Concept of Ideology

Ideology is a word that is used often at the University and by politicians.  But it is possible that we are using the word without truly understanding the concept of ideology.  Ideology has the problem of encompassing so many ideas that it doesn't discriminate the boundaries of what it is and what it is not. 

Marx was not the first to develop the concept of ideology, although many believe he was.  Others believe that ideology was a product of the French Revolutionaries that based their ideas on sensationalism in order to promote the movement as a "science of ideas."  But Marx was more impressed with ideology as a quality of social thought.  Thus, Marx's social theory was based on history that was free from distortion.

Mannheim conceptualized ideology broadly as "the whole outlook of the social group, its total Weltanschauung."  He argued that there were two types of ideologies, one originating with with norms from the past that tried to maintain things as they were.  And the other type was that which broke with the past order for an Utopian order to come.

Garstin, thought ideology, myth, creed, schema, and Weltanschauung, could be used interchangeably.

Laswell and Kaplan distinguished ideology as myths that whether they were true or false they are believed by the masses as truth and thus had the power of being accept as such.  For Laswell and Kaplan "myth comprehends ideology and utopia because ideology is the political myth functioning to preserve the social structure; the utopia, to supplant it."  Put simply, ideology is used to maintain a given political power.  But Utopian ideology (not usually called such anymore but is assumed in the meaning) is to bring about fundamental changes in political power structures.

Ideology is a modern phenomenon (since the French Revolution).  The use of ideology corresponds with modern regimes contrasted against traditional ancient regimes.

"THE NEW NEW NORMAL"

I remember after the "Crash of 2008" everyone started to use the slogan "THE NEW NORMAL."  It started with the knowledgeable, Crescenzi, Vice President of Pimco who runs the largest bond fund of the world.  But it wasn't a term for any of us to be happy about.  It was always attached to accepting something that we didn't want or like.  The slogan was a way of saying "Sorry folks but this is how it is now."  It is never attached to something truly wonderful.  And why is that?  Why is the NEW NORMAL always something we have to just swallow? 

NORMAL: Conforming to the standard or serving to fix a standard. 
STANDARD: Something considered by an authority or general consent as a basis of comparison. 

El-Erain, also from Pimco, described the NEW NORMAL as an uncomfortable acceptance of high unemployment for young people, even those that just graduated with nice university degrees (and a load of debt) and poor prospects for those getting ready for their much anticipated retirement.  I remember Suzi Orman and Jim Krammer telling everyone that they needed to move in with family members, as the NEW NORMAL was upon us.  Here are a few others:
     NPR: living with 2% growth verses 3%.
     ABC: states "Americans must adapt to the New Normal" of layoffs, recession, foreclosures, paycuts no job security, and living cheap.
     NYPost: cites President Obama is a believer in the New Normal---(not sure what that means).
     CNN: reports the New Normal is uncertainty, renting instead of owning, saving over spending, and staycations instead of vacations.
     Others: state the new Normal is financial instability and crisis.

You get the idea.  The New Normal was not something we wanted long-term.  All of these things suck!  So when Foreign Policy reported this week that El-Erain "welcomes us to THE NEW NEW NORMAL which is to say that our children will be worse off than we are "economically, financially, politically, and socially."  The NEW NEW NORMAL is defined as worse political problems, a greater sluggishness in the economy, more debt and deficit, companies more risk-averse especially long-term, more fringe parties on left & right vying for a place to run the future, more anger and more violence.  He concludes his article with "The warning bells are ringing, and they are ringing loudly."  Thus, the NEW NEW NORMAL IS MUCH WORSE THAN THE NEW NORMAL. 

But it is as if we must accept all this bad news as normal.  If we all start thinking this is normal it will be normal because we will make it such by believing it is.  Normal is general consent to a new standard as fixed.  Let's not accept normal.  Let's not conform to normal.  Let's dare to say NO! to the New New Normal. 

The Religion of Revolution

It is often necessary to step back into the past in order to shed light on current trends.  My main point of interest is to help others to see where certain ideologies, if followed will lead.  I have spent years of study in lectures and readings and I want to share what I have learned.  But the topic is broad, complex and many faceted.  Consequently, I will at times concentrate on thinkers, ideologies or occurrences from the past for a definition and magnifying glass to enlarge our understanding.  Additionally, I will concentrate on daily occurrences that I feel are of significance to the broader topic of TWO KINDS OF DEMOCRACY.  I will present facts and you can draw your own conclusions.  I am a firm believer in the importance of thinking for one's self.  I will not tell you how to believe or think.  My goal is to help you to see for yourself.  Thus, it will be your knowledge.

For today I want to discuss the idea of REVOLUTION as a religion, a belief that people believe, follow and participate in.  Revolution here is defined as a pre-ordained TOTAL change of the social order, a complete transformation, with a total reconstruction.  As you look back in history, and take a closer look at the present, you will see this ideology or religion of Revolution everywhere.  The doctrine of this religion is a shared expectation of some pre-ordained, all embracing and exclusive scheme, which is presumed to help us to be better people, over coming our natures, by allowing for true freedom of everyone as defined by the will of the people or more specifically the GENERAL WILL.   If this sounds somewhat Utopian, it is!  Although, the word may not be used to describe the goals but the idea of it is always there in small print and writ large if you know what to look for.

The belief underscoring the various revolutions is always a better tomorrow with more freedoms for all and of course social harmony through greater democracy (equality).  This religion of progress (history) has been embraced by "an enormous variety of interests, hopes, tendencies and expectations from nationalism to communism, from evangelical poverty to industrial technocracy" (Talmon).  Thus, there are many roads, twists and turns, different ways of approaching and executing the same ideology that humanity is on a pre-ordained road called history which will inevitably leads us to peace, prosperity, and freedom.  Listen for words such as "you don't want to end up on the wrong side of history!"  From that saying you can see what I am talking about.  History is going to get there with or without you, as it is pre-ordained.  And no matter which means of revolution you take it all will lead to the same perfect solution.

The religion of revolution is a permanent movement.  It brings the masses together in uprisings, revolts, persecutions, murders, and overthrows of everything in its path.  This was the language of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, both have played key roles in the Russian and German Revolutions.  Marx had the doctrine of revolution as he called for the "uprising against evil itself, and it would not come to an end till the evil of evils had been uprooted and harmonious justice established in its place."  Karl Marx was not the father of this philosophy but he was its priest.  As a trustee of posterity, he spoke for the will of the people or the GENERAL WILL (Rousseau language, one of the main prophets of this doctrine).

The Religion of Revolution will turn the traditional on its head by denouncing all religion.  Nevertheless, religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.  This Revolution is universal and has been universal.  It is a direction and a destination.  Just pay close attention when you hear politicians and others discuss the cause of history.

RUSSIA TO JOIN WTO

Russia will be the 156 country to join the World Trade Organization.  The negotiations have been going on for since the break-up of the Soviet Union.  Russia is the last major economic power to join the WTO and the only G-8 member that was not a WTO member.  This is the biggest step in trade since China became a member in 2001.  Russia seeing the powerhouse of trading benefits granted to China is hoping to gain some of the same gains.  But some have their doubt.  Many foreign investors are taking this move cautiously but are still hopeful that it will make trading with the Russian Federation easier, safer, and more predictable.  Time will tell.  Nevertheless, this might bring some good news for the Russian consumer as the tariffs will be lower it is hoped that prices will come down and desired products might be more abundant.

The World Trade Organization is part of the World Governance system.  Not to be confused with World Government.  Now it is hard for me to distinguish the difference but I will try to give "their" logic.  In their words "global governance is not global government; it is not a single world order; (thank goodness!) it is not a top-down, hierarchical structure of authority.  It is the multi-level collection of governance-related activities, rules, and mechanisms, formal and informal, public and private, existing in the world today."  These are considered pieces of global governance. 

 The Commission of Global Governance defined governance as "the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage common affairs.  It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken.  It includes formal...as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest."  Well, that hardly sounds like rule from above.  Maybe that is why Russia took its time joining a world governance organization that can prescribe rules and enforce them. 

Rosenau tried to clear-up the confusing difference between governance and government.  He stated, "Governance, is a more encompassing phenomenon than government.  It embraces governmental institutions, but it also subsumes (to bring under rule) informal, nongovernmental mechanisms whereby those persons and organizations within its purview (the range of operation, authority, or concern) need to move ahead, satisfy needs, and fulfill wants." 

Globalization has developed, and gained wider acceptance, due to the expansion of trade.  The liberal economic theory states that trade is the engine of economic growth.  Although, some of the anti-globalist argue that the WTO's power to regulate can have strong consequences having authoritative measures on national sovereignty.  And that is definitely true.  The WTO is "a one-state, one-vote organization, which decision making is done by consensus.  But the size of the  market is the primary source of power and weaker states are forced into agreement." 

Most contentious negotiations are over policy issues concerning intellectual property and services.

Russia under President Putin in 1999 was leaning towards more nationalistic tendencies and concerned itself with stronger ties and development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (formally the Shanghai Five, an organization with Russia and three Central Asian states that met in Shanghai aligning to resist undue U.S. influence.  China referred to Russia as "its strategic partner.") to curb growing US influence at that time.  "Instead of trying to integrate into the global economic system, Russia had a preference for being a distinct regional power that can offer alternative economic and military institutions (Economist 2009)."

So the news of Russia joining a World Governance Organization is interesting to say the least.  Everyone is hopeful that it will be different with Putin this time but doubtful.  This is certainly a good beginning, even though the Director-General Lamy is playing it down that Russia's entry is not a "big bang" accession.  Seems understandable that Russia would want in on somekind economic recovery through open trade. 

Brzenski's Six Features of Totalitarianism

     Totalitarianism is a systematic seizure of control over the top of the whole society.  It is complete and thorough leaving complete destruction of anything or anyone that does not comply enthusiastically.  It even rolls over the top of many believers.  It is a hard, cold, heartless system of governing.  It is complete and total in every respect.  The Webster dictionary describes totalitarian as “exercising control over the freedom, will or thought of others.  Brzezinski argued that old species of autocracy, “tyrannies, despotism and absolutisms…are partial” in contrast to the new phenomenon of totalitarianism.  The totalism of this kind of regime, “seeks to get hold of the entire man, the human being in his totality”  (1964).  This theory is known for its total domination that seeks to reshape humankind completely to come into line with the totalitarian ideology.  For a totalitarian dictatorship that means to control the life, thoughts and attitudes of its citizens.   In order to accomplish such a large and heady aspiration, the government uses all possible means of control over its citizenry to abolish and alienate the old ways and traditions, to bring in line the new regime and a new kind of citizen. 

     Russian and German totalitarianism are very similar in many respects.  Communism and fascism have much in common. Both started with Socialism.  Both countries suffered severe conditions brought about by the great losses of war.  For Communist Russia it was WWI, and for Fascist Germany it was WWII.  The Revolution of 1917 may not have come to pass if it had not been for the war.  This is in complete agreement with Brzenski as he stated that both German and Russian totalism developed from “crisis governments” (1964). 

Brzenski lists six common features of totalitarian regimes:

·         An official ideology

·         A single mass party

·         A system of terroristic police control

·         A technological monopoly of control (all means of communication)

·         A complete monopoly of all means of armed combat

·         A central control and direction of the entire economy

This is at least very elementary information on the basics of what is totalitarianism.  But in order to understand the present and future, it is important to study the past.  Churchill stated "The further backward you look, the further forward you can see."  

"THE FUTURE KINGDOM OF SOCIALISM WILL BE A TERRIBLE TYRANNY OF CRIMINALS AND MURDERERS.  IT WILL THROW HUMANITY INTO A TRUE HELL OF SPIRITUAL SUFFERING AND POVERTY."  Fedor Dostoyevsky   

    

TODD AKIN: GET OUT OF the RACE NOW

Mr. Akin, you need to get out of the political race NOW!  YOU ALREADY PULLED A TENDON AND YOU ARE LAME.  You should take a lesson from the owner of the Triple Crown Hopeful "I'll Have Another."  The horse pulled a tendon and had to be pulled from racing.  This is good advice for you! 

Let go of your pride and personal self-interest.  You spoke out of line!  You went far out-of-bounds!  You need to rectify your mistake and consider what is right for the office.  Surely you aren't lame and blind!  Don't blow this opportunity for another to stand in your place and finish the race.  Pass the baton and to someone else while there is still time.  The clock is still ticking for someone else.  But for you the clock has stopped.  Your political supporters certainly have stopped. 

THE TIME IS NOW!  Please for the good of the office do the right thing.  You misstepped---So step aside and stop the political circus.  The public isn't letting you off.  You are RETIRED for sure.  We can forgive you for being stupid (since you asked) but part of forgiveness is amends! So do your part and pull out of the race today.  Because the people of Missouri WILL NOT ELECT YOU TO THE SENATE. 

MR. AKIN: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY "LEGITIMATE" SUPPORT LEFT.  PLEASE JUST DO THE RIGHT THING AND GET OUT OF THE RACE.  Politicians need to know when to start in a race and when they need to exit the race.  Dig deep Todd and get the heck out!

The Friend-Enemy Distinction

A key concept of political radicalism is the friend-enemy distinction.  This is not a new concept but one that is mostly forgotten, or at least ignored.  The idea is simple and comprehensive, but rarely taught or considered in our day of objective reasoning and toleration.  Thus, it becomes difficult to express the concept of a clear-cut enemy to the system of Constitutional government and liberal democracy.  The distinction is at its root understanding that tolerating an enemy of the established order is allowing such to gain entrance and participation in a congress, parliament or presidential office, and could cause a complete takeover of that established order in a legalized manner.  It is obvious from our advantage point in history that the friend-enemy distinction was used to gain power in totalitarian regimes and then they proceeded to eliminate the enemy either by re-education, hard labor, or extinction.  Nevertheless, if all ideology is considered equal then a democratically elected government can be overturned by an enemy philosophy (just give a few years).  Enemy here is distinguished as the opposite of the true liberal (free) democratic order.  When this occurs the enemy of freedom & liberty can thus turn the wheel of change through legal means and bring about A NEW ORDER of things.  Consequently, THE NEW ORDER can change the laws through legal means and outlaw or make obsolete the old order which was the friend to freedom.  Thus a complete revolution (a turning around or rotating, as on an axis) in the established order has occurred and the friend-enemy distinction is no longer tolerated. 

TWO KINDS OF DEMOCRACY

What is democracy?  Rule of the people?  Everyone has an equal voice by voting?  J.L. Talmon explains that there is a liberal democracy which allows for trial and error and genuine spontaneity.  But he also insists that there is another kind of democracy which he calls "totalitarian democracy."  In this school of thought there is one exclusive truth in politics.  It is based on a knowledge that the order of government is "pre-ordained, harmonious and perfect...which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound at arrive."  As such, politics is the answer to everything action and thought regarding every aspect of life.  And the purpose of politics is to take society to this perfect state of equality which will result in a happy, homogeneous society.  From this ideology we can begin to see the roots of both freedom and slavery.  Dostoevsky stated: "Beginning with perfect liberty, one always ends with perfect despotism."

These two kinds of democracy are at odds with each other.  For in one we can see the essence of freedom of choice and freewill.  While the other form of democracy believes that the course of history which will arrive at freedom for all must be brought about by any means necessary to achieve its end.  Liberal democracy believes that through trial and error society will realize a state of harmony.  But in the case of totalitarian democracy there is a determination for direct action to bring the immediate results for the general good, even if this mean coercion in the early phases.  This kind of democracy believes that freedom must be done away with in order to bring freedom to pass.  This thinking is a realization that people can be better than they are if given the proper conditions.  Thus, this form of coercion can be reached by various methods of ignoring unwanted responses, or intimidation, and even coercion to bring about the desired conformity.  The question remains though, will the chains or constraints disappear once the desired results have come to fruition? 

Alexis de Tocqueville uses the word equality interchangeably for democracy.  For him they meant the same thing.  He spend eight years writing 705 pages of warnings of the perils of democracy.  He stated there are "Two tendencies that in fact result from equality (democracy); the one first leads men (people) directly to independence and could suddenly push them right over into anarchy; the other, by a more roundabout and secret but also more certain road, leads them to servitude."  And then Tocqueville ends with this conclusion: "The nations of our day cannot prevent conditions of equality (democracy) from spreading in their midst.  But it depends upon themselves whether equality (democracy) is to lead to servitude or freedom, knowledge or barbarism, prosperity or wretchedness."

Yes, there are two kinds of democracy.  And we are the ones at the helm now to decide what kind of democracy we want to develop through-out the world.  It is our turn to decide, guide and nurture the cause of democracy.  Which road will we take?

WHO WILL PUT US IN CHAINS?

How does one know if they are living in a totalitarian society?  I doubt if it is just announced on the Evening News.  Nevertheless, the people of that society figure it out rather quickly.  First, they realize that they are no longer at liberty say what they think.  That is a big thing.  Do you have things that you want to say but stop yourself for fear that it may not be political correct?  What does that even mean?  I don't know if there is a handbook put out by the government that says what is or isn't politically correct (although I am not sure).  Nevertheless, we sense that something maybe borderline and we don't say it.  Although, we still think it.  Then how is it that we learn what is PC and what isn't?  I would say basically through the educational system, the press (what is left of it) and the media.  I will discuss the process of universal educational systems in another post.  For it is thought provoking and historic.  Historic as well has a long history of meaning that most people do not understand.  Historicism will also be explored if future posts.  It may seem boring but if you don't understand how these processes are engaging to change your thinking and actions, you won't see how you are being changed to accept a new world order.

So how does one know if they are living in a totalitarian system?  The answer is simple: When a people trade freedom for security.  When a society will submit to everything as long as they are kept secure.  Totalitarian societies can have different ideas for making a perfect world.  The National Socialist (Nazis) wanted a beautiful world.  The Russian Communists wanted a perfectly equal world.  America wants a perfectly safe world.  Terror and violence are only necessary on the way to achieving their goals.  The more perfect the total system is, the less force is necessary.  But are we willing to give up all our rights and freedoms to be safe? That is a question that so far we are still free to ask.  Are you willing?  It is such questions as this that reminds us of the words of Patrick Henry:

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

A Hundred Flowers

I enjoy writing my blog.  Nevertheless, I stopped posting last fall.  I was taking a course on totalitarianism and what I learned in that class actually began to worry me in many ways.  I know many people think that talking about such things is paranoia or conspiracy talk.  And I am one that doesn't really trust everything I hear but insist that I must check it out for my self.  I always check sources.  But last fall semester I had a professor that wasn't afraid to speak the truth and he had us read many articles and books that opened my eyes to things that I didn't want to see.  You know, if you don't really want the answer, then maybe you shouldn't ask the question.  What I learned in that class and other classes worried me to the core and caused me to stop writing my blog.  But here I go again.

My professor was up for tenure and I believe that due to his speaking the truth, it cost him.  Now he too is looking for a new job.  He will teach this fall and winter but then he is moving on.  And I must admit, it will be a great loss to the current and future students of that institution.  Because he is a true teacher.  He cares about his students and he tries to stretch their minds to look and see truth wherever it may come from. 

So what was it that scared me off?  I took to heart a harsh lesson that Mao Zedong taught the people of China.  It was a period of time that he allowed for more openness & honesty about his government.  In May 1956 he started The Hundred Flowers campaign.  It went like this "let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend."  The idea was to have debate and let everyone (party members) contend over differences of opinion as to how the government (Mao's communist China) was working.  After the brave ones began to debate and express their opinions, Mao had changed his mind.  Or, was it his plan all along to find out those in his party that did not support him and his methods.  Unfortunately for those that spoke out against the established order it turned out that a harsh winter came instead.  Those 300,000 discontents were rooted out and jailed, or banished to labor camps or worse.  So was the opening of a modest liberalism (freedom) a ruse to see who believed what?

I worry that we live in a day of "Let a hundred flowers bloom."  We all believe that we have freedom of speech and that we can do or say basically whatever we want.  Nevertheless, everything we do online, whether it is a blog, a tweet, an email, a search, a purchase, a facebook posting, is tracked and saved.  We and our information are categorized and sold to the highest bidder.  The bidder is an auction done by an algorithm in split seconds.  So we think well it is mostly just to send us more personalized advertising aimed at our specific likes or dislikes.  But is it possible that it could be more than that?  If not now, then maybe later.  Why are we so heavily surveilled?  Why are they storing all our information?  Oh yes, I remember now.  It is so we will be safe.  And then there is always "well if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."  And when did America take away our expectation for privacy? 

I see much is changing and it is happening rapidly....!  I just keep wondering if this is a good time to plant a 100 flowers because soon summer will end and a harsh cold freeze will come for sure.