Trump as president again?
- This topic has 432 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 13 hours, 59 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Of course socialism is an ideology. It might claim to be much more, and with some justification, but it is still, at heart, an ideology. Think of the word ‘reality’. It is, obviously, a word but it claims to be more and something other than just a word. But whatever ontology you come up with it starts and ends as a word – same with ‘socialism’. I’ve studied, in some depth, the second world war and its origins so I don’t really need you to tell me what ‘I probably think’. Since Mussolini’s Fascism the word has, for obvious reasons, gone rather out of fashion but the ideology doesn’t depend on what it’s leader calls it but rather the policies it enacts when in power.
The difference between brainwashing and thought is the difference between ideology and philosophy.
The ideologist adopts instantly the entire credo of a group because of an emotional / romantic / image-based need, or a need to belong.
This is what the “phases” of adolescents are, seeking belonging, or seduced by imagery.
It is true that most, having passed through this stage, and being working-class (99% of the world’s population are working class), have little time on their hands for thought beyond that of working for their living and struggling to raise families etc. Life under capitalism means it is convenient to rely on mainstream media, and hence be patriotic and trusting of whichever nation-state apparatus governs them and the news it puts out.
Minorities, some small, some large, will seek belonging, still, in groups and cults which, demonstrating some “rebelliousness” or “difference” from “the herd” give them the sense of belonging through difference. Such are converts to religions, racist groups, anything that has a leader or pundit to follow, and by following, belong. For some, the more outrageous and the more reviled, the better.
All these are ideology.Philosophy, however, is very different from ideology.
The philosopher does not accept the entirety of someone else’s thought, nor reject that entirety, on the basis of agreement or disagreement in one or two particulars. A philosopher does not require leaders to follow. S/he does not wish to lead. S/he is not interested in imagery. S/he doesn’t care about belonging to anything. S/he may be mistaken in things, but cannot be brainwashed. There is no danger for the philosopher in listening to or watching or reading any media or propaganda.
S/he is not susceptible to brainwashing, neither by the state nor by any cult, neither by the majority nor any minority.
The only way to damage the philosopher is to physically do so, by violence applied to the brain.
The philosopher sifts information in the light of views – philosophy – developed through the course of their lifetime. This is why philosophers usually disagree about most things. If s/he joins a group it is not to find belonging; it is not because of any need to be in a group. It is purely because of a shared interest.
The philosopher does not abdicate his/her thought in order to be part of a group or party.philosophy n. Gk. “Love of wisdom.”
The analysis, subjected to reason and evaluation (dependent upon a person’s evolution of thought), of impressions, desires, feelings, leading to the further elaboration of thought.
______ideology n. A body of ready-made beliefs containing its own ready-made logic; hence, accepted by a person without scrutiny and with an emotional need to ‘belong’: e.g. a follower.(See follow, v.)
TM – Certainly Marx used it in a derogatory way but the definition of ideology does differ depending on the source. To be a little provocative I sometimes think that you and CDM use the tracts of the SPGB in a rather ‘ideological’ way. Anyways socialism is obviously a system of values and beliefs that qualify it, for me, as an ideology. Interestingly your definition of philosophy clashes with many in the party who believe it has been entirely eclipsed by economics and science. Unusually I like your definition as an aspiration but it has to be said that most philosophers have been ideologically motivated in their work and conclusions.
Yes, there are those who call themselves philosophers who are in fact ideologues, or, as an earlier century would have called them without today’s PC nervosity, hacks. Propagandists of an ideology, like Maoism, Leninism, Hitlerism, Christianities, Hindu nationalism, Pol Potism, conspiracisms etc., will make use of, and have among them, such hacks, their “intelligentsia”, misusing the name of philosopher or thinker, whereas in fact they are mere lick-spittles.
That real socialists are not such is easily perceived by anyone witnessing our sometimes venomous disagreements with one another, as opposed to a chloroformed audience sitting before a “leader”, be it a head of state, the guru of a cult, or a Master Conspiraloon.
Genuine philosophy is either materialist or idealist, and I recognise (without agreeing with) an idealist philosopher as long as he has come to his philosophical position by means of thought (though it does not agree with mine, being a materialist) and personal development, and not by obedience to another. Rousseau was not a materialist, but he was a philosopher, not a hack.
Without the slightest degree of self awareness this is what that feckless Orange Blob said: ““I’m not worried about it,” the US president said. “You know what’s a war crime? Having a nuclear weapon.”. Indeed, Mr President….now tell us who in the world possesses such weapons, eh???
This is not fascism, this is capitalist gangsterism. The Italian fascists were Boy Scouts compared to these capitalist gangsters.
Mussolini passed several laws to limit the Sicilian mafia, and during WW2, the US capitalists made alliances with the Sicilian mafiosos.
Donald Trump is openly doing what other US presidents have done in the past, including Roosevelt and Kennedy
One Nazis general disobeyed the destruction of Paris; he did not want to destroy the beautiful creation of mankind.
Many infrastructures in Iran took thousands of years to be built by the Persian civilisation.
Wherever they place their military boots, they destroy everything, like the Museum of Baghdad.
The destruction of civilian infrastructure in Iran can result in the death of millions of human beings. The real danger in our society is capitalism, it is not fascism
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2026/04/tuesday.html.
I know we should have no truck with the Great Man theory of history, but this piece offers some fascinating insights into the Man-child (spoilt brat) that is Mr D Trump
CDM – Of course Fascism is a form of capitalism but like state capitalism it differs in some respects. The Party has never demurred from an in depth analysis of state capitalism (hard left capitalism) so why do you object to a similar analysis of Fascism (hard right capitalism) as an ideology? We don’t seek to confine Bolshevism to its historical context (early 20th century) to critique its contemporary incarnations.
Robbo203 – I don’t know if this is a form of ‘great men of history’ but it seems to me that without the dark charisma of Hitler the holocaust would not have reached the horrific level that it did although the second world war was inevitable as a resolution to what was left unresolved by the first world war.
The anti-semitism of central Europe was born of Christianity in those lands and the turmoil of the 16th century in Germany and Austria. Have you read Luther against the Jews? Julius Streicher couldn’t improve on its vitriol.
In the Balkans the same vitriol was aimed at Eastern rite Christians. SS reps visiting the Ustasha death-camps in Yugoslavia threw up. The Ustasha was not under Germany’s control. This too was rooted in the history of those regions. War necessarily produces supplementary horrors, everywhere.
Anyway, Fascism was not the same as Nazism. They both had nationalism in common, of course.
Without Hitler, similar horrors would have manifested.Wez
Yes, I think that’s a fair point you make about Hitler (the same could be said of Trump in the current situation).
I guess the important thing is not to deny that particular individuals can make a particular impact on the course of history, but rather to focus on the social context that allows them to do so. It is in this sense that “great men” are a product of the times they live in.
It is when you separate the individual from the social context that you succumb to the basic error of the Great Man theory, or what Plekhanov called an “optical illusion”. This is the belief that these individuals were almost, as it were, parachuted into society and that the accomplishments associated with them are primarily (or even entirely) a manifestation or product of their own personal qualities.
I’ve always had a liking for Plekhanov´s great essay
https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1898/xx/individual.html
You would have to say “If Luther had never been born”, and “If Christianity had never succeeded”, &c. &c …
Let us assume there was no Hitler born. Would the Lutheran princes still have defeated the Emperor, delaying capitalist development in Germany? Would anti-semitism not have still been a centuries-old phenomenon? Would the German principalities still have been united into one Reich? Would WW1 still have been lost? Would the social problems of the 1920s still have existed? The answer has to be yes, and the same horrors of the 1940s would have come about, without Hitler and the Nazi Party, but with someone else and a party with another name. Someone would have had to meet German capitalism’s criteria at the time: a nationalist embodying the frustrations and bigotry of the working class in Germany and moulded by the past. One with the suitable charisma to land him the job.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.