Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mkwdr t1_itqrxz0 wrote

Reply to comment by Amphy64 in Peter Singer Is the Philosopher of the Status Quo by TuvixWasMurderedR1P

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?

1

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.

1

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.

1