Harry Targ
Perhaps
the most useful definition of “ideology” is one that refers to a body of
interconnected ideas or a system of thought about how the world works. These
ideas often explain the meaning of life, how and why society is organized the
way it is, and also how it ought to be organized. However, ideas do not come
from the ether. They come from class position and concrete interests,
background, social status, and education by family, schools, peer groups, and
popular culture. (Diary of a Heartland Radical, “The
Three Ideologies in American Life,” September 20, 2015).
Ideologies are ways of explaining reality. They may
not be presented in a systematic or mathematical or rigorous way but the
careful listener can discern their
underlying messages. And, of course, the messenger has a point of view that
usually comes from his or her economic or political position. At base, ideologies are reflections of the interests
of those who articulate them and believe in them. All this is becoming more
important to understand and process during the 2016 election season.
One ideological pole is committed to what the world
knows as the “neoliberal” ideology. It promotes a twenty-first century capitalist
agenda. It supports financial speculation and privileges wealth and entrenched
political power. To maintain profits austerity policies in neoliberalism’s name
are imposed on working classes. War and preparation for war are necessitated by
the resistance to the globalization of these policies. The application of this
ideology domestically and internationally requires compliant support from the
vast majority of workers, women, and minorities. And critical to it, the
neoliberal ideology presents itself as what it is not. It is not a perspective
that represents the interests of the 99 percent. And to justify its
perpetuation its supporters say what former British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher used to proclaim; “there is no alternative.”
A second ideological pole has two variants. In the
short run either of these may be more a danger to humankind than neoliberalism.
The first variant is the “virtues of wealth” ideology. Wealth, however it is
secured, is its own justification. The wealthy are virtuous. The wealthy are
wise. And the wealthy therefore are ordained to rule. Since most workers, most
people of color, most women are poor, by definition they are unworthy of
respect as human beings. And masses of people the “virtues of wealth” ideology
suggests, can trust the brash rugged individualist super-wealthy individual to
rule because he does not represent traditional institutionalized economic or
political power. The wealthy few are like deities to be revered and obeyed. And
to be clear, this view is profoundly anti-human and justifies unlimited
violence at home and abroad on the basis of what the virtuous leader decides is
necessary.
A second variant of this ideological pole, the “fundamentalist”
ideology, rationalizes opposition to government in theological terms. The only
way to rescue humanity, this ideology suggests, is to follow a particular god
embedded in some kind of supernatural fundamentalism; a fundamentalism that
regards opponents as monsters. While its current promoters portray the social
order in terms of existent evil only to be saved by religious good, their
political positions would continue to reward wealth and power at the expense of
the vast majority and would lead to enormous violence against people
everywhere, who are seen as infidels. Whether the leaders derive their
legitimacy from their wealth or their special piety, it is their task to lead
and the peoples’ to follow.
A third ideological pole, “building 21st century
socialism,” is based upon the proposition that all social institutions,
including government, should serve the people, all the people. It is based upon
the sanctity of human life and the belief that it is through society that each
and every individual can achieve her/his potential. Concretely this means real
economic justice, democracy, fairness in the law, and peace. The issues
embedded in the 21st century
socialist vision involve education, health care, environmental sustainability,
jobs, adequate income, and the development of programs to attack racism,
sexism, homophobia, and all forms of discrimination. This third ideological
pole asserts, as the World Social Forum proclaimed a long time ago, that
“another world is possible.”
From the vantage point of the radically different
character of these ideologies, the 2016 election becomes very important. In the
long run given the growing danger of violence to nature and people, building 21st
century socialism offers the only possibility for building a just and
environmentally sustainable world.
It is important to note that the continuation of or
defeat of any of these will not be determined by the election of any one person.
Victories and defeats are more about the power of political movements and the magnitude
of electoral victories or defeats in the service of these movements. But there
is no question that the momentum that emerges from the election battles of 2016
matters.
For those on the Left, the only real option for the
survival of humankind is 21st century socialism. And the achievement
of it will require a long term struggle for
the consciousness of the people.
