Should an ideology be judged by it adherents or its dogma? -

[Jewthulhu]

When analyzing an ideology, is it better to base your analysis on the adherents of said ideology, or on its written dogma?

For example, should I judge communism by its official dogma of "no ethical consumption," or the modern communist's rampant consumerism and love of branded shit?
Alternatively, should I judge traditional Catholicism on the teachings of the Catholics pre-Vatican II, or the modern "tradcath" twitter spergs' love of anime and catboys?

 

[Rusty Crab]

An ideology is only as good as what happens when you throw it into a human population. Judge it by it's results.

 

[Arm Pit Cream]

You can't put the cart in front of the horse

 

[Complete Reprobate]

One is forced to judge the ideology in question by the actions taken of its adherents.

That is the most pretentious sentence I have ever typed.

 

[RMQualtrough]

An idea is not the same as the people associated with it. An idea should be judged as an idea, because that's the thing it actually is.

Judging the people associated can be important but is something separate entirely, and is more like figuring out the social impacts of believing in a certain thing.

 

[Rusty Crab]

An idea is not the same as the people associated with it. An idea should be judged as an idea, because that's the thing it actually is.

Judging the people associated can be important but is something separate entirely, and is more like figuring out the social impacts of believing in a certain thing.

I don't think there's any value in judging an ideology in a vacuum if you already can see the results of it being enacted. Ideologies state a target group and prescribe a way that they should behave to achieve a result. They're basically experiments with an expected outcome. If the outcome repeatedly (and quickly) results in disaster everywhere it's applied, then the ideas it's based on are fatally flawed even if we cant reason about that on a chalkboard.

I'd compare it to having a sound theoretical basis for a medicine with a beautiful chemical structure, but whoever drinks it stays sick and also gets cancer.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Judge by its adherents because they allegedly understand their ideology/philosophy the best. When you don't, you see people use all sorts of weasel tactics like No True Communist to get out of it. It's also why I find Nietzsche vastly overrated. Academics have been trying to make him look good for decades, but between IRL Nazis and Antifa, I can't actually say either of these people are perverting it. Every Philosophy student that likes Nietzsche always comes up with a rationalization about how stealing is good. That should be a red flag for any form of ethics.

 

[RMQualtrough]

I don't think there's any value in judging an ideology in a vacuum if you already can see the results of it being enacted. Ideologies state a target group and prescribe a way that they should behave to achieve a result. They're basically experiments with an expected outcome. If the outcome repeatedly (and quickly) results in disaster everywhere it's applied, then the ideas it's based on are fatally flawed even if we cant reason about that on a chalkboard.

I'd compare it to having a sound theoretical basis for a medicine with a beautiful chemical structure, but whoever drinks not only stays sick also gets cancer.

It just seems more intellectually accurate to me. I am libertarian in theory but I feel it couldn't and wouldn't work in practice... I'd still say I think the idea itself is good in theory.

It might have no applicable value at all. Just seems a more accurate way to discuss something IMO.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Judge them at their best and not their worst, lest you'd rather be judged at your worst and not your best imo.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

It just seems more intellectually accurate to me. I am libertarian in theory but I feel it couldn't and wouldn't work in practice... I'd still say I think the idea itself is good in theory.

It might have no applicable value at all. Just seems a more accurate way to discuss something IMO.

It doesn't work in practice because monopolies are the end result of the free market. Money and political power are not, and never have been, separate. What we're seeing now with Gamestop shorts is the free market in action while those who profited off that free market (hedge funders) try to make it less free to stabilize it.

Or we can look at this thread, where being culturally libertarian led to the immediate collapse of a tiny community and that's mostly the case with many Right-wing organizations. Good lord do they glow.

 

[TFT-A9]

There's no point in judging an ideology in a vacuum. I could conjure up some ideology revolving around settling all disputes with group hugs and handshakes, where everyone gets a puppy and a pony and blueberry pie on Fridays and if, when put into practice by its adherents it results in something bad happening... well, do we blame the ideology with no will and no way to exert its nonexistent will, or do we go and slap around the fuckwits who used it to do bad things?

An ideology is an idea. Some ideas have less merit than others, based on how workable they are with human nature being what it is, but if some commie rat-fuck tried to plead that the ideology made him systematically starve an entire village to death or test weapons on "political dissidents" he's no less deserving of a hangman's noose than the rat-fuck who did it just because he thought it'd be funny.

 

[ddlloo]

I don't think there's any value in judging an ideology in a vacuum if you already can see the results of it being enacted. Ideologies state a target group and prescribe a way that they should behave to achieve a result. They're basically experiments with an expected outcome. If the outcome repeatedly (and quickly) results in disaster everywhere it's applied, then the ideas it's based on are fatally flawed even if we cant reason about that on a chalkboard.

I'd compare it to having a sound theoretical basis for a medicine with a beautiful chemical structure, but whoever drinks it stays sick and also gets cancer.

Problem is that it's bloody rare for a specific ideology to actually be fully and faithfully enacted. There is always some compromising and corner cutting, on top of corruption and subversion for either personal gains or the benefit of another group.

I more or less agree with you all the same though. If it's enacted in a flawed manner repeatedly, then that probably means there is an underlying flaw or contradiction in the ideology itself. Probably a lack of accounting for simple shitty human behaviour.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

Both, the adherents of an ideology can often reveal alot of things a given dogma might give rise to, but the dogma is the foundation at the end of the day so it's more productive to attack that.

 

[Spunt]

If I judged my own political leanings by the behaviour of my "fellow" libertarians I would have probably set myself on fire by now.

I try to judge by the dogma when I can. Most Mormons are very nice people but their beliefs are still stupid as fuck and it doesn't make Mormonism good. In my experience, both Communism and Communists are equally awful.

 

[verissimus]

Definitely not by it's adherents only because any idiot or ingrate can proclaim themselves to be X but demonstrate they clearly aren't by their actions or even words sometimes. After all, there is such a thing as hypocrisy.

 

[OrigamiSalami]

I would say both, but I might also modify the dichotomy a bit. An ideology's followers as one of its effects, and ideologies should definitely be judged by their effects at least in part. If an ideology produces a certain result, or even does so repeatedly, then that should be taken into consideration for its assessment. Additionally, of course the internal logic and content of the ideas should be assessed as well.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

I'll do the contrarian third option which is - by the ideology's internal consistency and clarity. A lot of ideologies either just talk about some impossible ideal to stride for and/or without a clear method to reach it (either by the writer not knowing how to, or by design to justify every action) or have the ideal be vaguely defined so to get the maximum amount of support.
By picking only the dogma or followers, retarded ideas like socialism are hard to debate against due to their populist nature.

 

[OfficerBagget]

I like to see ideologies as a sort of algorithm that has its effects on a population regardless of the intention and ideas of it.

The outcome of the ideology is what should be examined because that is the product of the ideology in practice. It's almost like a hypothesis in a experiment on how society should live, and the people of the ideology is the result of the experiment. Sure maybe two groups of people who follow the same ideology will end up in different outcomes, but that's when you begin to examine the variables in the experiment.

The two groups may have different results because the environment of their regions are vastly different. And when you examine its adherents you might be able to conclude that some ideologies are better suited for certain living conditions.

 

[Rusty Crab]

Problem is that it's bloody rare for a specific ideology to actually be fully and faithfully enacted. There is always some compromising and corner cutting, on top of corruption and subversion for either personal gains or the benefit of another group.

I more or less agree with you all the same though. If it's enacted in a flawed manner repeatedly, then that probably means there is an underlying flaw or contradiction in the ideology itself. Probably a lack of accounting for simple shitty human behaviour.

more or less reinforcing what you're saying here: I believe that the inability to apply an ideology in it's intended form should be taken as a flaw in the ideology itself. I think you have to view it on a more meta level. It's not just what the ideology says will happen, it's what happens when you feed those words into a population.

 

[Complete Reprobate]

There's no point in judging an ideology in a vacuum. I could conjure up some ideology revolving around settling all disputes with group hugs and handshakes, where everyone gets a puppy and a pony and blueberry pie on Fridays and if, when put into practice by its adherents it results in something bad happening... well, do we blame the ideology with no will and no way to exert its nonexistent will, or do we go and slap around the fuckwits who used it to do bad things?

An ideology is an idea. Some ideas have less merit than others, based on how workable they are with human nature being what it is, but if some commie rat-fuck tried to plead that the ideology made him systematically starve an entire village to death or test weapons on "political dissidents" he's no less deserving of a hangman's noose than the rat-fuck who did it just because he thought it'd be funny.

I already see the flaws. I don't want a pony. The puppy is ok. I want pecan pie instead of blueberry.

I guess peace was never an option.