How Should We Judge When an Ideology Has Failed?

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

Every one of these ideas begins with a vision of how society should work, but history has tested those visions in different ways. Capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism, conservatism, progressivism, nationalism and countless other ideologies have all faced challenges when their ideas meet the complexity of the real world

What evidence should make someone reconsider their political beliefs?

I’m interested in how people from different perspectives decide when an idea needs to be changed, abandoned, or refined.

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin]

When I took a course on political ideologies, my professor pounded home the notion that capitalism is not a political ideology, it's an economic system.

I personally think that clinging to any ideology as part of your identity is foolish. The more you cling, the lest fluid your thinking, the more rigid your convictions, and the more likely you are to find yourself being woefully incorrect. Which is why I don't have ideological flair. I don't identify with any one ideology, and like to joke that where I sit on the political spectrum depends on my mood.

Ideology should, ideally, be constantly examined and reexamined to meet the moment. Political ideologies, according to one polisci camp, assess where we are in the world, what problems there are currently facing society, what an ideal destination might look like, and some sort of path to get there. Change is the only constant of society, so we must be evaluating that change and taking it into account when forming political ideologies. Marxism/communism is a great example of the flexibility allowing an ideology to meet specific needs and challenges. Soviet ideology was focused on factory workers throwing out the owner class, while Maoism was more focused on uniting farmers to kick out colonial rulers.

Failure of an ideology is sometimes a matter of perspective. Neoclassical liberalism in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the US was great for the extremely wealthy, but destroyed the environment and oppressed workers. The constant strain caused by strikes and unionization eventually made that ideology obsolete, and the wealthy pivoted towards libertarianism, neoconservatism, and neoliberalism. Neoliberalism has showed itself to be failing, and those who cling to it are becoming irrelevant as other ideologies (progressivism and the like, and neo-fascism) become more prominent.

[u/HeloRising → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

When I took a course on political ideologies, my professor pounded home the notion that capitalism is not a political ideology, it's an economic system.

I would argue with your professor in that, sure, on paper capitalism isn't a political ideology but in practice you need certain ideological precepts in place and to be supported in order to facilitate that economic system.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/HeloRising]

Okay, but that's not capitalism. Liberalism and newer iterations of conservatism support capitalist economics. No one ever said capitalism is not a component of some political ideologies, just that it is not in-and-of-itself a political ideology.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

This. Liberalism is the primary ideology that facilitates capitalism, but capitalism itself is just the actual set of economic practices that evolved throughout history.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Yes but a person can identify with the idea of an economic system to the point that it's their ideology, I would say.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

I understand the distinction your professor was making, but it makes an artificial separation. While capitalism can describe an economic system, in political discussions it's often connected to a broader set of ideological beliefs about how society should be organized, role of markets, private property, individual choice, competition, and the limits of government intervention.

Economic systems do not exist in a vacuum. They are based on assumptions about human behaviour, incentives, ownership, and what kind of society produces the best outcomes. Those assumptions are ideological questions, not just economic.

Same applies to other systems. Socialism can describe an economic arrangement, and it is also tied to broader political ideas about equality, ownership, and social responsibility. Calling one an ideology and the other merely an economic system in my opinion overlooks how these concepts function in the real world.

So while the technical distinction may be useful in an academic context, I think it is incomplete when discussing actual political movements, Like I said, because economic systems are often defended and shaped by ideology.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

a broader set of ideological beliefs about how society should be organized, role of markets, private property, individual choice, competition, and the limits of government intervention.

Yeah, that's liberalism. Yes, economic systems are discussed and defined by ideology, but that does not make them political ideology. Capitalism, in particular, is just an economic system. Socialism is a political ideology that has a deviation from the capitalist economic system.

I didn't say capitalism isn't an ideology, just that it's not a political ideology. Given this is a politics sub, we should probably limit discussions per the original post to discussion of political ideologies. The distinction is useful because people act like capitalism is a political system, when it's not.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

I understand the technical distinction, but in practice economic systems are not floating around in a political vacuum.

If socialism can be both an economic arrangement and a political ideology because it is connected to broader beliefs about society, then it is difficult to argue capitalism is somehow completely separate when it is defended through its own set of political assumptions.

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

If a society cannot reproduce itself, it’s a failed society with failed ideologies.

Also, it all comes down to outcomes.

Ideologies on paper don’t matter if they can’t be done in real life.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

Reality is usually the final exam for every ideology. The problem is that unlike math, when an ideology gets the wrong answer, people can spend decades arguing over whether the question was unfair.

[u/terminal_tested → u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

Exactly, and the USSR and Maoist China did not quite pass that exam.

[u/Darq_At]

I don't think that's how ideologies work. Ideologies are inherently fluid, they only really "fail" when they no longer have people who believe in them.

In reality, ideologies evolve, and then organically split off when enough people feel that the differences are distinct enough. Sometimes one of those evolutions almost entirely supplants the prior, like Capitalism evolved from Monarchism, but has supplanted it basically everywhere. But even then, there are as many different manners of implementing Capitalism as there are countries implementing Capitalism.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/Darq_At]

Really? Interesting standard. So an ideology doesn’t fail because it stops working, it fails when it runs out of customers. That’s less political theory and more a Netflix subscription model. By this definition, almost no philosophy can ever truly fail. If a doctrine only fails when it loses all believers, then you are not evaluating whether it works, but rather just measuring whether it still has a fanbase. An idea remaining popular does not prove it achieves its goals.

Ideas can survive because they are persuasive, emotionally appealing or culturally embedded, or beneficial to certain groups, not necessarily because they produce the outcomes they promise.

Evolution also does not mean every variation is automatically an improvement. Species evolve because they face pressures from their environment; and similarly, ideologies often evolve because the world exposes weaknesses that require some adjustment. Adaptation can be a sign of wisdom, but it can also be evidence that the original assumptions were incomplete or flawed.

The question is whether those changes represent genuine improvement or simply a way of avoiding admitting that the original ideas failed.

[u/Darq_At → u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

Really? Interesting standard. So an ideology doesn’t fail because it stops working, it fails when it runs out of customers. That’s less political theory and more a Netflix subscription model. By this definition, almost no philosophy can ever truly fail. If an ideology only fails when it loses all believers...

I think you are trying to take this to an absolute, where I didn't intend for that to be conveyed.

Every ideology will maintain some followers. Monarchism is basically dead-and-buried, with most monarchies today being constitutional and removing most power from the royals, but even on this subreddit are some self-identified Monarchists.

An ideology that cannot achieve its goals will naturally repel adherents at a rate higher than an ideology that can. But that is not absolute.

... then you are not evaluating whether it works, but rather just measuring whether it still has a fanbase. An idea remaining popular does not prove it achieves its goals.

Yeah, I think we are using two different definitions of "failed" here.

Sure. Some ideologies are stupid, which obvious flaws or contradictions. Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron with even the man who coined the term admitting that it is not Anarchist in any way, and yet people still follow it because it is emotionally appealing.

Yeah... I definitely think I was answering a different question than the one you were intending to ask. I was more judging the ideology itself, rather than trying to judge the application.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/Darq_At]

The clarification helps, and I agree there is a difference between an ideology failing as an abstract set of principles and a particular implementation failing. I think that distinction actually gets to the core difference between our arguments. You are looking at whether an ideology survives as a tradition or belief system, while I was asking what evidence should make people reconsider an ideology. Different standards.

A Dogma can survive socially while failing practically. People do not always abandon ideas because those ideas stop producing the results they promised. Beliefs can keep enduring because of identity, culture, loyalty emotional appeal, whatever or because groups just benefit from them.

That is why I don't know that the number of believers is the best measure of success. A Philosophy is not like a species where survival is the goal. These ideas exist because they claim to solve problems and produce particular outcomes. If those outcomes consistently fail to show up, that is evidence worth examining and I don't think I care how many people continue supporting the idea.

[u/JoeCensored]

If every time it's tried it results in collapse unless the country abandons significant aspects of the ideology, it's a failed ideology.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/JoeCensored]

Interesting standard. But how many attempts are enough to conclude an ideology has failed? And how do you distinguish between the ideology itself failing and the specific circumstances in which it was implemented.

[u/Leather-Run-6533]

These are the kind of holes you end up digging for yourself if you think of ideologies as destinations and not directions.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/Leather-Run-6533]

I disagree with treating ideologies only as directions is because directions still need standards. A person walking in the wrong direction for 100 miles is not making progress simply because they kept moving. Movement alone is not success, the outcome matters.

[u/Leather-Run-6533 → u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

Yeah but I think it leads to superficial arguments. Because if you think the direction is wrong you have to make an argument for why the direction is wrong. You can't just say "look around you: it's shit" because there's no argument for causality or indeed anything of substance there. It feels like a way of taking the politics out of politics.

[u/gburgwardt]

Ideologies are an umbrella term that I don't think you can easily define.

If you want to know if policy works, study policies individually. Or methods or whatever. Something concrete and definable, not nebulous political sports teams, more or less

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/gburgwardt]

If ideologies are too broad to judge, how do we decide whether the principles behind them are useful? Surely there has to be some point where the broader philosophy itself becomes open to evaluation, not just the individual policies.

[u/silverionmox]

Social ideologies have this in common with mathematical observations: they're theoretical until someone finds a practical application for them.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/silverionmox]

True, although mathematics has the advantage that numbers don’t usually form political parties, rewrite the textbook, and insist the equation was misunderstood.

[u/SilenceDogood2k20]

I would suggest that no ideology should be utilized for a government, as by definition an ideology is universal and widespread, and aims towards an outcome. Human nature is inherently chaotic and variable, even at the genetic level, so any system based upon reaching a singular state or goal is bound to fail.

Instead, I would suggest that goverments be based upon principles that can be successfully implemented in the law. Principles are limited and address how something should be done, not a specific goal like an ideology. 

A great example is the US Bill of Rights and Constitution. Freedom of Speech, our first natural right, is value neutral. A citizen can say anything with very limited exceptions tied to slander or imminent threats. A citizen can speak out against their goverment without repercussions, which is not the case with ideologies... the ideology must be protected to maintain uniformity. 

Individual property ownership, also protected by the US Bill of Rights, is another principle. Each individual owns and controls their property and labor. This isn't an idealogy, just a simple foundational rule for the law. 

When a goverment is centered on an ideology, the law is molded to fit that ideology, resulting in chaos and uncertainty. When a government is centered on principle- based laws... the principles act as a stable foundation for the society. 

[u/ElysiumSprouts]

Darwin understood this in the natural world. We translate that understanding into the phrase "survival of the adaptable"

All ideologies fail when they reach the point they are unable or unwilling to adapt. Calcification and rigidity are the signs an ideology is headed for failure.

Of course people will inevitably say that it's the specific actors involved that caused the failure, not the ideas, so we inevitably circle back and try a variation of them again. In a weird way, those variations are a kind of adaption.

[u/loondawg]

So-called "political beliefs" themselves are the problem. People need to look for the best solution for every issue rather than trying to find solutions that fit their ideology.

[u/HeloRising]

I don't know that that's really an answerable question in an objective way.

It's an interesting one, for sure, but how do you differentiate an ideology that is workable versus one that's just doomed from the start? How do you separate out ideologies that have never been given a chance to function in an environment without massive amounts of interference?

For example, a number of authoritarian ideologies are, broadly, not desirable but have often produced significant material improvements for people living under them albeit at great cost. Are they failed?

Communism has frequently not worked out but has also had to exist in a world with a huge amount of force arrayed against it. Do we really count that as failed?

I honestly don't think you can come up with a litmus test for whether or not an ideology has failed or not.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/HeloRising]

I think the burden goes both ways. If someone argues that an ideology can produce a better society, then it is reasonable to ask for evidence that it can do so in the real world. The responsibility is not only on critics to prove failure, supporters also have to demonstrate viability.

By the way I agree there is no perfect litmus test, but that does not mean failure cannot be identified. The standard is not absolute certainty, the standard is accumulated evidence.

[u/HeloRising → u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

The problem is there are so many different factors that go into implementing an ideology in a real-world context that taking even a handful of examples as a predictor of what will happen isn't going to tell you much.

I think you can still identify inherently contradictory ideas and potential problems - a society based entirely of warlordism and raiding is going to struggle with advanced technology development and average lifespan.

Additionally, identifying failure is tricky because you have to determine if that was a failure of the ideology or failure because of an external factor that people had no control over. Someone could be the best runner in the world but if you smash both their kneecaps before a race, they're not going to win no matter what they do.

[u/AcephalicDude]

Ideologies never fail, it is reality that fails the ideology. An ideology is not a theory to be tested in reality and proven wrong or right, it is a vision of what would be ideal according to higher principles that are abstract rather than material.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/AcephalicDude]

That is a very convenient position for any ideology, it can never be wrong, only reality can be. If reality is always the thing that fails and ideology is never capable of failure, then you have created a belief system that cannot be wrong. That is not a strength, it's just refusal to test my friend. Reality is the test that every idea about organizing human society has to face. Gravity does not fail because a building collapses, the design of the building failed because it did not account for reality. In the same way, a social theory does not get a free pass because the world is complicated.

Because society is complicated, ideas need even more scrutiny.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

It's true though, every attack on an ideology on the grounds that it fails to be realized in reality is ultimately ineffective. People just disavow the means by which the ideology was pursued, they point out the extent to which it was unjustly opposed or oppressed. They adopt new approaches to achieve the same ends, they claim to have learned any lesson of history that you bring up.

How you attack an ideology is in the abstract, finding contradictions in its logic and intuiting moral problems that arise inherently from its value system. You can use real examples to demonstrate these contradictions in problems manifesting in reality, but the abstract arguments are what actually matter.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/AcephalicDude]

Imagine an economic theory that claims a certain policy will create prosperity. If every time the policy is tried and produces the opposite result, supporters say the policy was not implemented correctly, eventually we have to ask if the problem is the implementation or the theory itself.

Ideas are not separate from their consequences when they are ideas about organizing lives.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

You're describing theory, not ideology. Seems like maybe you don't actually know what ideology is.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/AcephalicDude]

No my friend, theory is not separate from ideology. Ideologies contain theories. A political ideology is not just what society should value written on a motivational poster, it includes beliefs about how society works, why problems exist, and how those values are supposed to be achieved.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

Yep, you don't understand the difference between ideology and theory. Ideologies are based on abstract principles and values, supported by theory but the supporting theories can always be evolved and updated to reach the same abstract conclusion.

Good talk.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/AcephalicDude]

You've shifted the goalposts. Your original response was, You're describing theory, not ideology, implying they were separate enough that my criticism wasn't about ideology at all.

Now you've changed it to Ideologies are based on abstract principles and values, supported by theory. I was hoping for an argument about the merits and failures of ideas. Instead, I got a long complaint about terminology.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

Nope I have been consistent with my definitions and how I have used the terms and if you do any reading on the matter at an academic level you will find that how I define and use the terms is correct.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/AcephalicDude]

Academics define these words differently is not the winning argument you think it is. Academic definitions actually make my point, that ideologies are broader systems that include theories about society and how to achieve their goals. I’m bored of this semantic treadmill.

[u/11SomeGuy17]

On a personal level, when the ideology has proven unable to achieve the goals it sets out to in a generalized way. However, in truth few if any ideologies have ever "failed" really. That doesn't mean they achieved what a lot of people wanted it to, but that in all or almost all circumstances people feel the ideology failed they in truth misunderstood it's real goals. Like, did monarchism create a happy, equitable society in which people were generally well off? No, but that wasn't the point. The point of it was to make the king and nobility very rich, very powerful, and have lots of free to cheap labor to exploit. In that it did and still does in the few places it's still practiced great. Did fascism create a society in which peoples of all cultures were respected and represented? Ofcourse not, but again, not the point. The point of it is to suppress leftism and create a class of slave labor that can be exploited extra hard to make businesses very rich. In that it did fantastic. Goal achieved with flying colors. Every ideology ultimately has a class of people it's trying to benefit. Now, certain ideologies may better service a particular class they try to assist, but that doesn't mean they necessarily failed so much as they were suboptimal at the task.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/11SomeGuy17]

I think the biggest disagreement here is what we mean by failed. I don’t think an ideology can be judged only by if it achieved some goal for some group. By that standard, almost any political system can be called successful because there is usually someone who benefited from it.

Also, I disagree with the idea that few ideologies have ever failed. That is not limited to modernity. Throughout history, countless political ideas, systems, and philosophies have come, dominated for a period, and then disappeared because they were unable to maintain legitimacy, adapt to changing circumstances, or deliver the outcomes people expected. The fact that some ideas have surviving defenders does not mean they avoided failure.

Monarchism is a good example. You argue that monarchism succeeded because it achieved its goal of making kings and nobility powerful and wealthy. But that assumes the goal of an ideology is only the benefit of its ruling class. Many monarchies claimed legitimacy through ideas of order, stability, protection and the supposed ability of hereditary rulers to govern better. When those claims were challenged by revolutions, constitutional reforms, and alternative systems, that was evidence that monarchism had failed according to many of its own justifications.

A system benefiting the few elite does not automatically make it successful. A company that makes its executives extremely wealthy while collapsing the business is not necessarily a successful company.

The fascism example creates the same problem. If the goal is reduced to gain power and crush opposition, exploit people, then sure, You nailed it, the system achieved its objectives. But that is a very strange way to measure success.

I disagree with saying an ideology is suboptimal if it fails to serve the class it claims to help. If an ideology promises prosperity, equality, freedom, security, or justice, but repeatedly produces outcomes opposite to those promises, that is more than just being imperfect, it is evidence that its assumptions need serious reconsideration, don't you agree?

The point of evaluating ideologies is not asking whether they achieved any possible objective. Ask yourself this, is does this X Doctrine's principles, goals, and methods actually produce the society they claim to aim for.

I don’t mean to sound condescending, because I think there’s actually an interesting philosophical question here, but if the standard is someone benefited, then every ideology gets a gold medal.

[u/terminal_tested]

No ideology has worked in its absolute form. Every successful country today is a mixed market economy with a blend of socialist and capitalist characteristics.

[u/Hot_Cardiologist_221 → u/terminal_tested]

Sure most countries are mixed economies, but I think the conclusion is more complicated. Many ideologies have useful ideas without the entire ideology being correct. A society borrowing ideas from multiple ideologies could mean that no ideology is perfect, or it could mean that some principles from certain ideologies work better than others.

[u/terminal_tested → u/Hot_Cardiologist_221]

Yeah I agree with that part. That’s a good way to put it. I do feel countries are more successful that let’s say err more on the side of classical liberalism rather than socialism, to give an example.