Intercepted Dimension of Political Theories

The essential ingredients for an political institution’s agenda are thought and action merely tested by empirical visions.

However, I don’t have that big circle of friends but yet the two and two makes four taught me that the thought and action can justify my circle as a foundation for an institutional life. Once the dark thoughts of my philosophical perspective hit me so long, therefore, I decided to hang out somewhere out of the main city to explore something new and identically. The Monal Resort was the only place for something like that having an agenda for thoughts and action to justify whether of my decision going there was tragic or decisive, nevertheless, the social prosperity has a long chain distribution to the decision making but making it easy for self-esteem and realisation. I went there on my own without any tragic or decisive company. Common man is merely “Born free” but what I found that yet the vision has a great influence on your ideology which might base on the essential ingredients of an institutional vanity.

When I reached there the Monal Resort’s entrance was occupied by a mass, I asked the manger to arrange me a seat as I am the only one, the manager replied “Sir sorry for your inconvenience but right now we don’t have any table please we would love if you wait a while in our waiting area”

I ask him if he can arrange a single chair I can adjust, “manager”, sir I am right on my way to arrange for you please wait.

I waited a while and the manger came over and said sir your place is ready please follow me!

I sat there and was ordering some Desi food but it was only Desi Parata Roll which they could provide the rest was the as recipe fixed by the influential vision, anyways, I ordered a cup of Tea!

Setting in the front of a friend circle on a well-mannered table next to me, seemed discussing something interesting, I just rollover my chair slow towards the table so that I can hear what they are saying, but, unfortunately the waiter went straight to me with the desired cup of tea! I was feeling like a dumb piece hell on the earth! Meanwhile they yet didn’t notice this childish behavior and I waited a while to let the environment cool down then will listen them carefully. Nonetheless, I came to knew that they are discussing some kind of a politics but wasn’t specific so I just came over this vision that it might be “Intercepted Dimension of Political Theories”

I just started overthinking; somehow I managed, yet i wasn’t clear in self-purification. I went over there personal ideas of special interest, through which sort of political game can be laid on the table.

Atmosphere of various dominated visions of particular idea by the means of self-interest of course merely contribute to the political game of both free and not free man. Men are differently seen by the means of Political and Social theories built on different visions. However, it may be changed into another way of development merely by some moral principle which might be of course individual or collective in interest.

Thereby within the intellectual property of man, these might be emerged in an ideology or some other shapes but the emerging is visionary aesthetics of these ideologies. However man might be considered “naturally enemy by some philosophers” but yet on the contrast the philosophical discourse is interpreted by another view towards man (Human) that “aren’t confined to their existing limits but narrowed and corrupted by social institutions” meanwhile characters are different, but changes are necessary for each near future within the chain of these institutions where men are brought by narrow minds.

Merely the constrained and unconstrained visions both are exiting within the intellectual property of men but one vision is the justification before the bar of reason and another is the systematic rationality before the bar of reason.

Thus in the meantime circumstances decision making might be difficult but each has consequences on another but the perspective might be changed which may be cleared by those to whom the vision belongs. Nevertheless, it has been cleared that the personal ideas may be the special interest through which demagogues and opportunists of various sorts play political games by the means of different constrained ideologies, however, unconstrained ideologies might be laid on the same table but before the bar of reason it must be justified to the believers.

Hey dude come let’s join us, someone asked me from the group next to me.

I joined and thanked them, yet realized that being trapped in this kind of dimensional theories I might be interpreted by different means, let’s join them and streamline my action and thoughts.

Form the group of the friends one said to another, “Protect your peace not everyone deserve a seat at your table”, I thought what so, he was a conservatist.

One of his friends on the table opposed him but, I interrupted that a man is capable of foreseeing and controlling the social consequences of his decisions, both the individual and society are causally and morally responsible for having made choices whose social results are what they are.

      Anyways, we discussed a lot but the ‘hello’ ‘hi’ process was too long but I went straight to their interests and asked each of them separately.

One of them Mr. Luther was a liberal person having liberal thoughts and action. My views over his ideology were that not all political thinkers have accepted that ideas and ideologies are of much importance. Politics has sometimes been thought to be little more than a naked struggle for power. If this is true, political ideas are mere propaganda, a form of words or collection of slogans designed to win votes or attract popular support. Ideas and ideologies are therefore simply ‘window dressing’, used to conceal the deeper realities of political life; finally I rephrased this in more polite way and told him that “Political ideologies help to shape the nature of political systems”.

A political belief system is an action-orientated set of political ideas where the ideas of the ruling class and the world-view of a particular social class or social group are political ideas that embody or articulate class or social interest’s ideas that propagate false consciousness among the exploited or oppressed ideas. An individual within a social context and generate a sense of collective belonging an officially sanctioned set of ideas used to legitimize a political system or regime of an all-embracing political doctrine that claims a monopoly of truth. An abstract and highly systematic set of political ideas aren’t supposed to be ‘window dressing’, if I am not wrong Mr. Martian, he replied.  

 Isn’t that the class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it and the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time the ruling intellectual force, I asked him an a very classical way of an argumentation.

  He further distinguished between ‘particular’ and ‘total’ conceptions of ideology. ‘Particular’ ideologies are the ideas and beliefs of specific individuals, groups or parties, while ‘total’ ideologies encompass the entire ‘world-view’, of a social class, society or even historical period.

Is that so, liberalism can be considered as a ‘total’ ideological process, am I right? I asked Mr. Luther.

Yes it is, but it has implied to openness or openmindedness. It also came to be associated increasingly with the ideas of freedom and choice, by a belief in a ‘minimal’ state, whose function is limited to the maintenance of domestic order and personal security. Moreover accepts that the state should help people to help themselves, he replied in way back presented a strong argument.

Mr. Petter interrupted us being so casual, that sorry for your waste, but isn’t this some kind of false belief system that claims a monopoly of truth often through a spurious claim to be scientific.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind, replied in a strong voice having reference from the era of after myth French revaluation and Cold War.

Well…. Well… Well…. be kind to your mind, I smoothly interrupted both of them, Mr. Luther and Mr. Petter, asking them, “Should we think about why this ideology tends to corrupt powerful men rather just having illusion of Delbert concept that may give a space to Postmodernism which might deceive this discussion in some other way of repression and representation, which depends upon on inherent features of human consciousness.”

Mr. Luther sweepingly replied in a very polite way to Mr. Martian, that’s why we do reject the unlimited freedom because that’s the main reason you mentioned through which we may not go for undefined limits or else everyone would be enabled in silencing mankind.

Mr. Andrew a Socialist from another side of the table simply asked, guys this might strong argument like this smoke right in hand but being straight I would love to listen you on this, that what about those doesn’t have any intellectual and material property which cannot simply provide food and drinks only but a free space for freedom as you mentioned, Mr. Luther although I might be wrong but this only by the postmodern era which deceived some poors to another dimension of the story of ideology.

We must think about those cannot afford a book where they can simply interpret their way of thinking. And I don’t think so that westernize political dimension will give them freedom because that will somehow another field for this story to be sought out. Meanwhile, postmodernism is a controversial and confusing term that was first used to describe experimental movements in western arts, architecture and cultural development in general.

Postmodernists argue that there is no such thing as certainty; the idea of absolute and universal truth must be discarded as an arrogant presence. Emphasis is placed instead on discourse, debate and democracy, I simply answered Mr. Andrew.

I said on the table well that was very interesting way of your representation but now listen to another’s stories, and moving ahead on the table I asked Mr. Petter about his action and thoughts despite of his strong arrangements although I knew that I may ready for his drops of saliva from his mouth, he was permanent in that habit as per his friends but anyways I managed somehow!

As a political ideology, conservatism is defined by the desire to conserve, reflected in a resistance to, or at least a suspicion of, change. However, while the desire to resist change may be the recurrent theme within conservatism, what distinguishes conservatism from rival political creeds is the distinctive way in which this position is upheld, in particular through support for tradition, a belief in human imperfection, and the attempt to uphold the organic structure of society. Conservatism nevertheless encompasses a range of tendencies and inclinations. The chief distinction within conservatism is between what is called traditional conservatism and the New Right. Traditional conservatism defends established institutions and values on the ground that they safeguard the fragile ‘fabric of society’, giving security-seeking human beings a sense of stability and rootedness. The New Right is characterized by a belief in a strong but minimal state, combining economic libertarianism with social authoritarianism, as represented by neoliberalism and neo-conservatism, Mr. Petter opened his discussion with such a drastic theme of conservatism, by the way, his way opening was more conscious.

      I just came up with this statement after him “isn’t that somehow suppressing the individuality”, as, conservative is supposed to be a divine and power given by God to someone, is that so?

Mr. Martian it was a Church era where conservatism and progressivism was in a conflict of Political Ideologies, later the progressive moment revolutionized this some external means, such as Political Economy, Adam Smith was the one who presented the idea of New Liberalism was considered Classic Conservatism. By the time being, we accepted them as a New Right in these political moments, Neo Liberalism is the free market era where anyone has the right to work, and this is what kind of individuality matters in conservatism after the progressive political thought.

Means, traditional values and equality of opportunity plus natural hierarchy are minimal things which may be considered before labeling yourself the believer of conservatisms, I asked Mr. Petter, am I right?

He nodded and simply replied of course you are, Mr. Martian.

Let’s listen to others views too, time is short and we must cover up each person’s ideology to clear our actions and thoughts, however, when it comes to perspectives we must consider each discourse to cover up everything man.

I then asked Mr. Andrew from the table talks what’s up there man, what are your values?

Being a socialist I think it’s an ideology, an ideology which is defined by its opposition to capitalism and the attempt to provide a more humane and socially worthwhile alternative, he smoothly presented his views.

I asked is that so, humans are social creatures united by their common values and humanity, Mr. Andrew.

This highlights the degree to which individual identity is fashioned by social interaction and the membership of social groups and collective bodies. I therefore prefer cooperation to competition. The central, and some would say defining, value of socialism is equality, especially social equality. I also believe that social equality is the essential guarantee of social stability and cohesion, and that it promotes freedom, in the sense that it satisfies material needs and provides the basis for personal development.

Do you think that in Asia and Africa the Colonial era replaced these values with some other thoughts? I meant to that, the idea of class exploitation was replaced by that of colonial oppression, creating a potent fusion of socialism and nationalism, isn’t that your point, I asked Mr. Andrew.

Yes somehow, but, more moderate forms of socialism were practiced elsewhere in the developing world; for example, by the Congress Party in India. Distinctive forms of African and Arab socialism also developed, being influenced respectively by the communal values of traditional tribal life and the moral principles of Islam, which meant to be the oppression of human civilization and its evolutionary process. Meanwhile, In Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, socialist revolutionaries waged war against military dictatorships, often seen to be operating in the interests of US imperialism and Proxy Wars.

Yeah nodded and replied confusingly, he then said let me clear this more I think you are not getting I said yahh! Go ahead!

One of the difficulties of analyzing socialism is that the term has been understood in at least three distinctive ways. From one point of view, socialism is seen as an economic model, usually linked to some form of collectivization and planning.

However, the choice between ‘pure’ socialism and ‘pure’ capitalism was always an illusion, as all economic forms have, in different ways, blended features of both systems.

The second approach treats socialism as an instrument of the labor movement.

Nevertheless, though the historical link between socialism and organized labor cannot be doubted, socialist ideas have also been associated with skilled craftsmen, the peasantry and, for that matter, with political and bureaucratic elites, he explained it in a well-mannered and organize.

I asked him is that about community its cooperation by the means of equality and class politics of common ownership, Mr. Andrew?

Human beings are neither self-sufficient nor self-contained; to think of them as separate or atomized ‘individuals’ is absurd. Individuals can only be understood, and understand themselves, through the social groups to which they belong. The behavior of human beings therefore tells us more about the society in which they live and have been brought up, than it does about any abiding or immutable human nature, that’s why it is about community its cooperation by the means of equality and class politics of common ownership, he replied.

Well that’s an amazing story to be considered although perhaps an ideology too, considering this after postmodernism I think that the only way bringing socialism to the office table is that we must accept the traits of Revolution, however, China revolution by the means of Communism is shown up there that revolution can of course help you, the Russian revolution after Soviet Union had some kind of expression that revolution may be the common community of a particular cooperation in which equality and class politics are considered as a common ownership of human society, I presented this way my views towards Socialism.

Yeah but let me give you another view, so that it may more be clear to you than ever, being based on a compromise between the market and the state, Social democracy lacks a systematic underlying theory. Yet it is arguably and inherently vague but nevertheless it is associated with the following views of capitalism which is the only reliable means of generating wealth, but it is a morally defective means of distributing wealth because of its tendency towards poverty and inequality. However, the defects of the capitalist system can be rectified through economic and social intervention; the state being the custodian of the public interest is therefore considered a social change which must brought life into peacefully and constitutionally circumstances.

Mr. Surish a multi Culturist and anarchist was observing the discussion from the start and never interrupted a single discussion on the table talks but this time he intervened unconditionally, his sprit while discussing the point was extremely convincing and reliable. He said socialism in a global age as a pointless exercise and has been dead, and it is largely the dynamics unleashed by globalization that have brought about its demise. From this perspective, globalizing tendencies can be seen to have both brought about the collapse of communism and precipitated a further of social-democratic revisionism.

Considering this thought we were shocked but yet Mr. Andrew cleared the thing, I might be wrong but it was the progressive integration of national economies into a larger, global capitalist system which has weakened governments’ capacity to manage their economies. Moreover, intensified global competition created pressure on governments to reduce tax and spending levels – particularly, by reforming the welfare state – and to promote labor flexibility.            

 Well my view after all this statements and debates is that if globalization is an irresistible force, and if globalization is intrinsically linked to neoliberalism, socialism would appear to have been consigned in very different circumstances, called the ‘dustbin of history’. But let’s move on to him, “I mentioned Mr. Surish on my left side to consider his views and thoughts” the waiter came to us “would you love to order something else” we looked to each other and realized that we are wasting their time her because all of the mass outside was waiting for free space, as the Monal was famous for both Domestic and International Costumers. I said we would love to have a cup of tea for each and if you could bring a bottle of water for us it would be grateful.

We then left the Restaurant without completing our discussion but I listen to Mr. Surish to Parking lot and what I get was that anarchism was something which unnecessary because order and social harmony do not have to be imposed ‘from above’ through government.

I believed that Central to anarchism is the belief that people can manage their affairs through voluntary agreement, without the need for top-down hierarchies or a system of rewards and punishments. However, anarchism draws from two quite different ideological traditions: liberalism and socialism. This has resulted in rival individualist and collectivist forms of anarchism. While both accept the goal of statelessness, they advance very different models of the future anarchist society. Though syndicalism was popular in France, Italy and Spain, and helped to make anarchism a genuine mass movement in the early twentieth century.

The basis of this critique of the state lies in the anarchist thinking about human nature. While anarchists emphasize that humanity has a strong libertarian potential, they are also deeply pessimistic about the corrupting influence of political authority and economic inequality. Human beings can be either ‘good’ or ‘evil’ depending on the political and social circumstances in which they live. People, who would otherwise be cooperative, sympathetic and sociable, become nothing less than oppressive tyrants when raised up above others by power, privilege or wealth. In simple words, anarchists replace the liberal warning that ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ with the more radical and alarming warning that power in any shape or form will corrupt absolutely as per the (Lord Acton, 1956).

While many anarchists acknowledge a kinship with socialism, based on a common distaste for property and inequality, others have defended property rights and even revered competitive capitalism. This highlights the distinction between the two major anarchist traditions, one of which is collectivist and the other individualist. Finally, Collectivist anarchists advocate an economy based on cooperation and collective ownership, while individualist anarchists support the market and private property. Despite such fundamental differences, anarchists nevertheless agree about their distaste for the economic systems that dominated much of the twentieth century. All anarchists oppose the ‘managed capitalism’ that flourished in western countries after 1945. Collectivist anarchists argue that state intervention merely props up a system of class exploitation and gives capitalism a human face. 

A philosophical narrative set in Monal Resort, where political ideologies collide over cups of tea. Follow the narrator’s introspective journey from solitude to stimulating debate as friends around a table dissect liberalism, conservatism, socialism, postmodernism, and anarchism. Intercepted Dimension of Political Theories is a reflective exploration of how ideas shape societies and how conversations can illuminate the subtle dimensions of political thought. An intellectual yet personal dive into the theories governing power, freedom, and human cooperation.

5

Intercepted Dimension of Political Theories narrates a reflective, philosophical encounter set at Monal Resort, where the narrator, seeking solitude, unexpectedly joins a lively debate on political ideologies. Through engaging conversations with diverse individuals — a liberal, a socialist, a conservative, and an anarchist — the narrator explores various schools of political thought including liberalism, conservatism, socialism, postmodernism, and anarchism. The discussion delves into themes like freedom, power, tradition, class struggle, equality, and the consequences of globalization on political ideologies. The narrative blurs personal reflection with intellectual discourse, ultimately portraying political theory as not just abstract philosophy but lived conversation shaped by real human perspectives.