End of Ideology

[Saint-Just]

Many political writers have talked about the 'end of ideology'.

Although it is from a bourgeois perspective oon society many leftists have adopted this idea. It is an idea that says all political ideologies have already been written already. Marxism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Fascism and so on.

I think this idea first came about in the 50s. However, later on new ideologies developed in the form of the civil rights movement in the U.S. and in the feminist movement. Although, it is debatable as to whether one would call these ideologies.

In the 70s, neo-classic liberalism (or neo-conservatism) came exploded in western political spheres. This ideology is the rebirth of classic liberalism. So, it would also be difficult to call this a 'new' ideology. In the 90s Bill Clinton and Tony Blair pioneered the ideas of communitarianism. That the free market could be used in conjunction with progressive social policies. This is also derived from old ideology, classic liberalism and social democracy.

I would summise that it is not quite the end of ideology, but rather all new ideologies are a synthesis of previous theories and philosophies. All political ideas have already been formed, in the future they will only be reformed in different measures in different combinations.

Concerning Marxist-Leninist ideology, the ideologies developed post world war II were, in the 50s and 60s, Maoism and Juche. Although both ideologies were not as successful as any liberal or conservative ideologies. Maoism has been somewhat popular, it was somewhat popular in western nations during the 60s. Today, Maoism retains popularity and Juche developed a certain amount of popularity in the 80s and 90s.

[Essential Insignificance]

An interesting point indeed.

I am disposed to be in agreement with ideology’s building upon one another and hence, off one another….Marxist-Leninism is a principal illustration.

Each with an antithesis and syntheses and each with "continuity" in thought and "change" also…as you have touched upon above.

The question what should be pondered over is, if there are too be additional ideologies will they be "progressive" or "reactionary"…many of the "ideologies" that "popped" up in last century…seemed to be "progressive" insofar.

I not totally sure if we will be witness to another "peculiar", original ideology in our life time…but I am sure we will witness diverse affiliations build upon pre-existing ones.

[antieverything]

An interesting thought indeed. It does, in fact, seem that even the most recent wave of progressive activism seems to be based on anarchist organizational structures and a rather eclectic blend of socialist, social democratic, and anarchist ideology.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Can we really be out of new ideas? And what constitutes a "new" idea?

If a collection--a synthesis--of existing ideas cannot be considered new, then I do not believe Marxism can be considered a new idea. Marx's socialist notions were mostly inherited from French Utopians.

I am not convinced that we have reached the "End of Ideology." If we are to consider no political ideology ever inspired by something earlier, then we were very late in declaring the death of ideology in the 1950s.

[pandora]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 22 2004, 11:16 AM
Many political writers have talked about the 'end of ideology'.
However, later on new ideologies developed in the form of the civil rights movement in the U.S. and in the feminist movement. Although, it is debatable as to whether one would call these ideologies.

When one annhilates the possibliity of feminism, ecology, and social justice from the framework of ideology it is easy to say there is no new ideology.

What is your classification of ideology? It is only by the Greco/Roman tradition using the limited quanitative masculine logic that is destroying our planet because it does not have any far-reaching scope in terms of viewing actual consequences than perhaps you are right. But if you include more qualitive organic systems of thought than one sees streams of new thought as many cultures increase interaction and the struggle for our planet ensues.

Perhaps if one only sees ideology through Plato's eyes as rudimentary growth through visuable cause and effect based upon old fashioned rational means this would be the case.

Because Einstein's Theory of Relativity and other works blew that can out of the water. Life follows organic patterns which are not scientifically rational towards growth in the traditional sense but are more flowing, ie.) river patterns, fractual patterns, etc. These new bases of imputation of thought create new realms of possiblity beyond stunted systemic rationality.

I think old systems of thought such as Buddhist ideas of mind are in fact being brought in to work with philosophers and physicists [see movie "What the $%#@ Do We Know?", Confucian and Native American principals on say elders and social structure as opposed to Hegel's ideas of the family structure and state, or other patriarchal examples such as the Masons.

What is most amazing to me is that Newtonian, Platonian logic which shut out all Arts and learning outside of rudimentary mathematical theory held force for so long as the fundamental structure of what logic should be, [What the hell is logic anyway, perhaps we need more organic patterning for this as well] When any proleteriat farmer could have told Plato that 1+1=2 but could with animal husbandry also =3,4,5,6 etc.

The miracle of life it's essence is unknowable our great physicists such as Einstein became all the more aware of this. But they did see patterns like fractuals, and stars which resembled the nucleus, but these patterns were so far outside of the realm of empirical thought primarily due to the space involved. Space, to not ever be able to pin down any fact or number because in truth all one finds is space, matter itself is based on bonds of electrons.

Life is based on bonds or relationships, the great cosmic answer, so similar to ideas of community, and feminist ideology. This is the heart of the next Revolution.

[Touchstone]

When the English language is the limiting factor in ideology, then ideology is indeed dead. The Russian and German languages provide much more depth and resoning skills than Engilsh. Even further, Japanese and Mandarin are the pinnacle of thinking and resoning skills. We, the English speaking peoples, are indeed the murderers of ideology and philosophy.

[Rasta Sapian]

I see a wave rising in the horizon as I gaze my tired eyes upon the waves of despere

A water so pure absorbing everything in its oceanic path

the wonder of life amimates its glorious splendor as the sun penetrates deeper

the realization of something great something new

i am one with it now and as the wave grows stronger with idealism and life

i can now reflect back on the world

and then only do i realize that change is possible!

[Saint-Just]

Thats a good point about science Pandora. From our perspective it is difficult to see entirely new ideas developing but as in science it is something that we cannot predict because there are no absolute truths in science.

Although the points I made and comments above are still valuable. It seems a difficult question.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

There will be new ideologies when it is time to react against the old ones, history is generally a cucle of ideas and I would generally hold an anti-teleological stance so I disagree with the death of ideology although perhpas a new slant could kill it off. Such as non-ideology, post modernism and existensialism etc. Absurdism. Ideologies of the non-political.