hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (02/13/86)
>>[Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)] >[Jan Wasilewsky (decvax!inmet!janw)] [Adam Reed again:] >And what *is* a sound philosophical base - do you mean *a* philo- >sophy or *the* correct philosophy ? Was it really lacking in the >declining movements more than in the rising ones ? I think that political criteria - declining movements versus falling ones - are inappropriate in evaluating the success of *ideological* movements. An ideological movement is successful when it disappears, as a movement, because it *becomes* the culture: when its ideas become culturally dominant. For example, the goal of the Abolitionist movement was not a world with many Abolitionists, but rather a world in which (private) slavery would cease to be acceptable. When the Abolitonist movement was successful, it disappeared. The Liberal movement, on the other hand, grew in numbers and influence, yet remains, among ideological movements, the paradigm of failure: its ideas never made a visible dent in the dominant culture, which remained a morass of authoritarianism, obscurantism, and collectivism. An ideological movement fails when it "rises" to the point of becoming popular among people who do not understand its ideology. I don't know of a single ideological movement that succeeded without adhering to *a* consistent philosophy. Having the correct philosophy may prove to be helpful, but the evidence of the past shows that it definitely is *not* necessary for the existential success of an ideological movement. Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!mtuxo)