Why is ideology so important?

[Dimentio]

If material factors are constraining which ideas could win support, material factors could also affect the manner in which ideas are implemented in the real world. Hence, no matter how an ideology look like, it will eventually - when confronted by reality - mold into the structure of the society where it is implemented and at the end resemble something entirely else.

As an example, we could look at the Russian Revolution of 1917. While undoubtly affecting society tremendously during its implementation, it moved from an international progressive current to an increasingly statist and national-oriented culture. Stalin's reforms came to mirror the reforms of Peter the Great and came to be a part of the century-old Russian attempts to catch up with Western Europe through centrally imposed development from above.

Apparently, ideologies tend to be more affected by society than the other way around.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I've always held a skepticism of focusing overly on idealogy. I've felt that when a revolutionary movement begins, it matters less about how it's implemented (ex. overthrowing the capitalist class first - or overthrowing the state first) and more about culture/mindset. I know I'm oversimplifying things though..... Does anyone else have other opinions on this? I'd really like to hear a counter-argument.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Of course, there is no one, true ideology. Whenever a revolution actually happens, actions take precedence over theory.
While I am critical of the concept of ideologies, I still think they have uses as starting points. I mean, you have to have some kind of idea what needs to be done, before you actually do it.

[BalticComrade]

Ideologies are important as the heart of the society, since ideology, no matter what kind, is leading the society to something useful, not like in liberal democratic modern society, where every person is all by him self.
Ideology helps the country and the society lead them towards something better, as we humans always want to live better, only sometimes we need to take a strict massures to achive something. Ideology brings a educating example how to lead or educate the society, otherwise, the society will split and will not be able to deal with all global problems that it has.
No one can survive independent, like it or not, that is what makes our bigest problems - when we live independent from each other, we start to missunderstand each other, and then more likely we start wars or arguments and everyone makes his own ideology that brings us in ''cold war'''.
Do please understand the importance of ideology, because without ideas, our future is empty and dark.

[Raúl Duke]

I have mixed and uncertain feelings about ideology in relation to revolution. I don't expect everyone in the working class to become explicitly an avowed leftist for revolution to take place. I'm not saying left pro-revolutionists and/or ideologues are completely worthless but they also aren't of utmost importance either for working class revolution.

But ideology puts out a framework and reasoning for practice. Aspects of ideology outside of practice (like whether uncle Joe or Trotsky was right, whether something is a "deformed worker's state" or "state-capitalism," and other irrelevancies) will be meaningless come revolution. Only praxis will seem to be what matters in the end. The question of praxis is very important for the left right now: we still have to find out how to agitate the working class from within (as leftist members of the working class ourselves).

[Magón]

I have mixed and uncertain feelings about ideology in relation to revolution. I don't expect everyone in the working class to become explicitly an avowed leftist for revolution to take place. I'm not saying left pro-revolutionists and/or ideologues are completely worthless but they also aren't of utmost importance either for working class revolution.

But ideology puts out a framework and reasoning for practice. Aspects of ideology outside of practice (like whether uncle Joe or Trotsky was right, whether something is a "deformed worker's state" or "state-capitalism," and other irrelevancies) will be meaningless come revolution. Only praxis will seem to be what matters in the end. The question of praxis is very important for the left right now: we still have to find out how to agitate the working class from within (as leftist members of the working class ourselves).

I think it's more of a matter of speaking with the working class, rather than anything else. I mean, the Government and Economy of the US has done a pretty good job in agitating the working class out of jobs, and other things. It's just a matter of speaking with them, to show them that obviously this system doesn't work, and that for example Anarcho-Syndicalism is a better way of handling the needs and questions of the people, rather than this never ending dark tunnel, where you never get closer to the light at the end.

The Left has a hard time speaking with people I think, I don't know why, but it seems that they do. Especially here in the US.

[Optiow]

In my opinion, ideology is important because it is a plan. It is an idea of what people will strive for and how they will strive for it. Obviously every ideology has its flaws, but that is not the point. Ideology is the heart of society, in the fact that if we had no idea what ideology we believed in, how would we cope? Would there be free market ideas? Would there be a democracy? Or a dictatorship?

I look on ideology as the foundations and plan of a house. The foundation is in the ideology, and so is the plan. But it is a plan that can be changed when needed, and it is not set in stone. You slowly build up the house as the plan says, but you leave out the impractical bits and you add in the practical ideas already not in the plan, but will still contribute to the foundation.

[Raúl Duke]

The Left has a hard time speaking with people I think, I don't know why, but it seems that they do. Especially here in the US.

That's why we need to re-evaluate our practice...how do we turn that underlying working class anger at the system into concrete action?

[Dimentio]

That's why we need to re-evaluate our practice...how do we turn that underlying working class anger at the system into concrete action?

The easiest and most populist way would be to change names on socialism and libertarianism, claim ourselves as libertarians and the capitalists as evil socialists.

:lol:

[ComradeOm]

If material factors are constraining which ideas could win support, material factors could also affect the manner in which ideas are implemented in the real world. Hence, no matter how an ideology look like, it will eventually - when confronted by reality - mold into the structure of the society where it is implemented and at the end resemble something entirely elseNo. You've glossed over an exceptionally important point with the word "affect". Yes, material conditions are the ultimate constraint and yes material conditions affect the implementation of any ideological programme. However "material factors" do not determine ideological specifics and the latter can in turn have a significant impact on these same material factors. It is not a simple matter of cause and effect but rather a dialectical relationship in which both factors affect each other

To take your example of the Russian Revolution, it is impossible to overstate the role played by ideology in these events. Ideology is, to paraphrase Optiow's acute formulation, essentially a shared vision of society and its future. Why did the Russian proletariat not disintegrate or support liberalism/fascism as the Tsardom slowly collapsed? It was because there was an alternative vision of society being forwarded by the socialists (and in turn derived from the struggles of the working class) that proved to be attractive. The later twists and turns of the evolution of this vision, so strongly impacted by both ideological setbacks and material conditions, are not worth going into here; but it is useful to note that even with the emergence of the Stalinist reforms (essentially hostile to the working class) the ability to cloak these in the old banner of revolution proved to be of real importance

[Die Neue Zeit]

The easiest and most populist way would be to change names on socialism and libertarianism, claim ourselves as libertarians and the capitalists as evil socialists.

:lol:

Emancipationism or social-abolitionism sounds better, and is more consistent with the history of worker movements than the very elitist notion of liberty (notwithstanding that word's Sumerian origins pertaining to debt jubilees). :p

[Dimentio]

To take your example of the Russian Revolution, it is impossible to overstate the role played by ideology in these events. Ideology is, to paraphrase Optiow's acute formulation, essentially a shared vision of society and its future. Why did the Russian proletariat not disintegrate or support liberalism/fascism as the Tsardom slowly collapsed? It was because there was an alternative vision of society being forwarded by the socialists (and in turn derived from the struggles of the working class) that proved to be attractive. The later twists and turns of the evolution of this vision, so strongly impacted by both ideological setbacks and material conditions, are not worth going into here; but it is useful to note that even with the emergence of the Stalinist reforms (essentially hostile to the working class) the ability to cloak these in the old banner of revolution proved to be of real importance

In practice, what proved most popular was a return to state-sanctioned Great Russian Patriotism.

[ComradeOm]

In practice, what proved most popular was a return to state-sanctioned Great Russian Patriotism.Which is a perfect example of how ideology plays a material role. The proletarian sentiment of 1917 was uniformly internationalist in tone with great interest being displayed by workers in events in Germany and Britain. This only changed with the collapse in class consciousness during the 1920s. The latter being both a cause and a product of the development of a new state backed ideology, superficially similar to the old, that emerged as the Revolution degenerated

[Dimentio]

Which is a perfect example of how ideology plays a material role. The proletarian sentiment of 1917 was uniformly internationalist in tone with great interest being displayed by workers in events in Germany and Britain. This only changed with the collapse in class consciousness during the 1920s. The latter being both a cause and a product of the development of a new state backed ideology, superficially similar to the old, that emerged as the Revolution degenerated

I think geopolitics are underestimated.

A country's geography will have an effect on what kind of politics the leadership of that country are going to follow. Russia is a large forest-, steppe country with sparse population and vulnerable borders. To keep such a country together would need a strong and intrusive state, no matter what ideology the government at the beginning was following.

[ComradeOm]

A country's geography will have an effect on what kind of politics the leadership of that country are going to followAbsolutely not. Different geography will present different challenges to a political leadership but how that leadership responds is determined by its class basis and specific circumstances

[Dimentio]

Absolutely not. Different geography will present different challenges to a political leadership but how that leadership responds is determined by its class basis and specific circumstances

I think both class basis and geography is determining how a state is formed and how it acts.

If we look at Russia again, the foreign policy and the structure of the state was very similar between Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. A large centralised multi-national state ruled by a bureaucracy and utilising all resources as if they were the possession of the state.

To take another example, compare the French and American revolutions.

The French revolution produced a hyper-centralised etatist state which reminded of the absolute monarchy before, while the American revolution produced a federal structure which reminded of the semi-autonomous colonies before.

[ComradeOm]

If we look at Russia again, the foreign policy and the structure of the state was very similar between Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. A large centralised multi-national state ruled by a bureaucracy and utilising all resources as if they were the possession of the stateLet's run through this logic:

1)Tsarist Russia and Stalinist Russia faced broadly similar geopolitical threats. Yes
2)The was some similarity in the responses of Tsarist Russia and Stalinist Russia to these threats. Yes, very broadly speaking
3)These geopolitical threats defined the form of the state in Tsarist Russia and Stalinist Russia. What? No

Statement 3 does not follow from the previous ones. There is a superficial correlation between the previous statements, true, but this does not mean that geography played a defining role. It merely means that both states reacted in a similar manner to similar threats. Nothing more

(And this is hopelessly over-stressing the similarities between the two regimes. The suggestion, for example, that "the structure of the state was very similar" is entirely incorrect)


To take another example, compare the French and American revolutions.

The French revolution produced a hyper-centralised etatist state which reminded of the absolute monarchy before, while the American revolution produced a federal structure which reminded of the semi-autonomous colonies before.And you've boiled this down to the difference in North American and West European geography?

[Dimentio]

That is not the only reason, but it is plausible.

I for example think that if the Revolution of 1917 had happened in Paris, London or Berlin, the following regime had probably been different from the Soviet Union. I would think that a British Soviet Union would have been somewhat more politically liberal, while a German Soviet Republic in 1917 would - if not overthrown - probably have made all of Europe socialist within a few decades.

[ComradeOm]

That is not the only reason, but it is plausibleOnly if you ignore the period 1917-1927. Why did the pre-Stalin regime not adopt Tsarist practices? If your analysis was correct, and geography was the determining factor, then there should have been no such interregnum. The Soviet state during the Civil War and NEP periods faced the same basic geopolitical challenges but adopted very different policies both abroad and at home


I for example think that if the Revolution of 1917 had happened in Paris, London or Berlin, the following regime had probably been different from the Soviet Union. I would think that a British Soviet Union would have been somewhat more politically liberal, while a German Soviet Republic in 1917 would - if not overthrown - probably have made all of Europe socialist within a few decades.Probably. Why? Because these were completely different countries with different material conditions. That is, different histories, different class conflicts, different cultures, different political superstructures, different (yes) ideologies, different economic bases, etc, etc. In all of these factors the role of geography (eg, the difference between the North German Plains and the fenland of East Anglia) is minuscule by comparison. I can see absolutely no grounds for giving the latter precedence

[Vanguard1917]

That is not the only reason, but it is plausible.

I for example think that if the Revolution of 1917 had happened in Paris, London or Berlin, the following regime had probably been different from the Soviet Union.

The reasons for that are social and economic differences, surely, and are not a matter of differing geographical features.

---------------

As has been pointed out, there is a profoundly dialectical relationship between material forces and ideas. While it is undoubtedly true that ideas are rooted in material life (ideas do not fall out of the sky, and you have to 'be' in order to think), ideological struggles play a central role in shaping material change.

Revolutions are very good examples of this in that they take place only once certain sections of the masses have been won over to a particular set of (revolutionary) ideas as to how society should be changed. Yes, those ideas and their success are limited by pre-existing material constraints (e.g. a socialist programme could not have been realised in, say, France in the 1790s, regardless of whether some revolutionaries there upheld socialist views), but within those constraints exist very real ideological conflicts about how society could feasibly be organised. That's why Marx emphasised that every class struggle is a political struggle, and that a "theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses".

[Dimentio]

Only if you ignore the period 1917-1927. Why did the pre-Stalin regime not adopt Tsarist practices? If your analysis was correct, and geography was the determining factor, then there should have been no such interregnum. The Soviet state during the Civil War and NEP periods faced the same basic geopolitical challenges but adopted very different policies both abroad and at home

Probably. Why? Because these were completely different countries with different material conditions. That is, different histories, different class conflicts, different cultures, different political superstructures, different (yes) ideologies, different economic bases, etc, etc. In all of these factors the role of geography (eg, the difference between the North German Plains and the fenland of East Anglia) is minuscule by comparison. I can see absolutely no grounds for giving the latter precedence

Why did they not adopt tsarist practices immediately? Well, because there was a time of adaption. If anyone would have tried to establish a more liberal or "soft" system in Russia, it would have collapsed.

The thing is, a geography is creating a certain history and a certain way of organising a society. There is a huge difference between a country surrounded by other countries and a country surrounded by water. England would never ever have managed to get the same historical circumstances as Russia.

[ComradeOm]

Why did they not adopt tsarist practices immediately? Well, because there was a time of adaptionSo, the Tsardom is abolished (geography again?) and then people take ten years to realise that actually those Tsarist practices were best suited to the Russian geography? Oops

No. I apologise in advance but that is simply stupid. You've taken one marginal issue, blown it up to being the only real determining factor, and then ignored everything that was going on inside Russia during this period. Your analysis is devoid of any materialist analysis (no, a Jared Diamond-esque geographic determinism does not count), any class analysis, or any real common sense. It is simply stupid. Again, I usually don't resort to this but you've completely ignored my above posts in lieu of simply restating the above nonsense without so much of a shred of evidence or a wisp of theory to support it. Just one simple (and rough) correlation


England would never ever have managed to get the same historical circumstances as Russia.Please read this very carefully: Yes, because one is England and the other is Russia. Simple, no?

A more telling test would be to examine whether England has had the exact same state structure for the past thousand years. The Channel has not moved after all. Yet we find that while there are some constants (England will always be a maritime nation) there have also been numerous fluctuations in the state structure and the policies pursued by it. These obviously corresponding to changing class dynamics and a host of other factors

[Thirsty Crow]

The thing is, a geography is creating a certain history and a certain way of organising a society. There is a huge difference between a country surrounded by other countries and a country surrounded by water. England would never ever have managed to get the same historical circumstances as Russia.
But you see, everywhere where capitalist relations did emerge, there was also a (more or less) universal way of social organization. Geography may be important on the micro scale (for example, the organization of life in coastal areas vs. the organization in Syberia), but on the broader levels the decisive role is played out by relations in the economic base.

[Dimentio]

A more telling test would be to examine whether England has had the exact same state structure for the past thousand years. The Channel has not moved after all. Yet we find that while there are some constants (England will always be a maritime nation) there have also been numerous fluctuations in the state structure and the policies pursued by it. These obviously corresponding to changing class dynamics and a host of other factors

Yes, agreed. But England also in general tended to move towards parliamentarism and some sort of semi-constitutionalism. The attempts to institute absolutism all ended with pathetic failures.

[ComradeOm]

Yes, agreed. But England also in general tended to move towards parliamentarism and some sort of semi-constitutionalism. The attempts to institute absolutism all ended with pathetic failures.As in France, Spain, and Portugal - other nations with maritime histories and global empires? The answer, to pre-empt you, is no

[Dimentio]

France, Portugal and Spain were continental powers. They constantly had the need for larger standing empires.

[ComradeOm]

France, Portugal and Spain were continental powers. They constantly had the need for larger standing empires.Portugal was a continental power? Really? Spain's empire was built in continental Europe? France didn't forge an overseas empire the size of England's?

You know what, never mind. This has been a waste of time

[Dimentio]

Portugal was a continental power? Really? Spain's empire was built in continental Europe? France didn't forge an overseas empire the size of England's?

You know what, never mind. This has been a waste of time

Portugal is a continental power to the extent that it is located on the European mainland. The same thing with Spain and France. The reason why they also became maritime powers, with the possible exception of France (which never had a great navy), is that they are located in Western Europe. There is a reason why France and Spain became great colonial empires, but not Brandenburg or Poland.

[mikelepore]

I've always held a skepticism of focusing overly on idealogy. I've felt that when a revolutionary movement begins, it matters less about how it's implemented (ex. overthrowing the capitalist class first - or overthrowing the state first) and more about culture/mindset. I know I'm oversimplifying things though..... Does anyone else have other opinions on this? I'd really like to hear a counter-argument.

I think it matters very much that the first powerful action by the working class must be to take control of the state (not overthrow the state). Always remember that the state is a weapon that many factions wrestle each other to win possession of. If the workers were to declare that they have taken control of factories and farms and railroads, but a million heavily-armed law enforcement officers disagree with that workers' declaration and consider the capitalists to be the rightful owners, then the workers will be defeated with great violence.

There is a question about the importance of ideology. This is it's major importance: there are some winning strategies, and there are some losing strategies, therefore we must try to indentify which are which. We must identify the reasons for our conclusions so that others among the working class may be persuaded to abandon losing strategies and adopt winning strategies. The more philosophical topics of discussion are forms of entertainment only. Clarifying the program of action is what is important.

[Thirsty Crow]

Portugal is a continental power to the extent that it is located on the European mainland. The same thing with Spain and France. The reason why they also became maritime powers, with the possible exception of France (which never had a great navy), is that they are located in Western Europe. There is a reason why France and Spain became great colonial empires, but not Brandenburg or Poland.
You really can't say that Portugal was a continental power since it didn't have significant influence in the continent itself.

[Dimentio]

You really can't say that Portugal was a continental power since it didn't have significant influence in the continent itself.

Geographically, it isn't an island. When I talk about a continental power, I mean a country which is physically located on the continent, meaning that it isn't separated by water. I could agree it was peripheral and quite meaningless from the European great power perspective, but it was hardly an island.