Alcides Iván Meza
|posted 2/18/2009 20:32|
| The ideological thought |
The ideological thought is originated from the confrontation of interests.
The permanent confrontation of individual interests, of the interests of economic groups, of political parties, of religious groups, of social classes, of elite groups, of castes, of countries and of groups of countries, destroys the original freedom of pure thought, and creates the basis for the formation of ideological conceptions. These conceptions are sets of ideas that derive from fundamental concepts, fited to defend the proposed interests.
As soon as a confrontation of interests exists, the condition for the appearing of ideological thought is established. And considering the current level of human life, it is impossible that it does not appear.
The pure thought weaknesses make possible the ideologies.
Although generally the ideological formation depends of concrete material interests, etcetera, not always shall be attributed its genesis to the presence of these interests. Also the possibility of the ideological thought is given simply for the fact of the flimsy base of truthfullness in pure human thought. This weak base is the initial turn of the ideological process, and its impulse could be given still due to the single fact of the generalized custom in ideological thinking, to the single fact of being a cultural effect.
The intrinsic contradictory character of the pure thought, its double essence freedom-error, have marked forever the personality of the human species. One of the inalienable characteristics of this personality is the recursivity of ideological thinking in individual and social lives. At every moment in our cognitive experience, the intentional or subintentional distortion of reality is presented as an option, consciously or unconsciously (generally unconsciously), like an organic manifestation of our unfailing animal thinking nature. We -humans- think, but will never be able to stop being animals, in the strict bio-antropological sense of this term.
The gravest defects of ideological thought.
Ideologies conduct peoples to think only in certain directions. The thoughts and even the knowledges are altered to agree with the general conception, with the general tendency of the ideologized thought. As long as is resulting necessary, the evident facts are refused; the reality is dizzied; the mind becomes blind in the presence of opposite or different truths, opinions or conceptions; the thought stays traped; the changes of thought are inconceivable; the abjuring is impossible.
To submit oneself to an ideology causes in the human thought a defined thinking structure, stable, iterative, routinized, conservative, formulistic and, to many effects, slightly true. The ideology compresses the superior forms of thought, reduces them, annuls them. The ideology is presented like a generally advanced doctrine, but really exists only like a special form of simple thought. The ideological creativity, when it exists, does not surpass being a sad monotonous recursiveness, an overflow on the same principles, an illusory variation of thinking rhythm, a melancholic playing of exactly the same tunes…
The ideology is an illness of thought.
The ideological conception is not an advanced type of thought; it is rather an illness of thought. Apparently, is an impossible of recovering and of avoiding illness, like the gripe.
The ideology does not free the person. The ideology oppresses the mind and avoids the thought of exploring the whole cognoscible universe. In the ideological thought we lose the freedom of exploring, the freedom of thinking. The ideologized individual insists so strongly over his principles that reachs the refusal of the more minimum variation that could be given -based in reality- affecting those principles. To this individual, the thought and the knowledge tied to the sphere of dominion of his ideological thought are stopped permanently in time and in space.
The ideological effects stay along although not necessarily they are related to material interests or of other type. These effects socially endure like a bad habit. The people that have suffered the damages caused by ideological thinking, transfer the ideological method of thinking to other situations, although it does not exist a necessary link between both processes. In this way, the ideological effect has been interiorized in the individual.
Due to its form, many ideologies present themselves as liberating to the individual or to society. It could be said that almost all ideologies aspire to present themselves to society with the best possible face. Even, although ideologists declare openly the dangers of the wrong use of his doctrines, the real, social, cultural, fact of the presentation of their thought as doctrinal thought converts it, in social life, in an ideological thought. For example, when somebody asked Karl Marx on the desirable publication of his complete writings, he answered that "there should be necessary to write them again", refering to the fact that he was not now absolutely in agreement with all that he had already written; with this assertion, Marx wanted to fix in the mind over the necessity of considering his thought as a dialectic thought, live, in constant change and improvement. Very much in spite of his designation, the immense majority of those who after deposed to themselves as marxists proceeded deadlocking or fossilizing his theories, converting his principles in dogmas, etcetera. With a lot of reason, the revolutionary Honduran workers invented a concept to identify these persons, calling them marxologists instead of marxists.
A technician and politician expressed me recently that is impossible not to have an ideology. Although historically this has been thuth, it doesn't mean that for eternity it will continue occuring. The advances in epistemology, specially in the field of social epistemology, will take humanity to stand out consciously the ideological processes, using them in the measure in which they result positive for the advance of knowledge, or for the defense of economic, political, social, interests, etcetera, but discarding his noxious consequences.
For the single fact of the political confrontation, current politicians are obliged to appeal to ideological thinking. Until now, this is an unavoidable and sadly rudimentary form of making politics.
The artificial thought must eliminate the ideological thought.
The concrete advances in the artificial thought will serve also as a basis to clarify the effects of the ideological thought. We have to suppose that in the artificial thought, the ideological thought won't have admission. Here, I suppose that the scientific thinker, creator of the artificial thought, will have the sufficient scientific and philosophical formation to annul in himself the terrible trauma of the ideological thought and to apply the free pure thought to the formation of an also free artificial thought.
The major danger that can be faced by a true scientist or a true philosopher, it is that of falling in the ideological position of converting himself in a "…ist ", that is to say, of converting himself in a follower of an ideological doctrine or ideological dogma.
Although in practice results unavoidable -and even very necessary- appealing to a type of ideological thought, in fighting against an opposite ideology, it doesn't impede the effort for reaching a political doctrine based on science and not on ideology.
The ideological processes are not absolutely negative.
The ideological processes present, as all the others phenomenona of thought-knowledge, a dialectic character. It is not that they are absolutely negative, nor that they result totally positive. But many ideological concepts cause more damage than good to humanity. For example, to the unquestionable richness that possesses the "development" concept, it is made an useless cognitive reduction when it is applied to it the "sustainible" adjective, and it is said in pompous tone: "sustainible development". If the essence of the "development" concept does not only include but moreover surpasses the character of "sustainible"! The ideological characterization that is added rather becomes poor or mixes up the original concept of "development", because creates the impression of that it is enough "to maintain" some reached degree or level of development. The combination of expressions that is used also denatures the true knowledge that we have on all development processes; not a single one development process is eternal and no one development is unique; any development process has to arrive unavoidably to an end or finish, and with it what is presented is the opportunity for a new and richer development process, substitute of the first one. In real life, what we have is the possibility of multiple development processes and not the occurrence of an unique and artificialized prolonged "sustainible development".
The abstract concepts are most susceptible to ideological distortion.
The same occurs with concepts of "freedom", "democracy", "dictatorship", "justice", etcetera. In general, the abstract concepts are most susceptible to ideological distortion.
It is promulgated the political "freedom" as the only possible political system. Somewhat as that you, the reader, would be free just if you use a white shirt, always, because it represents the system of "freedom". If you decide to use a shirt of a different color, even during a very short period of time, you would be violating the system of ideologically preconceived freedom. In this way, this ideological concept is applied in politics, in economy, in international relations, etcetera. For example, it is declared a "free" political system, a "free" economy, a "free" enterprise, a "free" world, a "free" thought, etcetera. It is applied the characterization of "free" political system to an unique model of political system; any different political system, compared to this model, is not a "free" political system. The political "freedom" consists, then, in adhering unfailingly to a sole model, to an only possible system: so political "freedom" it is proposed to humanity!
In the historical practice of nations, however, which is given is a multiplicity of varied government systems. Even, the majority of European nations still keeps the dual model of monarchy as a partner of an electoral process of selecting administrative authorities. The extraordinary thing is that some of these European nations suggest and even impose different from their own government system to other weaker countries.
The concept of freedom.
The political freedom concerning human beings consists in the faculty to explore all possible political systems, using all possible ways, without seizing -neither because of "principles", neither of theory, nor of imposition- to an only and exclusive model. This is what really occurs in the whole set of nations, in spite of the desired imposition of "models" arising from powerful nations.
The real political freedom for humanity consists in the capacity of creating new political models, new models of government, of testing them, keeping an advance as for the useful principles that humanity itself has achieved to develop, for example, with respect to human rights, to the respect of the minimum or basic conditions of life of people, etcetera.
The social experimentation must be as for the political conditions and not as for the material and personal sacrifices that the population must suffer for those new political tested models.
Which it would be necessary, very much needed, it is the existence of a process of positive confrontation, discussion, study, etcetera, as a whole, between all nations, in appropriate forums, of the experiences and knowledges that derive from their government systems. This would give completitud to the existence of an authenthic political freedom in the whole world.
But here, the real interests, brutally real, of countries and of social classes that politically and economically dominate these countries, move in opposed direction to the true political freedom of humanity; and one of his more powerful instruments, aside of the military brutality, is precisely the ideological thought.
The same can be applied to the types of enterprises: the current model par excellence is the capitalist enterprise. The true freedom of enterprises consists in the power to develop many and varied types of undertakings, not only the traditional capitalist company. For example, even in definition we have in all countries of the world limited the cooperative enterprises. The true freedom of companies would consist in that those cooperative enterprises stop being limited. Also, it would be authentic enterprise freedom that could exist companies of socialist type in capitalist countries, and capitalist companies in socialist nations; and all the possible types of enterprises in all possible economic and social systems. All of us know that this authentic economic freedom is restricted in all countries of the entire world, without exception. The generic conception, abstract, of freedom -in this case, of enterprises-, collides in its social realization or concretization, with the global conception of the political and economic systems. And that what really occurs, socially, it is that a conception (the predominant one: the political and economic system) subsumes or annuls the other.
In poor countries, the microenterprise is one of the best generators of employment for the population; but, microenterprise owners are in general fought, persecuted, discriminated, and the like, by local governments. The correct attitude that agrees with an economic freedom, with a freedom of enterprises, is that, on the contrary, these microbusiness owners should be supported by the state. For example, the legislation of these countries could consider the necessity of any state project of construction involving the satisfaction of the needs of economic participation of microenterprise owners and not only of big businesses. If it is built a hospital of social security, it must be included in its plans not only a great company of alimentary services for the attending public, but also a fair quantity of small and microbusinesses, in formed up modernly premises permitting their economic activities. So the economic freedom would be manifested for all these undertakings.
In practice, the projects are built with exclusivist criterions and after a little time there appear the microenterprises, with his limited services, in unhealthy conditions, practically outdoors, discriminated, persecuted, etcetera.
The same study can be done about the other already mentioned abstract concepts.
The concept of dictatorship.
The concept of "dictatorship" is one of the worst understood in history. The dictatorship was created by the political republican system. In Antiquity, when the Roman republican society and the democratic Greek society, were terribly threatened by the invasion of a conquering enemy army -for example-, they named a "dictator" in order that assumed the powers of the state. It called him dictator because this person simply dictated the necessary orders, those which were fulfilled in an immediate way. This type of agile government administration resulted indispensable to survive the crisis caused by alien invasions; it was not efficient to maintain a parliamentary system of decisions, for its intricate and slow process. The weakness of this system consisted in that the dictator assumed almost the whole political and administrative powers, giving opportunity to the creation of excessive personal ambitions of domination.
The problem with dictators aroused when these ones decided to extend their dominion on government, against the will of the republican power that had designated them. This is the famous case of Julius Caesar, in the Roman republic, that concluded with his assassination by means of a conspiracy of several members of the Roman senate. However, that assassination did not achieve to eliminate the tendency already existent, and afterwards appeared the allmighties and "divine" Roman emperors.
Historically, then, the dictatorship has not been essentially bad. Although with variants, this is the Solon case, Pisistratus and Julius Caesar cases, in Antiquity. A specific dictator could be bad or good; as well as a "democratically" elected chief of government can also result bad or good for his society.
The concept of dictatorship of the proletariat.
In the Marxist political conception was generated the concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat", to indicate the historical necessity in the proletarian revolution of tying the hands, controling, dominating, etcetera, the actions of the dominant class recently overthrown, to placate the power of the counterrevolution. This concept was derived by Marx and Engels of the very ephemeral experience of the Paris commune. Afterwards, it was enlarged by Vladimir I. Lenin, maximum chief of the Bolshevik revolution. But in social practice, has not existed an authentic dictatorship of the proletariat in any of the socialist countries. All of them have had dictatorships, truly, but not of the proletariat. In not a single one of those countries, the proletariat -the allied working class with the peasant class and other sectors of society-, has had by itself the political power; there are other groups, which in the name of the proletariat had governed the society, with major or smaller appearance of representativity of the proletarian interests. For that reason, with extraordinary historical easiness, the so called countries of the Socialist block, a set of nations that turned around politically about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, one after another changed its social system, from socialism to capitalism, in spite of that pretendedly existed on them a dictatorship of the proletariat. The decision was not of the proletariat: was of the dominant political group.
The dictatorship of the proletariat, strictly in the Marxist-Leninist conception, does not lead to an oppression of society. The dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't involve the restriction to all kind of freedom of individuals, of groups or of social classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't exhibit the same nature than other previous types of dictatorships; it is not identical to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or to the dictatorship of the monarchical class, etcetera. On the contrary, the dictatorship of the proletariat must make prevail the liberating character, just, humanistic, etcetera, of the proletarian revolution. It must show to the remainder of society the liberating essence of its revolution. That is why is dictatorship of the proletariat.
But in historical practice, since the Stalin government until nowadays, which predominates is the vulgar concept of "dictatorship" prevailing over the revolutionary concept of dictatorship of the proletariat. From the inobjectable necessity of repressing the counterrevolutionary action, easily it becomes tainted to repress all society. Again, here, as in the remainder of the humanity's history, human weaknesses reach to gravitate harder than the highest political and philosophical conceptions. That is why, any type of ideological conception must self-evaluate, verify, reformulate according to new experiences, etcetera. Any ideological conception must stay alive, in process of perfecting, etcetera, if it aspires to generate favorable changes for humanity. The ideological base of political doctrines must be continuously shaken, to avoid the dangers of serious distortions. The unavoidable risk of the use of ideological thought applied in politics, must be counteracted with the critical revolutionary processes. These processes must be firmly established; without them, the social revolutions slaken, weaken and fall.
The ideological thought is very transitory.
Given its deformalizing nature of reality, the ideology rapidly is confronted by the enlightening evolution of historical processes, though that delays over a long period, that is to say, it takes several human generations.
However, it is serious for humans that to a deforming ideology succeeds other; and in that continuity of deformalizing of reality ideologies, peoples suffer of a prolonged period of poverty, social discrimination, injustice, etcetera.
Still more serious, it is that social classes economically powerful, hegemonic economic and political groups, etcetera., are conscious of the social power that grants them the handling to their convenience of ideological or ideologilizing doctrines, and that they produce them on purpose, one after other, with full conviction of the utility that they receive from them.
It is this way, as in last one hundred years, we have seen a series of ideological conceptions directed to maintain an economic, social, political and military hegemony: the ideological concepts of "technological package", "integrated rural development", "privatization" , "globalization", "sustainible development", "neoliberalism", "war against terrorism", etcetera.
All those ideological concepts search for a same aim: hiding an authentic, true condition, that is noxious for the peoples. On more than a century of "efforts" in development, the astounding reality for the majority of the peoples of the world is that have augmented their poverty, their misery, their social discrimination, their absence of rights, etcetera.
The ideological thought twists the theory.
For its own platform of consolidation of certain principles, in accordance with certain interests, the ideological thought twists the depurated theoretical conceptions; the ideologilizing thought alters them, contaminates them, denatures them. The pure thought should confront this ideological distortion, in all fields of knowledge.
In all previous ideas, I simply have treated of laying open to discussion the role of the ideological thought on human life, because it has a lot of relation with the design of any authentic form of artificial thought.
The epistemological study of ideologies will clear up, scientifically, all aspects that have to see with this characteristic phenomenon of human thought.
Alcides Iván Meza
Director de Investigación Científica
Universidad Cristiana de Honduras
Instalaciones de la 105 Brigada de Infantería
San Pedro Sula, Honduras
|Last edited by Alcides Iván Meza @ 2/26/2009 6:52:00 PM|