I just had someone falsely accuse me of creating my own ideology, by saying that ideologies don't work and are injurious to effective problem-solving, because they wrongly presume everything is already known, including the solutions to every problem. So let me define what an ideology is. 1/🧵
I have nothing personally against communists and Marxists, it is as legitimate as any other ideology, it is just that personally, I don't believe any ideology works, because of the inherent problems in all ideology i.e. a cult like tendency to interpret everything in terms of that ideology. 4/
An ideology is an interlinked set of ideas, which usually tries to explain everything and prescribes things. Revealed religions are a good example of this, but most other types of ideology do a similar thing. They attempt to explain why things are like they are, how things should be etc. 2/ A singular idea or concept is not an ideology. So saying that ideologies do not work, because they attempt to solve all of life's situations and problems, in a preconceived, prescriptive way, assuming that all is already known, IS NOT ANY SORT OF IDEOLOGY. It is an observation. 3/ It is a demonstrable fact that someone who believes in economic liberalism and capitalism, will attempt to solve all societal problems with prescriptive solutions from this ideology, and so will Marxism, from its own ideological perspective. They even attempt to say, what the purpose of life is. 4/ In general, someone who believes in capitalist ideology, won't tend to use socialist or Marxist solutions, even if that would be far more effective, and vice versa. We're all familiar with the pattern. Neoliberals attempt to solve all problems with privatisation, rather than nationalisation etc. 5/ As I centred my argument around the climate and ecological crisis, I will focus on this. It has been impossible to solve this crisis, because the overarching ideology, says that all solutions must maintain and increase economic growth, and this requires prodigious cheap energy. 6/ It's quite irrational to say we must continue to destroy natural life support systems, even if they destroy our civilization, because economic growth is necessary, as it's part of our overarching ideology. That is the reality of the current system. 7/ I've previously explained it with this simple analogy. People are travelling on a bus to Erehwon. A car flags the bus down, and says the bridge over the gorge ahead, has collapsed. The bus driver says, then how can I get to Erehwon, and the car driver says I have no idea. 8/ So the bus driver says, I must drive as fast as I can, and try to jump over the collapsed bridge to Erehwon, as no one can tell me how else to get there, even though it will almost certainly fail, and kill everyone on the bus, but what other choice do I have? 9/ Most people would think that was totally irrational and mad. In this analogy, the bus driver represents the world's governments, the passengers on the bus are the public, and the bus is the current system. The car driver represents climate scientists, ecologists and environmentalists. 10/ Insane as this scenario would seem, this is exactly the current system we live in. Where governments say, we must push ahead with this system of maximum economic growth, even if it kills everyone, because there is no other way. Science tells us what will happen, our politicians say we must. 11/ Politicians, our governments say, but unless science can tell us how we can have a system of maximum economic growth, without using fossil fuels and destroying the Earth's natural systems for profit, we must continue with business as usual model. It really is that insane, and stupid. 12/ This system is perpetuated because of an overarching ideology, which says that the purpose of human life, is to create profit and economic growth, that not doing so would be a return to the Stone Age. I am not making any of this up, and these very phrases are used. 13/ This is complete nonsense. We could run society for the common good, live within our ecological means, and keep our activities within the carrying capacity of the Earth and its ecological systems. 14/ The ideologues will argue but private cars, flying, large extravagant houses etc, are integral to living a civilised life. But only less than 18% of the global population, own a car, over 80% don't, or have never flown. In other words, over 80% of the global population don't have these things. 15/ What the ideologues who believe in the ideology of the current system, insist are necessary to civilized life, are not things over 80% of the population engage in or have. What's more, that 18% is not even. The top 1% fly much more than everyone else. theguardian.com 16/
www.theguardian.com
The current globally suicidal system, driven by an overarching ideology, that insists this system is necessary, only really benefits a very small minority of the population. If we lived less extravagant lives, only enjoyed, by a tiny, but very powerful minority, there wouldn't be a crisis. 17/ Ideologies are not merely like cults, they are cults. The neoliberal doctrine most governments use to drive modern society, is most definitely a cult, a death cult, and it only really benefits a tiny minority at the top. As you get beyond this top 1%, it benefits people less and less. 18/ Those saying this is my own ideology, by my merely pointing this out, are being utterly dishonest and engaging in sophistry. Because nowhere have I attempted to say how society should be, other than socially just, and not globally suicidal. Saying don't be evil and stupid, is not ideological. 19/ As I say, overarching ideologies are very prescriptive, saying exactly how things must be, and they don't allow any possible solutions that are not part of this ideology. You want to stop climate change, then stop burning fossil fuels. It says nothing about how to organize society. 20/ In the current system, all sorts of things are prohibited, from recreational drugs, and lots of other things, which it's claimed are harmful to society. So why allow the mass burning of fossil fuels, even though it is globally suicidal? Because of ideology, that FF burning is essential. 21/ This what I mean by effective problem-solving. Take the COP talks going on for over 30 years. Why hasn't it being agreed to phase out fossil fuels? Because of ideology, which says, burning fossil fuels is essential to a certain economic model, and allows no other way. 22/ As I say, organized religions are a type of ideology. Previously the powerful controlled everyone's lives with religious ideology, now they use other ideologies like neoliberalism, capitalism - even Marxism, is prescriptive. It limits our ability to address these existential problems. 23/ Saying don't be stupid, evil and globally suicidal, is not ideological. It is a general principle every rational, moral and sane person should follow. It is not prescriptive in the same way other ideology is. I am not prescribing how things should be, within these sane and moral parameters. 24/