora Pierce.

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.

lol.

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?

Um… I was paraphrasing up your argument.

Abstract concepts such as a social class cant do anything… only the individuals that make them up. So we are back to what should the individuals in that group actually do.

>Collective is just lots of individuals acting in concert

>Definitely not in concert.

Don’t leave me hanging! lol

Collective

> done by people acting as a group.

In concert

> acting jointly.

>That is very much not the point and as I said before it is also not the point to give a personal manual for any person to follow.

In your opinion. As I think I might have mentioned this begs the question. The writer if the article may think that ( though I’m not sure that necessarily true). But he’s disputing what Singer might think. You don’t get to decide the point when that’s in contention.

My point is that real, precise actions for real individuals to do that can make a difference is precisely the point. Such action could be direct or indirect through persuading others to take an action. But what action matters? It’s difficult for individuals to do anything - so don’t take any personal responsibility?

Like I said , it may be that lots of individuals changing their behaviour or indeed acting to persuade others to change their behaviour - is useful. But even more so if they attempt to work out precisely what behaviour needs changing and how.

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.

Collective is just lots of individuals acting in concert. I don’t see it makes a difference. Lots of people giving to or volunteering for the same charity is a collective action. Just saying “act collectively” isn’t very useful without specifying precisely what to do.

That’s rather my problem with a protest which is of a “stop being bad” nature without doing the more complex work of planning for and persuading for necessity concrete specific steps. Does collective action just mean “if I make enough fuss someone else like the government will sort it out” so my only personal action is to protest?

I think what can I and I should do that will make a difference is not beside the point at all. Including working out how what I can do to influence those with more power to take action. But so is precisely what actions they should undertake.

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.

That would appear to beg the question. The author thinks individual actions that work within the system are insignificant and the system needs changing as a whole. Well that’s easy to say.

And since in practice there are only the actions of individuals working separately or together _ what do they do to change the whole system and what do they propose to replace it with?

It’s like people protesting to “stop racism!” - well yeh I agree …. and now how do we do actually precisely and practically do that step by step since just saying stop probably isn’t going to do it.

Well I’m thinking of practically every group that has tried a form of communism, national socialism or theocratic government as an ideology.

Or not. But it’s up to someone to suggest an alternative and why it might work better bearing in mind what we know about people etc ( and indeed better than a reformed version of what is already there) and persuade people that is the case.

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.

>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.

I don’t think it’s ridiculous if we take it as improve on rather than just change. It’s always possible to change just not necessarily for the better. There’s certainly lots to be improved in capitalism but whether it can be improved on is yet to be demonstrated. It’s certainly possible but the writer is far clearer on Singer’s faults than any alternative.

I’m curious what your pluralistic alternative to capitalism. I’m all for reforming and controlling capitalism through social measures - but the article certainly seemed to me to be suggesting a complete replacement. And indeed rather sneering at Singer. Personally I think the third way is to actual out in the effort to convince , persuade, and work through the democratic system - if you have actually worked out what can and needs to be changed.

It sometimes seems easier to say ‘something must be done’ than come up with concrete individual actions. It’s arguable whether throwing soup at a painting has more practical effect than helping others through charity. Obviously it sends what specific problems you seek to alleviate. And saying that is not the equivalent of saying we should do nothing.

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.) We undoubtedly should be far more sceptical about capitalism and no doubt there is much that should be done to reform it, but we should treat exhortations to overthrow it with the same scepticism.

Also I’d point out that Singer claiming human nature is not as pliable as Marx believed doesn’t seem to be the same as saying it’s entirely fixed so his argument for manageable personal action is not really contradictory in substance despite the mention of fashion. He seems to be saying that you can’t successfully change a whole economic system in a way that clashes with human nature but you might be able to work within in it to alleviate the problems.