Ideology

Ideology is a dangerous thing and, in the political sphere, has produced some of the worst regimes in history. The idea that a fixed system is suitable for all purposes is anathema to common sense and against the scientific principle. Ideologies possess people and give them a kind of tunnel vision that excludes nuance and admits only rigid theory, rather than practice, experience and objective truth. 

Ideology is often defined as a 'coherent system of ideas' that rely on a few basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis - it relies, in great part, on faith, and faith is often a euphemism for gullibility.

There are essentially two opposing philosophies at the ends of the political spectrum: one that says, we are all in this together so let's share everything; and the other that says, I'm alright Jack, you are on your own. One stifles ambition and innovation and the other stifles compassion. Each has its part to play in moderation, but not as a one-size-fits-all to the exclusion of the other. A myopic and exclusive dedication to one or the other leads to oppression - and often devastation. 

There is debate about where the following aphorism originated, but it it often said that under capitalism man oppresses man but under communism it's the other way around. 

Deng Xiaoping once said, in response to the failures of the ideologically driven Great Leap Forward, in which millions died of starvation; "I don't care whether it's a white cat or a black cat, providing it catches mice." That's pragmatism and was considered heresy among the Chinese Politburo in the 60s. He was advocating handing commune land back to individual peasants in order to produce more food after the commune system, for various reasons, proved an abject failure.

Brexit is an example of an ideology completely devoid of logic or reason and focussed on emotion, which is often in error. In four years, no-one has managed to articulate a single benefit of Brexit in their daily lives. It's always portrayed as an abstract jam in some mythical future, and to question this attracts accusations of defeatism and treason without adequately answering the question - a sure marker of ideology.

The far left want a fully planned economy, but communist countries have adequately demonstrated that a 100% planned economy produces the worst possible outcomes and tyrannical rule. The far right want a totally deregulated market but, time after time, corruption and greed derived from deregulation, or lack of regulatory oversight, produce disasters such as Grenfell, Union Carbide, various car emissions scandals, etc, etc. The market has no regard for people and pursues only profit.

Communism is a stage of development, not a permanent solution. The irony is that more often than not, it has been a reaction against rampant and oppressive free market capitalism.

Central planning is beneficial in some cases, just as the free market is in others. It's never an all or nothing game where one or the other is right for every situation, and I wish politicians would be a bit more pragmatic and initiate more trials of the validity of their ideologies, rather than strangling themselves with their ref or blue football scarves.

I'll stop now, as I'm rambling.