How do ideologies form?

[Zukunftsmusik]

I don't know if I'm completely satisfied with the wording in the title, but I guess it suffices.

The thing is, I'm interested in a deeper, more theoretical approach to this than the average revleft posts (base, superstructure, period). Marx(ism) uses ideology in the "classical" sense - "false consciousness", to see freedom in what is not free etc. Why are ideologies one of the basic features of human society, at least of "civilization"/class society? In other words: Why and how do humans "speak" in ideologies? Why and how do they "form"?

Tips on theories and theoreticians and texts are very much welcomed. Marx is important (duh), but what other Marxists should I look into? I suppose Gramsci?

EDIT: This turned out more noob-y than I had thought, I suppose it could be moved to learning.

[Brutus]

With a materialist outlook, Ideas result from material conditions.
When Marx was a young man, peasants were prosecuted from taking wood from a nearby forest. You see, under feudalism, this wood could be taken as needed by the peasants, and they had been doing for generations. Now, the era of capitalism was upon us, this was now private property. So, the peasants were stealing and trespassing.
Marx was heavily influenced because of this, and this may begun the transformation into the Marx we know today.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Essentially ideologies develop in modern societies because people have different ways of relating to the world on a basic level. So various world views tend to develop, not in a deterministic way, but just as a consequence of divided societies. So, for example, ideas about history being more static and social roles being eternal reflect a feudal world where the ruling class relied on castes and there was very little change in production and the way of life for common people. Idealist ideologies tend to develop out of a division between mental and physical labor in class societies and so people who primarily interact with the world through ideas can be attracted to the idea that their prayers, their intellect, their intentions shape the world. Fascist ideologies tend to form around the generalized experiences of middle class people in times of capitalist crisis: they see the big capitalists as wreakless and want to rein them in but at the same time they see the working class and oppressed as too disruptive and threatening. Reformist ideologies can revolve around people who negotiate with capital on behalf of the working class, they come to see their negotiation as vital, not the initiative of the working class as a class.

So they develop out of conditions in society from a materialist perspective, they are loose tendencies in ways of thinking and fluid and changing. Also someone's class position doesn't necessarily correspond to their worldviews - this is where grammsci comes in and the idea of hegemony and how class forces can pull people towards their way of viewing the world.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Thread moved to learning.

[TheEmancipator]

Imagination that is heavily influenced by the historical/material conditions. The world around you influences you much more than you influence the world around you (something individualists and Nietzchists can't quite seem to grasp). The fact that historical events are never exactly the same means you still have your own individual ideology, but it still obeys to a certain universal law. In many ways us Marxists and some Anarchists are reactionaries for trying to emulate Marx's (or Bakunin/Proudhon's) thought in the modern world, when such a thing as the man himself would tell you is impossible. That is why I find it saddenning that some people here reject any kind of revolutionary thought that does not adhere to Marx's view of the 19th century material conditions (that have undoubtedly changed). Only the Maoists to their credit are capable of adapting Marx's thought to modern situations (not that I am a great fan of Mao's).

Anyway, the ultimate goal of a proper revolutionary is therefore to divorce himself from historical conditions that have influenced him (by understanding them first and foremost, then rejecting them), and therefore taking conscious of his position in society, and rejecting it, as well as all forms of material worth, in favour of revolutionary ideas.

[Rafiq]

class based ideologies, or the ideology of a ruling class usually develop in the process of struggle for class dictatorship (politically, and in the case of the bourgeois class, socially as well) and not after they have conquered the state. but none the less, only the embyro of ideology is developed in the process of struggle, and during changes in the process of capital accomulation, ideology changes in correlation. take for example communism. communism as a term rhetorically was a bourgeois-utopian concept, an abstract fantasy land for bourgeois intellectuals. but whence the class contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie commenced, the proletariat took up the banner of communism not because they agreed but because it was an expression of their realization of their interests, and thus communism became not a struggle for utopia but for proletarian dictatorship, the merciless rule of the commons.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Tim Cornelis]

Political views as coherent, i.e. ideologies, did not develop until they were made viable. The economies of slave society and feudalism were hardly complex so coherent political views regarding their management could not develop. Ideologies emerge out of a common interest of a particular group, a social class or religious subset of society, to defend their interest, whereas under feudalism one's interest was tied to your feudal lord upon whom you depended (thus we see that less advanced countries, such as Afghanistan or rural areas in Africa still identify as part of a clan or tribe, with their economic means dependent on their tribal leaders). As capitalism emerged, people were ripped from their feudal or clan ties and their interests now dependent on their social status, e.g. class, religious views, and began forming ideologies and their corresponding parties to defend them.

[human strike]

You might find discussion of fetishism as well as Lacanian psyhcoanalysis to be relevant here.

[Zukunftsmusik]

You might find discussion of fetishism as well as Lacanian psyhcoanalysis to be relevant here.

Could you elaborate?

[TheEmancipator]

I also recommend you read Gramsci's views on "cultural hegemony" and historical blocs to understand what I think most Marxists now adopt as de facto explanation for ideologies existing in their current forms (bourgeois ideas and all that).

[Forward Union]

from individuals acting in their own self interest and forming a common platform to attract more people to their political plan of action.

[Nevsky]

from individuals acting in their own self interest and forming a common platform to attract more people to their political plan of action.

That's not really the case in my opinion. Too much emphasis on the individual. You always have to consider the socio-economic influences which surround the people who formulate a certain political or ideological point. For example, Hitler didn't just make up the ideology of national socialism one morning and put it into "Mein Kampf". He was heavily influenced by several different material and psychological factors. The first world war being the most prominent example.

Another key aspect of ideology development are general sentiments which large parts of the populatian feel at a specific point of societal evolution. If we take national socialism as an example again, we need to look at the very roots of the historical development which lead to the rise of national socialist sentiment among the german people. The nationalistic and militaristic culture of the "second" Reich under emperor Wilhelm 2. made the people used to authoritarian values. At the same time, industrialization replaced the old middle class with a new type and proponents of the old middle class soon bought into the antisemitic rhetoric of early ultra-nationalist parties.

When the liberal-parliamentary democracy of Weimar was established, many germans where kind of lost. The old, traditional system of values was gone and the possibility of radical change through socialist revolution was crushed by the social democrat's allience with fascist mercenaries who murdered Liebknecht, Luxemburg and many others. So, as Trotsky rightly said, the pauperization of the middle class gave rise to a new type of nationalist sentiment, fascism. It combined social darwinist elements, already existing since the days of Cecil Rhodes and the british empire, with "modern" collectivist ideas and presented itself as only way out of the economic, political and ideological crisis of the people. The individual Hitler could have been replaced by any other angry world war veteran of the time.

[Kirillov]

The world around you influences you much more than you influence the world around you (something individualists and Nietzchists can't quite seem to grasp).Huh? Who? And how? One of the most important aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy is the critique of subject-centered reason. Also if you take say the protagonists of french school - most of them do not even recognize a subject that's not entirely the product of power relations to begin with. I mean there's Ayn Rand, but she's just a really bad philosopher. Calling her Nietzschean would be kind of an over-statement...