- Mar 2019
I note that you preface this remark with my post that denies that a socialist state can even exist.Isn't it curious that people in socialist countries risk everything, including death to come to capitalist countries (particularly my country)? That speaks volumes.
We have to build walls to halt the masses from flooding into the United States and overwhelming us. Socialist countries, run by communists, have to build walls or shoot to kill their people to prevent them from leaving!
Australia **Hold my beer**Sure, as an example, the United States is a republic (ruled by laws) and not a democracy (ruled by the mob). However, we elect representatives (democratically) to make laws. So, we are a 'democratic representative federal republic' (isn't that a mouthful!?).
I had read about this. Quite poignant really...We had a thread recently about black Americans who were invited to relocate to the Soviet Union at the depth of the Great Depression. The article that was being discussed could only name two people who stayed long-term. One of those two, as an old man in the 1970's, was refused the right to leave the country and visit America:
In Russia, early African American migrants found the good life
You confuse "ideology" and "dogma".You cannot run any government on an ideology. To rule successfully requires pragmatism not dogma. This applies to both right-wing and left-wing ideologies.
If ideology is applied without critical evaluation as to ends and means, it soon becomes dogma. There is only one way to rule successfully and that is with what works. This in turn takes time and understanding which is antipathetic to what is called democracy these days. The argument that to rule is about people-management is a sound one. Any bunch of comrades/colleagues insisting that they know better than anyone else is the basis for poor governance.You confuse "ideology" and "dogma".
"Dogma" is how something is applied, interpreted, not the something itself. An ideology can be taken/applied dogmatically, or not.
An example of dogma is exactly what You said: "You cannot run any government on an ideology. To rule successfully requires pragmatism not dogma."
It's the trend of the last decades, that declared the failure of ideologies and politicians, proposing as solution the "technocratical" (non-ideological orientated specialists) governance.
It's even a bigger fail than classical ideological governance.
Because human society cannot be governed without an ideological base. Pragmatism alone doesn't function. Not to say that any ideology can be pragmatic in the same time: pragmatism doesn't exclude idealism and vice-versa.
Actually, all big achievements in human history (from individual to societal level) were possible because of the mixture of pragmatism and idealism.
It's what I said: it isn't the ideology itself the dogma, but the approach taken. Greek crisis was dealt dogmatically, so it didn't matter that it was from a liberal angle (liberal ideology supposed to be a "good" one) and it was a disaster, as Chinese economy is dealt undogmatically, so it doesn't matter it comes from a socialist angle (supposed to be a bad one).If ideology is applied without critical evaluation as to ends and means, it soon becomes dogma.
Yes, it is pragmatic. But it is ideological in the same time. "Successful for all" is a position, an ideological one.My best experience with government was working with an enlightened technocratic bureaucracy (a regional development agency) when relocating a large production unit. Their ideology was that the move had to be successful for all concerned. I call that pragmatic.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Louis XVI's Flight to Varennes in 1791 is successful||Speculative History|
|Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, and Confucius - most successful during their lifetimes?||General History|
|What peace terms could the Ottomans have expected if Gallilipoli would have been successful?||Speculative History|
|Would a non-Communist Russia have been more successful at Russifying the "Near Abroad"?||Speculative History|
|Similar History Discussions|
|Louis XVI's Flight to Varennes in 1791 is successful|
|Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, and Confucius - most successful during their lifetimes?|
|What peace terms could the Ottomans have expected if Gallilipoli would have been successful?|
|Would a non-Communist Russia have been more successful at Russifying the "Near Abroad"?|