The Failure of Every Ideology!

I’ve discovered the answer to all of our seekings in the Social Sciences forum, I call it the Failure of Every Ideology!

Conservatism has failed because it has failed to ensure that everybody who shouled be wealthy, is.

Social Conservatism has failed time and time again because each new generation keeps trying new and strange ideas!

Economic Liberalism has failed because there is still poverty.

Social Liberalism has failed because, each time a generation tries something new, it is invariably a variation on something older!

Science has failed because we still have Cancer.

Religion has failed because evil persists in this world.

Nihilism has failed because people still care about things!

Until anyone can show me an ideology that has concrete, immediate results, they have all failed. Come on, fast-fod style I want to see change NOW NOW NOW. Anything less is total and complete failure.

If you are looking for change outside of yourself you are looking in the wrong place.

A

In the manner that Xunzian has set forth this post, I would have to tend to agree with him.

Albeit, the problem with his assertion is the fundamental problem of humanity - lack of unity and uniformity of belief.

The inherent disparate nature of the human animal, a social isolationist creature, leads to a likely outcome of total failure.

Change will continue, but in divergent directions.

Hello F(r)iends,

If we are all equally rich, then we are all equally poor.

Where in nature do we find equal “wealth”?
Where in nature do we find anything but the struggle to survive?

I don’t see why we think that we should all reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator. It is weakening the species.

Embrace capitalism, embrace nature, embrace your carnality.

-Thirst

Mastriani is asking Xunzian the question “failed for who”. Ideaologies are invented to enpower a certain group at the expense of the rest who are either mentally obscurantised or physically oppressed. It is explictly evident in politics, especially modern politics, where it is percieved as customary to stand by the stance which opposes whatever idealogy chosen by the compteting party. The combined ideaology of nationalism and socialism, which is racialism, had served the Nazi party a long way.

It is true that spiritual based idealogies have been most powerful and influencial. As Nietzsche rightly claimed, that one who has spirit has eo ipso material power. Religion is by far such most successful ideaology hiterto, it is also the most seld-deafiting ideaology by the virtue that its practitioners most likely materialised their guaranteed spiritual power hence unintentionally or intellectually immodestly, degenerated the ideaology into what it stands against. Christian success partially lies in a feature of the ideaology that it preaches, which is what I percieve to be encompassion, in the sense that it can be and have been utilised by virtually everyone for his own interest. It achieved penetration among the ruling class as well as the slave class, because its spiritual universality is beyond the reach of material differentiation. Therefore to intiate conflicts in order to unwrapp opportunities for further material acquicision, instead of concentrating for spiritual acquisition by meditation or praying, churches have been busy luanching inquicition, disintegrating among themselves and producing different versions of the bible, versions that can be counted as new ideaologies subsidary to Christ’s original. Christ is dead, thus the archbishop asks himself, why should I keep preaching his ideas that are gaining nothing for myself? Thus he launched crusades to concentrate power and wealth, instead of evenly distributing power and wealth which was the wish of Christ. God has been raped, betrayed and buried by, firstly, the hands of the Christians. Of course, themselves see the fact as that God has been updated and continued by them.

These Christians whose pockets have grown so large so that their churches have been turned into cathedrals, believe that they are repaying God’s endowment and hence erecting God’s position hight with pride, forgot that Jesus prefered to live in the open and eat nothing but bread. While they might not be damned to hell because their such mistakes are merely logical oriented that they just need to study the bible harder, myriads of other modern Christians however, those who drive Macedes-Benz and fail to donate actively to any charity organisation, are certainly going to hell no matter how often they pray, no matter how much they reckon themselves as Christian. Rule is rule, it does not alter merely because some influencing saints edited a few words off the old testment and advanced Luther’s intellectualism far up to Angela Markel’s political ass, excuse the language. The rule implies, only if you would think about it, that the majority of Christians will be the first tormented by devils upon Judgement’s Day. They are not afraid thought, for they are at heart no longer pious. They have overcome the christians in themselves, some for good, some for bad. God is dead, this is precisely what the phrase means, God was doomed from the start. Why? Stupid christians now scroll up and restart from the first three scentences in the previous paragraph, especially the third long scentence, read it hard and realise that I am doing Jesus a big favour even though I have in hand a much better ideaology to preach. Speaking of which, come, Fritz, it’s time, it’s late.

Communism has been second only to Christian, on the degree of success. On the duration of success however, it has been proven to be more or less impotent. It was a scientific rush, a social blunder with a feverish faith and vengeful ethuiasm akin to that of the churchmen. It progressed from Christianity only in the aspect that it emphasised on science, namely political economics of Karl Marx, which is now rather judged as unscientific on many major points. Marx is dead the same fashion as God. Lenin, Stalin and Mao had been the comrads-in-essence of Paul, Mathew and Luke. The rest did their own shares in the divine murder. The newst generation is everything but Christian, but communists, all they have left is no more than a banner, an ideaology that only has a surviving name. All else has been inevitably either overcome, or degenerated.

Hopefully not. Hopefully all goes the Nietzschean way so the divergence can come later in 2600 or something. The Dionysian Party OF Ubermenschen is to be step up sooner or later, it’s not too early to sign your names up. Our ideaology will work better than the Chris and Cons, Xunzian, by the virtue that we are learning from their mistakes alone. Confuscian teachings will be partially selected into our bible, where I see fit. Uniqor@yahoo.co.uk.

K: I have said elsewhere, I believe the ism’s of today
have failed. We are treading water while we wait for
a new ism to believe in. It could be decades, possibley
centuries before we get that new ism.

thirst4metal:
If we are all equally rich, then we are all equally poor.
Where in nature do we find equal “wealth”?
Where in nature do we find anything but the struggle to survive?
I don’t see why we think that we should all reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator. It is weakening the species.
Embrace capitalism, embrace nature, embrace your carnality.

K: alas capitalism does reduce us to our lowest common
denominator. That of a 3 year old shouting mine, mine.
It is not a very high level.

Kropotkin

Nonsense. Christianity evolved from greco-roman paganism and “Jesus” was by no means the “first communist.” Several monarchies and feudalisms had already existed. Communism (Marxist historical materialism) does not treat history like a fairy-tale, Uniqor. Communism speculates on patterns which are frequent within specific politcal organizations. This has nothing to do with religion, metaphor, or the poetry of Fritz.

redstar2000papers.com/theory … om=&ucat=&

I think you are saying that for the sake of throwing one back to bob, right?

Jean-Paul sure had a way with words, perhaps matchable even to the poetry of Fritz.

My question is what would be left.

Was this artical written in July 1903? Or was it actually written in 2003 under the influence of marijuana? This gentlman RedStar200, talks about Marxism without mentioning a word of Marxian economics, which constitutes of pillars of the communist ideaology. I’m interested in argueing that pre-econometrical economics have been inefficient in economically progressing society, and that Marx was a peseant class politician in exile in disguise whose revengeful scientific philosophy was responsible for reducing the human population of the last century by figures with over six zeros behind, simply because it was not scientific enough due to lack of empiricalities such as statistics. I am not interested in emphasising on the cultural aspect, where for example RedStar spent paragraphes on the detrimental effect of personal cults practised by USSR and China. Mundane babbles as such is where the crap manifests itself in the communist manifesto. The stinkest garbagge in Marxism however, is where it mottos equality, fraternity and liberty. It’s also ironical given that Karl pounded on Jesus, the latter of who was actually, if you view it objective historically, a pioneer comrad in EFL.

To restate my balanced stance on Marx. what I like from the thick book by him, is not where he talks about ethical or cultural or utopian philosophy that strikes me frequently as pre-Fritz, but where he sheds insights on economics and sociology that are actually post-Fritz.

You wana shove Marx down my throat? Then you must take some econ classes. You don’t have an alternative with shoving Sartre instead, because coincidently I’ve been enjoying Camus’ Stranger recently.

Me-oh-my, I didn’t expect this little babble to be taken so seriously! All I was trying to do was illustrate how foolish it is to say any ideology has failed because it has not yet reached its conclusion. To say that either liberalism or conservativism has failed means that the speaker has not aknowledged any sort of a long view on the subject.

Rather than debate whether an ideology has failed, or will fail, is it not better to examine why this ideology or that ideology. What is the motivation behind it and is such a motivation noble? Pragmatism serves as a corrective to these motivations, to make sure that the mechanism whereby they come to fruition is sensible.

To apply pragmatism by itself, you quickly run into dead ends. Not because the system fails, but rather because the system’s scope fails to have a real end-goal. It is pragmatic to conserve wealth, but what next? It is pragmatic to consolidate power, but what next? It is pragmatic to create an us vs. them mentality, but what next? It is pragmatic to prevent poverty (and thereby revolutions), but what next? By trying to optimize every situation an exceedingly myopic and distorted vision of the world arises.

Everything takes time, time, time and there is a long march ahead of us. To take the little short-cuts of pragmatism is occasionally useful, but to think of the short-cut as the destination is quite dangerous. They say that it is the journey, not the destination, but doesn’t that leave us wandering forever? The Odyssy isn’t too impressive if you remove Ithica. A mechanism is worthless without a larger paradigm to place it in.

Hello F(r)iends,

Yes, but is the 3-year-old that shouts mine, mine more likely to survive in this world? The barometer is survival, not ideological puffery. I look at the world around me and think that mankind has not evolved suffiently past the instinctive reaction of a “mine, mine 3-year-old”.

-Thirst

I am a little surprised to see you word in this manner. Personally, the motivations have already been played out, and no, they are not noble. They root themselves in the base agendas of the ignominious and indoctrinated.

Why is this suprising?

Ziyu asked what filial piety was. The Master said, “The filial
piety nowadays means to provide for one’s parents. Yet dogs and horses
are likewise provided – without reverence, what is there to distinguish the one from the other?”

If we aren’t getting the right answers, maybe we aren’t asking the right questions.