[CentristVoice]

You see people of All political affiliations (socialists, communists, conservatives, liberals, nationalists, etc.) claim that their political ideology is the best. But is there such a thing as a perfect political ideology? Why or why not?

[Strata]

No every political ideology is flawed. I do not subscribe to any political ideology myself as I see it makes one very rigid in ones thought process and unable to be flexible when needed. I personally think ideologies should be discarded and main focus in political debate should be about issues, without ideological stand point on them. This makes things more practical.

But if you were to label me into some sort of group, I guess on social issue I'm a Nationalist, on economic issues I would be a socialist or state-capitalist at best. So the closest will be National Socialism. lol

But again that is a loose label of my political orientation.

[KlassWar]

Yes. It's called Marxism-Leninism.

We call it the correct line for a reason.

[Strata]

^
See this is the trouble with ideologies, they become a cult or a sect in their own right. Where the policies or reasons of the ideology is not taken or accounted for, but rather the label is good enough now to inspire hostility or loyalty.

Thus ideology becomes a divisive factor and not practical.

[fuser]

Yes. It's called Marxism-Leninism.

We call it the correct line for a reason.

* ∞

[quetzalcoatl]

Maybe the scientific method is not appropriate for tackling every issue under the sun. But PoFo'ers would be wise to recognize its fundamental insight. All human knowledge is contingent. Physics didn't stop with Newton or Einstein. Evolution did not reach an apotheosis with Darwin.

The political economy of Marx as interpreted by Lenin was a particular instantiation based on circumstances in effect local to a specific time and place. We can learn from it, but we cannot repeat it.

Nor should we.

Why?

Because it was a failure.

It was a failure not because it accomplished nothing. The Marxist-Leninist template, as applied in its particular set of circumstances, actually accomplished an astounding feat of transforming Russian society.

It was a failure because it failed to survive. This is the ultimate political sin. When the Soviet Union died a whimpering death it left nothing behind to build on, and this is the most contemptible failure of all.

An essential feature of any successful political system is robustness, the ability to adapt and survive under every circumstance and against all attempts to thwart it. To refer to a system that failed this most basis test as "perfect" is idiotic.

So the answer is no. There are no perfect ideologies, just approximations to an ideal. The ideal should be the kind of society you want and the way people should live - this comes first. Then comes the discussion of the best ways to get there. This last part is where you have to be totally ruthless in your analysis of past approximations. You have to perform an objective failure-mode analysis of how and why the last iteration was unsuccessful, and which features may be retained and which discarded.

[Contrapunctus]

Yes. It's called Marxism-Leninism.

We call it the correct line for a reason.

Nope.

[mikema63]

The scientific method isn't applicable here, in science you can only change a single variable. Otherwise you cannot make conclusions based on the data.

There are so many variables that changed over time in the USSR, so many variances between their ideology from beginning to end of the nation, that you cannot conclude that the political ideology failed outright.

[Contrapunctus]

The scientific method isn't applicable here, in science you can only change a single variable. Otherwise you cannot make conclusions based on the data.

There are so many variables that changed over time in the USSR, so many variances between their ideology from beginning to end of the nation, that you cannot conclude that the political ideology failed outright.

Early Soviet history was marked with state-instituted terror, secret police, and ideological betrayal (at least by Communist standards.) I won't even talk about Stalin, because Stalin's atrocities have been talked to death. The only time that the Soviet Union had some real progress, economically and socially, was under the rule of Khrushchev. Khrushchev worked hard to undo the damage Stalin had inflicted upon the psyche, advanced space travel, and strived to give some degree of pleasure and social mobility that Stalin's collective farms lacked.

Of course at the end of the day, the Soviet Union collapsed. In addition to that, the list of countries presently claiming to be Marxist-Leninist is dwarfed by the list of former Marxist-Leninist states. So I'd say, on the whole, Marxist-Leninism is far from a perfect ideology.

Before the hardline Communists start shaking their fists at me, I recognize my own ideology is flawed as well, so please refrain from calling me a dirty westerner.

[mikema63]

There's also the problematic thing of what do you mean by perfect, an ideology that once created just takes over the whole world and everyone is happy?

Regardless I was just pointing out that this isn't a scientific question.

[quetzalcoatl]

There's also the problematic thing of what do you mean by perfect, an ideology that once created just takes over the whole world and everyone is happy?

Regardless I was just pointing out that this isn't a scientific question.

Of course scientific method cannot be applied directly. But the point that there cannot be any final realized ideology stands (IMO), as well as the point that any particular iteration is limited to time and circumstance.

Insofar as it is possible, one must perform a forensic exhumation of failed political experiments, even realizing the uncertainties involved. Otherwise, the vector that inevitably transformed the Congress of Soviets from a living organism into a fossilized paperweight will simply be re-staged.

The first step is to acknowledge that the Soviet experiment failed; that is, it no longer exists.

[Contrapunctus]

There's also the problematic thing of what do you mean by perfect, an ideology that once created just takes over the whole world and everyone is happy?

I guess that would be a broad definition of perfect. If you observed Earth from orbit, and humanity had adopted a single ideology, and you didn't agree with that ideology, Earth would be a dystopia. Perfect is any wholly subjective measurement.

Regardless I was just pointing out that this isn't a scientific question.

I agree with you. Politics have less to do about science than it does about Human ethos, unless you're a technocrat of course.

The first step is to acknowledge that the Soviet experiment failed; that is, it no longer exists.

This.

[One Degree]

Benevolent dictatorship is the perfect government.

The problem is finding good candidates for office.

[Contrapunctus]

Benevolent dictatorship is the perfect government.

Tyranny is tyranny by my standards.

I'd say my perfect government would be a federal republic with as much power held by the people as possible. Socialist economics would be a plus, and just the right of mount of revolutionary fervor would be nice as well.

[SolarCross]

The perfect political ideology is one that accords most closely with reality. Politics is warfare, the use of force against an adversary. An ideology that blurs or obscures this reality is a false ideology.

To be a civilian is a blessing, a civilian is unburdened of the need to maintain a martial stance. The best political organisation is one that allows the maximum number of people to be civilians. This is monarchy. Only the monarch and his troops bear the burden of politics, of warfare, everyone else is free to be peaceful.

[pugsville]

random succession to power on the basis of birth will result in weak ineffective leaders with great power manipulated by those around them.

monarchy is deeply flawed.

[Saeko]

The perfect political ideology is one that accords most closely with reality. Politics is warfare, the use of force against an adversary. An ideology that blurs or obscures this reality is a false ideology.

To be a civilian is a blessing, a civilian is unburdened of the need to maintain a martial stance. The best political organisation is one that allows the maximum number of people to be civilians. This is monarchy. Only the monarch and his troops bear the burden of politics, of warfare, everyone else is free to be peaceful.

Funny, I agree with 100% of everything in the first paragraph, and disagree with 100% of everything in the second.

[Godstud]

Yes, there is, it's mine, but I'm not telling anyone what it is.

[RhetoricThug]

PoFo's resident Technocrat's idea of technocracy is the perfect political ideology. Because it refuses to acknowledge its politics. The social condition or organization is not political, no, because technology is apolitical... Totalitarian? How ever so? Our citizens are volunteers!

SHout ouT to my ad boy, Kolzene!
#technocracy4life

[SolarCross]

random succession to power on the basis of birth will result in weak ineffective leaders with great power manipulated by those around them.

monarchy is deeply flawed.

The power to which is succeeded is ownership of a military organisation which is the property of the monarch. Naturally that organisation will be bequeathed to whomever the monarch desires, usually this will be his eldest son. When this happens often enough it becomes a tradition as well as the natural default in case the monarch dies before naming a successor. If a particular monarch is weak and ineffective then he can be removed by the maneouvers of usurpers or rival monarchs by warfare. If you are running a military protection racket then the true test of whether you are right for the job is whether you can survive your enemies and not whether you can win elections.