The importance of Ideology in the 21st century

(picture courtesy of the motivational speakers review website)

The person who said ideology is dead is a fool because ideology, ideas that reinforce a certain position within society, is alive and well. It always will be for mankind because ideology reinforces our social relations and perspectives. It reinforces the class struggle and it reinforces the position of the ruling class which in this case is the bourgeoisie or the capitalist class. These individuals reflect the self automating force that Capital has become in the 21^st century. Behind ideology lies the automaton of social relations with its division into various classes. Understanding this core of social relations unravels the truth about human behavior, whereas dueling in the arena of ideology unravels nothing but the existing social relations and their various viewpoints. These ideas that fuel the debate can be classified as moderate, aggressive, progressive, regressive, liberal or conservative, democratic or tyrannical, idealistic or materialistic and the like. Classification of these ideas reveal nothing apart from the various ways in which the bourgeois economy is supposed to function. These various classifications, in the modern day context, revolve around economic growth or the valorization of capital which is reflected in an increase in investments so that people can be employed as members of the proletariat or the group that sells its labour power to the capitalist class.  People are employed based on their rank which is based on the extent of educational achievements. The most highly skilled worker probably has a masters or Phd while the lowly skilled worker has only a high school diploma. The one with the high school diploma represents the average cost of labour which normally comprises the mass of individuals in a developed capitalist society. The sale of labour power by the working class will allow them to subsist and so to live (The degree of reasonableness is based on the level of educational attainment).
 In other cases ideology helps to facilitate those that wish to join the ranks of the ruling class which in the modern day is the capitalist class. This basis of ideology is purely economic for the basis of exchange coincides with bourgeois economic principles. These economic relations represent the basis for the superstructure such as political groups, civil society etc. Discussions of charity and social welfare revolve around the relative surplus population created by capital i.e. the pool of reserve labour  created by industry. Until these people can find work so as to subsist from the sale of their labour power they have to rely on charity or handouts, either from the state or private individuals who have sufficient money or commodities to give away. The police force and the military are public bodies designed to protect private property (including the right to life) within the sphere of bourgeois relations. Anyone who violates bourgeois principles is considered a criminal. This is not only a feature of bourgeois society but of every mode of production where the ruling class seeks to preserve its interests. For the purposes of this article we will focus on bourgeois society because it is destroying the previous modes of production, either militarily or economically. The tension with the Middle East for instance is not only revolving around religion but the penetration of the Middle East by foreign capitalists which brings with it the ideological aspect of the culture. Increased foreign investment will continue to drive out Islamic cultural practices which are founded on a semi feudal, semi nomadic and, at times, savage ritual practices. The basis for the wealth of the great Islamic empires was landed property. The same could be said about Christianity which emerged within the era of domination by landed property. It was the Christians that waged the holy war in the middle ages.

                Ideology in the 21^st century can be safely said to be established along bourgeois principles. There are those that are merely content to have a suitable standard of living,  there are those that aspire to become members of the ruling class and, lastly, there are those that aspire for change, be it revolutionary or gradual change. The proletariat represents, potentially, the most revolutionary class because the revolution in the mode of production to be led by them will remove the basis of bourgeois social relations and establish them on a classless basis. Then and only then will man attain true freedom. According to Marx this class less society will be the final society and will be the outcome of the great class struggle that has existed since time immemorial. The increased division of labour within bourgeois society represents private property in its most developed form. Martin Luther King Jr, who is a true bourgeois hero stated that you must be content in whatever  position you hold and perform the task to the best of your ability. He continued that if you are a broom sweeper you must be the best or all that you can be. This is utter hogwash but principles such as this serve to  enlighten private property as the paragon of human society. This is the form of expression developed by the harmonists who seek  to resolve tensions on a class basis  where the bourgeois class exploits the proletariat by compelling them to generate surplus value/ profit.

                The sphere of ideology is what keeps bourgeois society energized as the mode of production itself motors on. The production sphere is what energizes bourgeois society for daily the news is filled with people aspiring to be the best they can be or those seeking to challenge the system or various elements in it. People only seem to acknowledge the material forces of production when there is a crisis or recession or depression. It is then the working class or the idealized middle class cannot believe that jobs are not forthcoming.  Within bourgeois society we encounter several individuals that are representative of something or some idea about the mode of production in which we live in the 21^st century. We have rich individuals who flaunt the wealth generated through mass exploitation of the working class as well as the brands they represent. These brands represent private property or that individuals'   own means of expression that is given legitimacy on the basis of how the particular product is exchanged in the market as a result of its use value for several members of the public. We have the celebrities that embody bourgeois values like no other. They rise to the top based on various talents in entertainment, athletics, pornography etc. In previous modes of production where industry was but little developed such as the feudal, colonial, slave economies and which were largely agrarian these individuals would be nothing more than beggars regardless of the tall tales because there would be no means to generate the sort of wealth seen in bourgeois society. Their wealth is based largely on entertainment and the means by which they can appeal to people so that they will be willing to buy a particular product or to subscribe to a particular way of thinking. Their primary role, therefore, is to aid in the circulation of commodities  or to aid in the valorization of capital on the basis of effecting exchanges in the market place or the sphere where commodities are brought to be sold.

All of these various behaviors are captured by the media fraternity. The media represents the arena where all ideas, related to bourgeois existence, circulate. The media can be represented by the news, movies, the radio, televised programs, music and the internet. This is the sphere where bourgeois social networks reign supreme hence why it is important in reinforcing the presence of this particular ideology.  This is why the media represents the best place to circulate commodities or to aid in their circulation. It is the best place whereby one can be seen or heard. You are noticed in this world on the basis of your actions or your expressed thoughts. Your actions are motivated by your thoughts within the sphere of the bourgeois mode of production. All celebrities, in order to get their message across, must pass through some element of the media. It is through the media that they become  celebrities.  With the naked self interest of bourgeois society  these celebrities, on the basis of their influence, are able to demand exorbitant appearance fees. The position of these celebrities in the media is still influenced by the extent that they can influence some form of public opinion, negatively or positively, savagely or sublimely etc. This is all determined by their actions in the sphere of production.  The revolutionary/progressive (not savage like the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS etc) class when it eventually comes to power, will have to use these same tools in trouncing the old order. The influence of celebrities in the media  is dictated by the extent that the idea they transmit through the media  resonate with their witnesses, followers etc. After action takes place in the production sphere, whether this action is related to government policy or capitalist investment then ideas related to that particular action will circulate in the media.

Religion is an old frontier long settled and one need not get into that rigmarole only to say that religion was the foundation of the moral order that existed in previous modes of production. Religion can be equated with nature worship when man’s labour was not able to subdue nature to suit his ends. Religion still exists but its foundations will eventually wither away when industry reaches its true potential. In today’s world capitalism still exists alongside antiquated modes of production which cannot justify themselves any other way than by relying on absurd religious propaganda. Many religious laymen and institutions have been influenced, decidedly, by bourgeois society as the increasing reliance on capital makes even the holy one bow to an earthly master. Nominally religious leaders are mere figureheads but the real process of development is never identified with them in these modern times. Kings without their thrones. This does not mean that people are still not influenced by religion but these people are normally found in the poorest countries or  in the countryside where idiocy is a virtue. For all their virtues they need money to survive; they still have to sell their labour power to live or they have to beg to receive assistance.

Lastly, ideology in the 21^st century is being increasingly reflected  in the nationalist vs internationalist struggle. Internationalists do not believe to any great extent in national boundaries; nationalist boundaries are nominal in the sphere of developed bourgeois production because all countries must come in line with the principles of the capitalists. The capitalists will not tolerate antiquated modes of production because it affects income generation because not much income is generated in the gutter nations. The internationalists see the world from an international perspective i.e. the perspective of various nations. Nationalities only represent culture or a mode of expression that is merely a part of the universal sphere. Nationalists espouse the sovereignty of a particular state. This debate is also played out with the hegemonic status of the US-Euro empire and its spread of bourgeois principles throughout the globe. This hegemony is articulated through free trade principles in the world market, the lowering of tariffs, and the conquest of the world through the rapid expansion of industry. Various nations resist this form of conquest by asserting nationalist principles which are articulated verbally or violently (the savagery of Al Qaeda and ISIS in the Middle East is one obvious example). This expansion of industry creates the need for an advanced military complex which will secure bourgeois principles internationally as it too plunders and destroys in the name of prosperity. The  nations that resist the US-euro empire are forced to compromise  with these great bourgeois empires  which possess much of the world’s wealth. This is also reinforced by the alarming poverty, stagnation and dilapidation in these gutter nations that exalt nationalist ideals. They resist the thrust of the US-Euro Empire on the basis of nationalist ideals but cannot seem to defend the degradation that ultra nationalist principles reinforce. Admittedly the US-euro Empire plunders tariff barriers for the benefits of its own capitalist class. When the time comes for the so called developing nations to export certain products that will compete with US industry, for instance, then they immediately adopt a protectionist stance and not only reveal the hypocrisy but the regressive mode of thinking. Only when the world market is fully developed will capitalism reach its ultimate goal of a massive amount of commodities for sale.  In order to get wealthy along the bourgeois mode of production a poor nation must have some dealings with either North America, the Eurozone, Japan (Even Japan successfully adopted the bourgeois principles first established in Europe and has utilized the principles the best outside of the US and Europe) and now Brazil, Russia, India and China which have emerged as the most legitimate alternative to the US-Euro regime. China is now on the rise internationally by adhering to its stringent nationalist policies. This has generated tension between China and the rich nations of the world although the US, Europe and Japan used nationalist policies to reinforce their position in the world economy. The tension between China and the rich nations is based on China’s reluctance to open up some of the raw materials necessary for production or the support of their currency through inflationary activity by stimulating growth which is seen as the reason for its cheaper goods etc. It seems one must embrace nationalist policies in order to support local industry and when local industry begins to thrive then it can spread its wings internationally. Which one comes first National identity or an international mindset?

                The Nationalists, therefore, have failed to adhere to principles averse to the bourgeois mode of production. They have simply sought to promote their own bourgeoisie with the hope that they too can join the international arena dominated by the capitalists from North America, The Eurozone and Japan. Countries like south Korea have Samsung, for instance, but no country has as many giant capitalist corporate firms  as the US, the euro zone and Japan. This internationalist vs. nationalist debate is still strait jacketed by the bourgeois mode of production. The ideas within this debate are related more to the degree of nationalization and the degree of internationalization. Until the structure that supports a particular mode of production is swept aside the ideas that circulate are what hold it together, as a culture, even in times of crisis. The ideological basis for the Roman empire has fallen (it turns out that it was not an eternal conception although it was influential), the ideological basis for the feudal empire has fallen , the basis for the slave and colonial economy has fallen . The ideological basis for the bourgeois mode of production thrives because the system itself thrives. Once this mode of production is overturned on the basis of a new mode of production headed by the proletariat then the ideas that support this mode of production will be swept aside eventually.