Dialogue on Ideology Anyone?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Dialogue on Ideology Anyone?

Ideology makes the world-go-round and we know less than nothing about ideology because knowing mostly that which is erroneous is equivalent to knowing less-than-nothing.

Ideology is my label for the fundamental matrix of shared coherent beliefs by a social group. An ideology is an umbrella giving coherence to a group of beliefs that allows for the integration quickly of new beliefs. Ideology is a matrix of ideas systematically biased by a social group for the interest of that social group.

It appears to me that ideology is not a subject matter for much study by our universities and colleges. I suspect such to be the case because ideologies do not want the people to become familiar with what ideology is and how it works. If we understand what ideologies are about we will not be so easily manipulated.

I think that anyone wishing to understand ideology and the power it welds must search out its meaning without a great deal of help from those who might be expected to do such things. University professors receive grants from corporations for research and I suspect such funds for the study of ideology are scarce for that reason. I suspect it is always a good idea to “follow the money” when considering such things.

A person might combine within her world view a matrix of ideologies. She might have a religious, political, and social attitude all fortified by a separate ideology. I assume these particular ideologies are integrated in such a manner as to generally fit together under some umbrella ideology. Any one of these ideologies might be dominant and thus necessitating that the others to adjust to a non dominant mode.

These are my views and I am trying to form them in a manner fitting reality. I would like to begin a dialogue with those who might be interested in such matters. Is it possible for use to develop some kind of dialectic whereby we might begin to synthesize various understandings of this important matter?

Always keeping in mind that when a flame war breaks out the game is over. The thread will then serve no usful purpose but ill will and will be locked.

2

Hello Coberst:

— I suspect such to be the case because ideologies do not want the people to become familiar with what ideology is and how it works. If we understand what ideologies are about we will not be so easily manipulated.
O- I think that before you go to a conspiracy theory, you should resist the temptation and perhaps consider that Sociology has taken up this subject. Perhaps you simply have not selected the correct discipline within the university,l all along available but apparently absent to you.
remember as well your definition. The belief are said by you to be “shared” and that these are “biased by a social group for the interest of that social group.” As such it is not so much that we are manipulated, but that we naturally manipulate in search of common needs.

— A person might combine within her world view a matrix of ideologies. She might have a religious, political, and social attitude all fortified by a separate ideology. I assume these particular ideologies are integrated in such a manner as to generally fit together under some umbrella ideology. Any one of these ideologies might be dominant and thus necessitating that the others to adjust to a non dominant mode.
O- Note however that the domination is saturated and lacking absolute dominance, with each ideology contained within a person vying for power and achieving it in the context of the circumstances of said person. For example, in a time of fear, a subjected ideology might become dominant for an unprecise amount of time.

3

Omar

Could you recommend a web site where sociology examines aggressively this matter? My general impression is that sociology deals with this matter in a very passive and general manner. But this may be just my limited view.

I do not understand this statement “naturally manipulate in search of common needs.” Are you saying that those who seek membership in a particular ideology group seek to be manipulated?

You then agree with my statement about each of us having perhaps several ideologies and that one becomes dominant? But you are saying that this dominance may be temporarily changed depending upon circumstance. Am I understanding this correctly?

4

Hello Coberst:

— Could you recommend a web site where sociology examines aggressively this matter?
O- “Aggressively”? I would supose a Marxist site would be to your liking, but they probably will fail to aggressively analyse their own ideology. And that, my friend is the limit we must accept as inherent to the game.

— I do not understand this statement “naturally manipulate in search of common needs.”
O- We manipulate the contents within our ideologies to serve the in-group, our families, towns, cities, race etc. We manipulate these systems of ideas because we have “thrown our lot” along with a larger group, a not too surprising event since we are social beings.

— Are you saying that those who seek membership in a particular ideology group seek to be manipulated?
O- No, but that they are all manipulators. That it is not some secret group or sinister, chain-smoking “fellas” dictating what ideology will rule but that the society at large puts up with ideologes that simply re-state what to them sounds like “common sense”. An ideology is at times, simply a common opinion on the state of affairs.

— You then agree with my statement about each of us having perhaps several ideologies and that one becomes dominant?
O- Yes. But I do not believe that we are white sheep herded by wolves, but sheeps that, in a group, become the wolf. It is also not that we seek manipulators (unless we say then that we are masochists), but perhaps that we buy onto elegant narrations of our social group. Politicians do not win by manipulating us, but by taping onto the vanity of the majority.

— But you are saying that this dominance may be temporarily changed depending upon circumstance. Am I understanding this correctly?
O- This is correct.

5

Omar

I get most of my info from “Marx’s Theory of Ideology” Bhikhu Parekh. In this book the author remarks that Marx recognized that we are all victims of our own ideology and that we must be constantly aware of that fact. I think it is a great book. When I say aggressive I mean that the focus on the bias and apologetic aspect of all ideologies and that they do not soft soap the capitalistic ideology that we all live and breath daily to the point that no one even notices it.

“Politicians do not win by manipulating us, but by taping onto the vanity of the majority.” But is that not what manipulation is? Professionals work full time for many ideologies pushing their particular brand.

6

the only manipulation I see is the psychology used to market products at an inflated value. Then the psychology used to make people impulsive or trusting. Over trying to reason with people.

But back on track… Matrix ideas through all platforms of life??? This is hard to do because; law takes one type of thinking, while sales takes another type, while psychology takes another type. If it could be matrixed together,… buisness would have done it,… or euntrapanure book writers would have done it.

Yet it really can be done. It just takes making everyone else rethink their way of thinking.

7

Ideology is one of my favorite topics.
An ideology is a ready made view of the world.
One can hang on to a ideology without every
actually having to think.

How does one get an ideology?
It flows from the viewpoint of people.
For example, Machiavelli believe that people have been the
same since the beginning of time and will continue to be the same
till the end of time. A leopard cannot change his spots is a
a viewpoint of machiavelli. All conservative ideology begins here
at Machiavelli. From this flows their idea of justice, punishment,
and crime. Liberal ideology flows from the idea people can change,
they are not fixed in viewpoints forever and ever. A criminal
has choices, and does not need to choose crime. We just must
give them better choices. that is a liberal viewpoint because
it is a positive viewpoint of people. It is positive because it
says people can change, they are leopards that can change
its spot. That is how ideology flows from the viewpoint of people.
Liberalism is a positive viewpoint of people,
conservatism is a negative viewpoint of people.
By the way, the very word ideology was formed by
a minister of Napoleon in 1804 or something like that.
Not during the terror, but during the dictatorship.
I find that interesting.

Kropotkin

8

I have a web page of a college course wherein we have a complete course outlined and detailed in ideology and discourse. I think this would be something worth studying for ideas about this matter we wish to discuss.

discourse-in-society.org/ideo-dis2.htm

Summary
What is ideology? We all use the notion of ideology very often, and so do newspapers and politicians. Most of the time, we do not use it in a very positive sense. We may speak of the ideologies of communism, or neo-liberalism, pacifism or consumerism, and many other -isms, but seldom qualify our own ideas as an “ideology”. But what are ideologies exactly?
Ideology in cognition, society and discourse
In this course, a multidisciplinary introduction to the notion of “ideology” is presented --involving cognitive and social psychology, sociology and discourse analysis. The cognitive definition of ideology is given in terms of the social cognitions that are shared by the members of a group. The social dimension explains what kind of groups, relations between groups and institutions are involved in the development and reproduction of ideologies. The discourse dimension of ideologies explains how ideologies influence our daily texts and talk, how we understand ideological discourse, and how discourse is involved in the reproduction of ideology in society.
Racism
Racism is one of the major problems of contemporary European societies. To illustrate the theoretical discussion, we shall therefore specifically pay attention throughout the course to the example of racist ideology and how it is expressed by discourse.
Discourse Structures
Discourse plays a fundamental role in the daily expression and reproduction of ideologies. This course therefore pays special attention to the ways ideologies influence the various levels of discourse structures, from intonation, syntax and images to the many aspects of meaning, such as topics, coherence, presuppositions, metaphors and argumentation, among many more.

Aims
At the end of this course you must be able to:

  1. Give an overall definition of ideolog
  2. Explain what cognitive aspects an ideology has
  3. Explain what social aspects an ideology has
  4. Define what racism is
  5. Make a systematic ideological analysis of a discourse
  6. Analyze more specifically the racist ideology expressed in a discourse

Contents

  1. Defining ideology
  2. Ideology as Social Cognition
    2.1.The structure of ideologies
    2.2 From ideology to discourse and vice versa
    2.3.Mental Models
    2.4.From Mental Models to Discourse
    2.5.Context Models
  3. Ideologies in Society
  4. Racism
  5. Ideological Discourse Structures
    5.1. Meaning
    5.2. Propositional structures
    5.3. Formal structures
    5.4. Sentence syntax
    5.5. Discourse forms
    5.6. Argumentation
    5.7. Rhetoric
    5.8. Action and interaction
  6. Examples
  7. Conclusion
9

Lovely topic, coberst - I too am a big fan Of ideologies, having been raised in the dual ideo environment of Texas and Catholicism. What I am fascinated by is the way in which ideology creates a feedback loop, correcting any problems in the theory by incorporating more “epicycles”.
Specifially I am interested in
a. the reversal of Cause and effect in ideologies eg - I once got into a discussion with A very Orthodox Catholic friend of mine who tried to show how the selected books of the new testament were the ones that were “chosen” by god. I tried to explain to him, pointlessly, that it sounded and has always sounded to me like a post hoc rationale for the selection of texts, an effect of the choices, not the cause of them.
b. This is what I love about SCIENCE - gotta capitalize it to give the pomo’s, the IDers and the skeptics something to make fun of - SCIENCE (Cannonades of promotion and cavalcade resound), unlike ideology, operates on falsifiability. I fucking love falsifiability and workability.

10

Hermes

It seems to me that the clouds of propaganda spreading out from different ideologies are so pervasive I wonder if a democratic society can withstand the pressure. Propaganda is highly professionalized and people are becoming less rather than more conscious of what is going on. If the people do not awaken they will have little control on their future. There is a tipping point and I suspect it is not too far into the future. The lack of curiosity and concern is very disturbing.

11

Hello Coberst:

— I get most of my info from “Marx’s Theory of Ideology” Bhikhu Parekh.
O- Have you read Marx himself, and if so, what was your reaction to his work.

— In this book the author remarks that Marx recognized that we are all victims of our own ideology and that we must be constantly aware of that fact.
O- Yet has anyone questioned the ideology that we are some kind of “victims of our own ideology”. First you must prove in which way we are victims and then we go foward.

— I think it is a great book.
O- Perhaps, but critical probably of all other ideologies except the one it tries to peddle itself. That is the Marxist tragedy.

— When I say aggressive I mean that the focus on the bias and apologetic aspect of all ideologies and that they do not soft soap the capitalistic ideology that we all live and breath daily to the point that no one even notices it.
O- So basically you want to discuss not ideology but “capitalistic ideology”. What has capitalism done to you, that was so tragic and made you a victim? What do you expect to be the alternative, realistically, to capitalism? Also, remember that the capitalism system of Marx’s time has little to do with the one you are living in. Recognize that perhaps it is part of Marxist uncritical view of itself, it’s ideology, to see as equal what is disimilar.

“Politicians do not win by manipulating us, but by taping onto the vanity of the majority.” But is that not what manipulation is?
O- More like cooperation. Manipulation is to get you what you want from others even when the others are not willing initially to give it to you. But in my theory, the politician gives what the mases wanted to hear. The mases indeed modify the lies that the politician may employ to make himself a proper puppet, apparent or real. Part of the ideology of democracy is that the President is a “servant” of the people.
You may disagree with this and discard it, but consider the careful consideration taken by politicians to keep up with polls of imaginary majorities. Circumstances, not politicians manipulate the mases. No campaigning could have sold congress into approving of a president’s ideas to go to war with Iraq or Afghanistan. Two dropped buildings later, Congress virtually unanimously grants the president his wish (I am using congress as a majority, a mass).
Suppose that the elections had taken place right after 9/11 and you had a Hawk and a Dove running for President. Who would have won? Suppose here that the Hawk is pro-military action while the Dove is for negotiations for the turn over of the criminal minds behind the attacks, sanctions, and as last resort, armed action in an open future time. Who would have won?
And even if the Hawk really was more moderate than his arguments would suggest and the Dove was more hawkish as well, both would chisel their debates to the size of their audience. When they suppose that their audience is conservative, they will simply agree with them and be conservative, whether they truly are or not and in this sense, they become the manipulated, not the manipulators.
Consider at last that in the last elections There was an almost universal effort by Hollywood to open the minds of the mases and, shall we say manipulate?, guard them against the manipulations, or further manipulation from the Republicans. Memorable was Moore’s movie. Then camer the results and Hollywood and even Europe was asking:“How the hell did that happen?”
Was Bush a better manipulator of the mases that Kerry, Moore and their associates? Was it the efforts of the candidates that dictated the result? Or Were the results simply a reflection of what the conditions of the time were among the majority?
Politicians make a wager, and guess at what is in the minds of the people-- at least the ones that write speeches. This is risky and that is why more often than not their speeches are carefully crafted to remain firmly in the middle, a middle that is full of spin but that cannot manipulate at all because it says no thing.

12

Omar

I do not read these great thinkers in the raw. It is too difficult and does not generally fit my way of understanding the world. I approach most things with a question. When I am led to Marx it is because the trail of my quest for an answer led me there. When this happens I am looking for just the answer. Of course, when one enters the world of Marx one is caught in a vortex and may never get out. But I stick to secondary sources because I am a layman and want to gain an understanding without all the other baggage.

Perhaps some one has asked that question about victim hood but I have not because it sounds so true to me. But you are correct about constant alertness.

I guess that being a victim of our ideologies is a constant of human existence and must be carefully considered at all times.

I want to discuss ideology in a general manner so that I can understand all ideologies. Ideology is life; it is what we live, die, and kill for. I think that there are overt, covert and ultra covert ideologies. Capitalism is the later. It appears to me that Marx is the only great thinker to put capitalism into the spotlight and as such is vitally important. We need a great thinker to help us gain that separate place to stand so as to understand that which is as prevalent as the air we breathe. I think I mean the position Archimedes speaks of.

This is what I think about such matters as who runs the shop.

CA (Corporate America) has developed a well-honed expertise in motivating the population to behave in a desired manner. Citizens as consumers are ample manifestation of that expertise. CA has accomplished this ability by careful study and implementation of the knowledge of the ways of human behavior. I suspect this same structure applies to most Western democracies.

A democratic form of government is one wherein the citizens have some voice in some policy decisions. The greater the voice of the citizens the better the democracy.

In America we have PMs (policy-makers), DMs (decision-makers) and citizens. The DMs are our elected representatives and are, thus, under some control by the voting citizen. The PMs are the leaders of CA; less than ten thousand individuals, according to those who study such matters. PMs exercise significant control of DMs by controlling the financing of elections.

PMs customize and maintain the dominant ideology in order to control the political behavior of the citizens. This dominant ideology exercises the political control of the citizens in the same fashion as the consuming citizen is controlled by the same dominant ideology.

An enlightened citizen is the only means to gain more voice in more policy decisions. An enlightened citizen is much more than an informed citizen. Critical thinking is the only practical means to develop a more enlightened citizen. If, however, we wait until our CT trained grade-schoolers become adults I suspect all will be lost. This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT.

13

I would say that ideology is a social (cooperative and interdependent relationship) group with a purpose. The purpose is the care, nurturing, and propagating of an idea. The idea is considered to be very important to the members. There is a strong ‘Us versus Them’ characteristic of the group.

Men and women live, kill, and die for ideology. Nations are born and are destroyed in the name of ideology. Men and women do not love a country they love an idea.

If we abstract the contingencies of various expressions of love I think we find the essence of love to be a particular type of emotion. I think that if we did the same thing with ideology we would find this same love—we would find a big pile of emotion wrapped in a thin veil of reason.

14

“By the way, the very word ideology was formed by
a minister of Napoleon in 1804 or something like that.
Not during the terror, but during the dictatorship.
I find that interesting.”

Kropotkin

Interesting information. I am surprised that such a concept would flow from a general. But I guess Napoleon was much more than just a general.

From what I can understand so far it was Marx who put some flesh on the concept.

15

Hello Coberst.
First of all I do not see a clear distinction between PM and DM. Seems to me that setting policy requires an ability and power to make a decision.
Second, you call for CT as if to save us from doomsday, but you fail to satiate my curiosity negleting to say just what effect will result from this greater CT. Will wars end? Will there be no more homelessness or hunger?
Needless to say, your call to CT is not new and has been around for a few centuries, yet we see history repeat itself. Thus we should question the relevancy of CT in this whole matter and perhaps recognize that CT, like logic, us a sword that gets willed by us to gain an advantage. While Marxists were using CT to “expose Capitalism”, Capitalists were doing the same in respect to Marxism.
But here is the crucible for me, Coberst. People like to talk but show their true convictions by their wallet and their feet.
For those that decry Capitalism, I only have to say that the world is not Capitalist entirely and that most Capitalist nations have an open border policy. One can renounce his/her citizenship. If the country you live in is a capitalist nation and you disagree with capitalism, then move to Cuba were Marxism is alive and well. The world is certainly big enough for both ideologies.
But if you cannot see Marx ideal in Cuba, even then, it is more logical to seek the success of Marxism in that country than in a Capitalist nation like the US.

— I do not read these great thinkers in the raw. It is too difficult and does not generally fit my way of understanding the world. I approach most things with a question. When I am led to Marx it is because the trail of my quest for an answer led me there. When this happens I am looking for just the answer. Of course, when one enters the world of Marx one is caught in a vortex and may never get out. But I stick to secondary sources because I am a layman and want to gain an understanding without all the other baggage.
O- So much for CT…

— I guess that being a victim of our ideologies is a constant of human existence and must be carefully considered at all times.
O- What you should consider, in my humble opinion is that we are victims while at the same time we are perpetrators; there is no safe extreme.

— I want to discuss ideology in a general manner so that I can understand all ideologies.
O- Generalisations are the building blocks of ideology. I hope you are beginning to see in your own statements why ideologies are not simply manipulations others impose upon us but that we solicit ourselves.

— CA (Corporate America) has developed a well-honed expertise in motivating the population to behave in a desired manner.
O- My reply here is that no motivation was ever needed. Coorporations often sell “commodities”, something useful or valued. Who needs to be motivated for that?!! Now if CA was selling beds with nails then I can see how some motivation and manipulation would be needed.

16

We evidently have differing definitions of CT. I have enclosed at the end of this post my understanding of a concept recently introduced into our schools and colleges. If many more people had learned CT we would have a citizenry better able to withstand the ideological propaganda that spreads over the land.

I suspect that our difference in opinion is reflected in the fact that we do not agree as to the difference between PM and DM. That is something that I think CT might tend to make clear.

I suspect that all of us are either an apologist or a critique of Capitalism. Capitalism has its good and bad features and may very well be the best we can expect but it does, in my opinion, need more critique than apology.

CT (Critical Thinking)

“The noblest exercise of the mind within doors, and most befitting a person of quality, is study.”
William Ramsey, Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry, 1904

“Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”
Carl Sagan, Celebrated Scientist

I once asked a philosophy professor “What is philosophy about?” He said philosophy is “radically critical self-consciousness”. This was 35 years ago. Only in the last five years have I begun to understand that statement

I took a number of courses in philosophy three decades ago but it was not until I began to study and understand Critical Thinking that I began to understand what “radically critical self-consciousness” meant.

I consider CT to be ‘philosophy light’. CT differs from other subject matter such as mathematics and geography in that it requires, for success, that the student develop a significant change in attitude.

Anyone who has been in military service recognizes the significant attitude adjustment introduced into all recruits in the eight weeks of boot camp. During the first eight weeks of military service each recruit is introduced to the proper military attitude. During the eight weeks of basic training there is certain knowledge and skills that the recruit learns but primarily s/he undergoes a significant attitude adjustment.

I would identify the CT attitude adjustment to be a movement from naïve common sense realism to critical self-consciousness. It is necessary to free many words and concepts from the limited meaning attached by normal usage—such a separation requires that the learner hold in abeyance the normal sort of concept associations.

The individual who has made the attitude adjustment recognizes that reality is multilayered and that one can only penetrate those layers through a critical attitude toward both the self and the world. To be critical does not mean to be negative, as is a common misunderstanding.

If we were to follow the cat and the turtle as they make their way through the forest we would observe two fundamentally different ways that a creature might make its way through life.

The turtle withdraws into its shell when it bumps into something new, and remains such until that something new disappears or remains long enough to become familiar to the turtle. The cat is conscious of almost everything within the range of its senses, and studies all it perceives until its curiosity is satisfied.

Formal education teaches by telling so that the graduate is prepared with a sufficient database to get a job. Such an education efficiently prepares one to make a living, but this efficiency is at the cost of curiosity and imagination. Such an education does not prepare an individual to become critically self-conscious.

If we wish to emulate the cat rather than the turtle we must revitalize our curiosity and imagination after formal education. That revitalized curiosity and imagination, together with self directed study prepares each of us for a fulfilling life that includes the ecstasy of understanding.

I think that radically critical self-consciousness combines the attitude adjustment of CT and combines it with the curiosity of the cat and then takes that combination to a radical level.

A good place to begin CT is: bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

17

Hello again, Mr. Coberst.

— We evidently have differing definitions of CT.
O- No we do not. We happen to agree on it’s definition but disagree about what it’s use should be and purpose.

— If many more people had learned CT we would have a citizenry better able to withstand the ideological propaganda that spreads over the land.
O- If that is to be all ideological propaganda, then do as I and crucify the religion of Marxism as just another ideology spreading over the land. My problem with you, kind sir, is that you want to use CT not on all ideologies but on certain ones, even though, Marxism, as an ideology has much more explaining to do than does Capitalism, historically and philosophically.

— I suspect that our difference in opinion is reflected in the fact that we do not agree as to the difference between PM and DM. That is something that I think CT might tend to make clear.
O- It is not that I disagree but that your argument was not specific enough and I had simply asked for clarification on the broad strokes it took. You separate policy from decision and I would simply like to know why the separation is necessary in the first place. CT requires me to do this.

— I suspect that all of us are either an apologist or a critique of Capitalism. Capitalism has its good and bad features and may very well be the best we can expect but it does, in my opinion, need more critique than apology.
O- Sir, at least in this country and others in the Capitalist world, such choice is there for you and yet I don’t see enough Marxist, proud CT’ers criticising that lack of freedom. In fact, again, I wish the sins of Cpitlism s it exists today were presented, so that we could expose many assumptions that hide in Marxist ideology.

18

Omar

It is apparent to me that money goes to an individual seeking office because that individual stands for the ‘right’ ideas. For people who control the wealth in America the right idea are those ideas that seek to keep the control of the wealth of the nation in the same hands as now. Those who now control the welth wish to maintain that status quo naturally. Money for campaigning goes to those who think ‘right’.

Voters have some small control over elected officials. Thus voters and money control people control the politicians.

Who controls the money people. No one but themselves. These people conrrol the voters through ideology and the politican through campaign contributions.

“Thomas R. Dye, Professor of Political Science at Florida State University, has published a series of books examining who and what institutions actually control and run America. to understand who is making the decisions that affect our lives, we also have to understand how societies structure themselves in general. Why the few always tend to share more power than the many and what this means in terms of both a society’s evolution and our daily lives. they examined the other 11 institutions that exert just as powerful a shaping influence, although somewhat more subtle: The Industrial, Corporations, Utilities and Communications, Banking, Insurance Investment, Mass Media, Law, Education Foundation, Civic and Cultural Organizations, Government, and the Military.”
21stcenturyradio.com/12-dye.html

Marx, Jesus, and Smith are great thinkers. Marxism, Christianity, and Capitalism are great ideologies. My interest is in Marx the thinker and not Marxism the deology.

19

Truth

Truth for me is what I need to know in order to in proper relationship with reality. Truth for the relationship between me and an object is different than truth for my relationship with other humans. The truth for subject to object is generally stable and once determined remains unchanged, I am speaking in broad terms here.

Truth regarding my relationship with other humans evolves and changes dramatically over time. There are many forces that affect this change but one very important cause for this change is ideology. Truth regarding interpersonal relationships are not generally given by nature but are determined by humans. Humans can easily make false today what was true yesterday and make true today what was false yesterday. Truth is the cards in a Three Card Monty game. It behooves us all to keep a careful eye on the cards because the dealer wants our blind passivity and acceptance and is educated in the ways to achieve this.

Ideology is the major means for forming that social relationship truth. As I mentioned the bullfight is a good analogy. The bull is big and strong and easily fooled; ideology is the cape and the Matador controls the cape.

I think that there are three types of ideologies: Overt, covert, and ultra covert. An example would be religion and politics being primarily overt, while smaller elements of these two would be covert. The most successful capes for diverting the bull are the ultra covert aspects of all ideologies. They are so successful that the bull recognizes the truth they create is directly an act of Mother Nature. Ultra covert ideology offers propaganda that makes misfortune appear as being an act of God, like a hurricane, rather than an act of humans.

I think that most ideologies have a big store on Main Street where the public can observe all that is going on, they think. The important things that will not be as successful if the public becomes aware are done in the back room out of sight.

20

Hello Coberst:

Allow me to critique you.

  1. You assume that there is a single group mentality among those that possess wealth.
  2. That there has been a candidate who has not protected the status quo and that the preservation of this status is inherently detrimental.
  3. That those who “have” are sharply separated from “have not’s”.
    There could be more assumptioms explored here but 3 is a good start.
    1- Those that have are a diverse group with diverse interest and certainly diverse mentalities and often disagree with other wealthy people about foreign policy and the like. Accordingly, there is a fragmentation about what stands as “right” among the wealthy. So while “It is apparent to me that money goes to an individual seeking office because that individual stands for the ‘right’ ideas” What truly goes on is that candidates are financed through different interest groups, all to be considered wealthy, with independent agendas. If Bush got money from the big oil company (and I am not trying to prove that he did but posit this hypothetically in order to advance the argument), then he did so because they saw him as standing for their ‘right’ ideas. If Kerry, unlike Bush, got money from Michael Moore, he did so because Moore saw Kerry as standing for the ‘right’ ideas. But this flow of money from interest groups, entirely wealthy, into the pockets of politicians in no way establishes the righteousness of these ‘right’ ideas, but the tendency of people to band together in social units, to achieve a common goal.
    2- The election in our democracy of either candidate will in no permanent way affect the status quo. Many a politician will promise such change of the status quo, and those who do not understand why the status quo is there to begin with will gobble this up, but the wealthy under all candidates will remain wealthy. This is not at issue in a democratic election in a Capitalistic country, regardless of all taxation reforms passed.
    3- In America this distinction is blurred because of the stock markets fluctuations which render the value of one’s assets fluid. Middle income families have their share in big companies of the wealthy, making the fate of the wealthy their own fate.
    Let’s suppose that tomorrow the Govt passed a law to increase the taxes imposed on gas. What will the wealthy do? Become poor? No. They will pass that increase to the consumer so that you will pay more at the gas station. You’ll get a raise only to see it vanish in the inflation.
    Centralizing these services under the umbrella of the state simply shift the methods of obtaining wealth and in fact lead to a leak of wealth from that country, losing out to open markets.
    Marxist theory requires that all markets be closed and become state-run, but with the ultimate danger, and one found in the countless pages of history books, that those in power do not disapear but become fewer and yet more powerful in this state-monopoly game. With no natural competition for power, safeguarded by a lawful frame, countries are prey the predations of the few. At least the wealthy, within a capitalistic system, require a certain purchasing power to be maintained by the majority within the country, therefore, going to lenghts in safeguarding against unemployment and the like. They pump money back into the system to keep it going. The Communist needs to maintain no such balance. When it goes wrong, it is harder to correct because, while in capitalism the few have money they have no right to own armies, in communism we see the few own armies and use them in order to remain “the few”.
    It is because of this that I differ with your conclusions.

— Who controls the money people. No one but themselves.
O- Incorrect. The economy dictates to holders. If I have no demand, then my supply is stacked-up trash. If the value of the dollar drops, then my money becomes fuel for the fire.
Then there is a justice system, a rule of law, the law of the land, the law of the people that controls the money people. When a wealthy person fails to pay taxes, or is caught money laundering, or is succesfully sued for damages as Big tobacco was, then no amount of wealth can change the veredict. It is such that the wealthy person might seek to buy out the suing party, because people have price tags while ideals do not. And it is funny that in our discourse of ideology we come to find that laws, the most sublime of all ideologies, in the end do control the money people.

— These people conrrol the voters through ideology and the politican through campaign contributions.
O- As I said before the voters are controled by themselves, by their shared ideology. In a country were 3 out of 4 say that they are Christians, no amount of manipulation or indoctrination into new ideologies, will help an atheist candidate. Further, as part of that country, those “people” share some of the values, as percentualy, the same can be said of this smaller part as can be said of the whole they belong to. You want to see this wealthy people as parasites that feed on the veins of it’s victim, and yet in America at least, no such situation exist.
No one is denied the opportunity to make it from rags to riches. there is no aristocracy where your blood makes you rich, but only your effort and ability.

— “Thomas R. Dye, Professor of Political Science at Florida State University, has published a series of books examining who and what institutions actually control and run America. to understand who is making the decisions that affect our lives, we also have to understand how societies structure themselves in general.
O- Rather than accept that the majority of the population controls our lives we must invent a further group, which then is in control of this indirect majority, who rides the majority left or right as it pleases. And if we only can expose them, then we are back in control-- in fact, if our theory is correct we and not the majority control our lives and we exercise that control by seeking to expose the sinister groups that impose upon us by manipulating the docile mases. In a huge irony, we seek to liberate the mases from manipulation by further manipulations. It is not that we disagree with manipulations but disagree on whom shall do the manipulating. Nothing truly matters other than our comfort in knowing the truth of the situation while others are just mere puppets and continue to be. By this gnosis, we secede the mases, free from manipulation, and begin to do what those free from manipulation ususally do: We see to manipulate the mases from the manipulators’ control.

— Marx, Jesus, and Smith are great thinkers. Marxism, Christianity, and Capitalism are great ideologies. My interest is in Marx the thinker and not Marxism the deology.
O- But shouldn’t it be since, as you said at the beginning “If we understand what ideologies are about we will not be so easily manipulated.”?
I must say that you have spoken here of CT and displayed none. You say that you wish to discuss ideology, but have no interest in Marx’s. You say that you’re interested in him as a thinker, yet have not even attempted to digest on your own his thoughts!
You have given warning of the spread of ideology over the land, but really must mean Capitalist ideology, since Marx is of no interest to you (but as a thinker). You make a call for CT, that is related in the article on Russell you provided with “impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability”. But have you read it yourself? Have you demonstrated how to put these values into action?
You have shown no impartiality, to the point that I have had to become a couter balance to your position which is overly gentle on a man you have yet to read (It appears to me that Marx is the only great thinker to put capitalism into the spotlight and as such is vitally important. We need a great thinker to help us gain that separate place to stand so as to understand that which is as prevalent as the air we breathe), showing also a lack of thinking for yourself.
I apologize lastly if I have ofended in any way in my manner of writing, but you must understand, I hope, that my manner demonstrates an honest interest in these manners and the seriousness in which I take them.