Example, for (capitalism, socialism), (capitalism, libertarianism) we get
X1: market
Y1: lazy free-riding
X2: efficiencies of scale
Y2: naïveté of small-scale/decentralized idealism
Conversation
Point is, no ideology is ever characterized from first principles in practice. People who try to do that are (correctly) dismissed as impractical fundamentalists. An ideology only exists as a set of pairwise defenses of solipsistic self-certainty against *specific* competitors.
1
7
This is a neat arrangement because what it does is define the ideology via arguments of convenience against the specific weaknesses of competitors, based on their visible incentives while explaining their iwn behavior in terms of reasonable necessity rather than incentives.
1
2
Example: some degree of free-riding is an obviously likely in a welfare state, so that incentive becomes the definition of socialism. Their internal justifications (eg compassion) can be rejected as hypocrisy. But their own behavior is explained by “efficient market” not “greed”.
3
1
Example 2, (socialism, capitalism), (socialism, libertarianism)
X1: compassion, Y1: greed
X2: community, Y2: selfishness
Example 3 (libertarianism, socialism), (libertarian, capitalism*)
X1: individualism, Y1: bureaucracy
X2: innovation, Y2: cronyism
* capitalism in practice
1
1
This intersubjective approach to ideological self-definition is pragmatic, operationalizes and weaponizes attribution error at scale, successfully casts all failures as aberrations caused by the vices of others, and ensures you never have to admit you’re wrong about anything.
2
2
Ideology, like love, means never having to say you’re sorry.
Example: when market failures happen through distortions/ externalities, capitalists blame state institutions, libertarians blame cronyism, socialists blame greedy individualism. Nobody has to accept any blame.
1
1
4
Note what happens in such discourses. Specific problems are plausibly everybody’s fault and therefore nobody’s fault.
Nobody has to change behavior, everybody gets to preach at everybody else, recommending specific moral evolutions to them from vice to virtue.
3
1
2
Trick to breaking out of these patterns is to ignore analyses that do not center specific behaviors of named people.
When you do that, it will turn into a game of no-true-Scotsman. Pick 2 of 3: a name, an ideology, responsibility for a problem
1
1
2
If you ditch ideology, you’ll at least find someone to hold accountable within your means. Not vote for them, not work with them, not buy their stuff etc. This is what cancel culture clumsily tries to do, except via mob judgment contagion rather than actual distributed judgment.
1
2
4
Everybody was all bullish on ideologies a few years back, and many people wanted to work on them, innovate on them, etc. Now everybody is sick of them, and tries or pretends to be above them. But they aren’t going anywhere. Good time to invest actually.
Replying to
Shouldn't ideology be personal? At a mob/society/country level it is some hodgepodge that we are left pattern matching, but is essentially undefined.
1
Replying to
I don’t think it can be meaningfully defined at a personal level
1
Show replies
Replying to
Ideology always seemed the wrong way to approach ideas, to me.
Ideas should be our slaves, not vice versa.
1


