Revolutionary Ideologies - past their sell-by date?

the real ramon

Hi all, I don't often frequent this forum as I'm not sure of my political opinions anymore, but there is one thing I'd like to discuss and that's revolutionary Ideologies- is it time the world turned it's back on them for good.

This post is prompted by the USA's and Iran's petty childish meddling in the Near East/Middle East.

As far as I can see the USA is just as much driven by revolutionary zeal as Iran is. It's roots are in a revolution- one unlike others we have known in that it puts individual liberty at a premium but it still sticks to it like a mule digs it's feet in, and makes no apology of it's intention to spread this particular form of democracy and capitalism around the world, the Middle East is just it's latest target imo.

I'd like to see the back of both the Islamic revolution of Iran and the Extreme Individualist revolution of the USA just like all the other revolutions have disappeared.

Do other people feel the same way or do people feel ideologies can be beneficial?

Do countries have the right to spread their ideals abroad?

Have Iran and the USA so successfully isolated themselves in world opinion that their revolutions day's are numbered? will they destroy each other?

I'm unsure of the last question there but I'm fed up to the back teeth of them and don't think they're beneficial or have a right to spread their ideologies abroad (what they do in their own countries is up to them imo)

Cordially,
Ramon

Sgt. Sensible

Technological revolutions are cool. Civilisations need revolutions or they die imo.

InFront

the real ramon wrote:

Hi all, I don't often frequent this forum as I'm not sure of my political opinions anymore, but there is one thing I'd like to discuss and that's revolutionary Ideologies- is it time the world turned it's back on them for good.

This post is prompted by the USA's and Iran's petty childish meddling in the Near East/Middle East.

As far as I can see the USA is just as much driven by revolutionary zeal as Iran is. It's roots are in a revolution- one unlike others we have known in that it puts individual liberty at a premium but it still sticks to it like a mule digs it's feet in, and makes no apology of it's intention to spread this particular form of democracy and capitalism around the world, the Middle East is just it's latest target imo.

I'd like to see the back of both the Islamic revolution of Iran and the Extreme Individualist revolution of the USA just like all the other revolutions have disappeared.

Do other people feel the same way or do people feel ideologies can be beneficial?

Do countries have the right to spread their ideals abroad?

Have Iran and the USA so successfully isolated themselves in world opinion that their revolutions day's are numbered? will they destroy each other?

I'm unsure of the last question there but I'm fed up to the back teeth of them and don't think they're beneficial or have a right to spread their ideologies abroad (what they do in their own countries is up to them imo)

Cordially,
Ramon

You are proposing... no more ideoligies? Im not sure how this is even possible or conceivable. As long as there are governments there will be ideologies and as long as there are oopposing governments there will be opposing ideologies.

The problem isnt that 'extreme democracy' or that 'Islamism' exist. That they will exist is not questioned, its their subject's desire to do a world tour and their drive to perpetuate it regardless of public feeling on the matter that irks me.

If the USA wants to live by the nth amendment, well and good. But everyone to their own back yard.

Akrasia

We need global movement towards democratic socialism. Free market ideologies had a catastrophic effect for the vast majority of the global population.

Obviously we should reject totalitarianism in all it's forms, as it was this feature of government that has caused the most horrific atrocities of the 20th century (of both the so called left and right wing varieties)

lostexpectation

er yeah, non-revolutionary one are pretty crap too.

the real ramon

InFront wrote:

You are proposing... no more ideoligies? .

Oh no, just to clarify, I perhaps didn't make myself clear- no more revolutionary or absolutist ideologies which try to change everywhere in the world to their way of doing things. You can't have politics or societies without ideologies - it's impossible in a democratic world. that's fine imo, it's just the absolutist revolutionary ones I dislike.

Cordially,
Ramon

edit: In their own back yard it's fine like I said, like you it's the world tour that irks me too

lostexpectation

the real ramon wrote:

Oh no, just to clarify, I perhaps didn't make myself clear- no more revolutionary or absolutist ideologies which try to change everywhere in the world to their way of doing things. You can't have politics or societies without ideologies - it's impossible in a democratic world. that's fine imo, it's just the absolutist revolutionary ones I dislike.

Cordially,
Ramon

edit: In their own back yard it's fine like I said, like you it's the world tour that irks me too

democracy is absolutionist idealogical revoluntionry idea

Dg101

Countries have the right to promote their ideologies abroad, but not to force them on people. Kind of like on a forum, they should have the right to intelligently, and respectfully, put forward reasons why they feel their ideology is better. But they should also listen to counter arguments. Unfortunately, that's never really going to happen..

*sighs and goes back to wallowing in despair at the state of the human race*

pork99

Akrasia wrote:

We need global movement towards democratic socialism. Free market ideologies had a catastrophic effect for the vast majority of the global population.

As distinct from the non-catastrophic benign legacies of Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot?

bonkey

the real ramon wrote:

no more revolutionary or absolutist ideologies which try to change everywhere in the world to their way of doing things.

This requires that all people around the world adopt this way of doing things (willingly or through coercion)...as they don't at present.

Thus, it cannot come about without being in violation of itself...nor can one advocate it without violating it.

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

We need global movement towards democratic socialism.

We need to grow up as a race. A global movement towards acting honestly and responsibly and with due consideration in all things would be a great start. Its a bit idealistic, though...I admit.

Free market ideologies had a catastrophic effect for the vast majority of the global population.

No, they didn't.

Protectionist ideologies sold under a false moniker of Free Market had a catastrophic effect. Free Market ideologies have never been properly implemented anywhere.

This is, no doubt, also the argument as to why the "benign legacies" of all the failed socialist/cimmunist systems to date are also not valid arguments against "proper" socialism or communism....because they weren't really socialist/communist.

Akrasia

pork99 wrote:

As distinct from the non-catastrophic benign legacies of Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot?

if you could have directed your eyes a fraction of an inch below that quote, you would have seen this

Obviously we should reject totalitarianism in all it's forms, as it was this feature of government that has caused the most horrific atrocities of the 20th century (of both the so called left and right wing varieties)

I believe all of the worst aspects of those dictators was as a result of their totalitarianism, not their so called left wing ideology.

Akrasia

bonkey wrote:

No, they didn't.

Protectionist ideologies sold under a false moniker of Free Market had a catastrophic effect. Free Market ideologies have never been properly implemented anywhere.

Free trade IMF style has had a disasterous consequence for economies all over the world, (an economy is not just about making money, it is about providing for the needs of the citizens and participants of that economy) and it's a good thing that a pure free market has never been tried, because it's such an obviously bad idea. Corporations will not utilise resources for the greatest good of a society, and even Adam Smith admits that the Invisible Hand can be a real bastard a lot of the time. Pure free markets with no regulation would result in states collapsing to be replaced by corporations for whom profits are the only consideration.


The most stable and successful emerging economies in the world today have all rejected the 'privatise everything' mantra of Chicago School economics and instead have chosen to nurture strategic national industries to protect the national interest and protect against the outflow of capital.

pork99

Socialism is an inherently totalitarian philosophy, "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron.

As a student I was an enthusiastic little Democratic Left/Labour fanboy but then I read books like this
and this

Akrasia wrote:

if you could have directed your eyes a fraction of an inch below that quote, you would have seen this

I believe all of the worst aspects of those dictators was as a result of their totalitarianism, not their so called left wing ideology.

Akrasia

pork99 wrote:

Socialism is an inherently totalitarian philosophy, "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron.

As a student I was an enthusiastic little Democratic Left/Labour fanboy but then I read books like this
and this

I will agree that all centrally planned economies are doomed to become totalitarian eventually (and usually sooner rather than later) But centrally planned economies are not the only forms of socialism. There are alternatives, locally planned economies as in Syndicalism (where the economy is split up into independent unions based on workplaces and local communities), or even the scandanavian model of social democracy, or the Swiss model of direct democracy.

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

Free trade IMF style

Which wasn't free.

has had a disasterous consequence for economies all over the world,

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm suggesting that the name is inaccurate - there was nothing free about these markets.

it's a good thing that a pure free market has never been tried, because it's such an obviously bad idea.

Obvious in what sense? I'm guessing that its in the sense that you couldn't actually show economically, socially or any other way how that is?

Pure free markets with no regulation

There is a difference between unregulated markets and free markets.

I'm not suggesting, for example, that while we have laws outlawing slavery or child-labour that our markets can never be free....but association regulation with freedom as you have done would require me to hold such a view.

The most stable and successful emerging economies in the world today have all rejected the 'privatise everything' mantra of Chicago School economics

Just as well that "privatise everything" isn't a requirement of a free market then, isn't it. All that is required is that the publically-owned company is not granted an artificially-maintained monopoly to protect it.

and instead have chosen to nurture strategic national industries to protect the national interest and protect against the outflow of capital.

IN other words, they've been forced to respond to the reality that opening their markets to the developed world didn't mean the developed world opened its markets in return.

Its hardly surprising that when one side was engaging in protectionism, the other side concluded that they were on to a loser by not responding in kind. "Well leave our markets open, but don't want access to yours in return" would have been the alternative. Frankly I'm amazed it took them so long to cop on.

ultimately, though, what you are criticising is the standard IMF policies - which were nothing to do with real Free Markets.

Would you accept the USSR as "proof" that socialism is a really bad idea? Or would you accept that even though it was used in the name, there was little to do with true socialism there and that what you are proposing as the socialism isn't the same thing?

I'm doing no different.

Akrasia

bonkey wrote:

Which wasn't free.


I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm suggesting that the name is inaccurate - there was nothing free about these markets.


Obvious in what sense? I'm guessing that its in the sense that you couldn't actually show economically, socially or any other way how that is?


There is a difference between unregulated markets and free markets.

I'm not suggesting, for example, that while we have laws outlawing slavery or child-labour that our markets can never be free....but association regulation with freedom as you have done would require me to hold such a view.


Just as well that "privatise everything" isn't a requirement of a free market then, isn't it. All that is required is that the publically-owned company is not granted an artificially-maintained monopoly to protect it.


IN other words, they've been forced to respond to the reality that opening their markets to the developed world didn't mean the developed world opened its markets in return.

Its hardly surprising that when one side was engaging in protectionism, the other side concluded that they were on to a loser by not responding in kind. "Well leave our markets open, but don't want access to yours in return" would have been the alternative. Frankly I'm amazed it took them so long to cop on.

ultimately, though, what you are criticising is the standard IMF policies - which were nothing to do with real Free Markets.

Would you accept the USSR as "proof" that socialism is a really bad idea? Or would you accept that even though it was used in the name, there was little to do with true socialism there and that what you are proposing as the socialism isn't the same thing?

I'm doing no different.

I'll give one simple example why free market capitalims is a bad idea.

Food supplies. If Irish farmers have to compete with food produced in developing countries with no income support or tarrifs on imports then most if not all Irish farmers would ge out of business. What's the problem with that? well the food from abroad is only cheap and plentiful under the current economic conditions. One single breakdown in the long logistics chain, could cause a massive food shortage and if the Irish agriculture industry has been allowed to collapse, what are we going to eat?