While they can be used interchangeably under certain circumstances, there is generally an important distinction between the meaning of the terms philosophy and ideology.  One is based on actual observation of the world around us and the application of logic to those observations to derive a system or method of thinking which is then applied to one’s daily life.  In a very real sense, a philosophy is a way of life which may incorporate but does not embody a political agenda.  On the other hand, ideology is usually based in theory, the precepts of which often have little or no connection to actual observations in the real world.  And, unlike philosophy, ideology generally defines a group identity or political agenda.  It is important that we understand the differences between philosophy and ideology so that we can recognize them when we encounter them in the real world.

A working or practical definition of philosophy would be:

phi·los·o·phy

: the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.

: a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.

: a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live

But the fuller definition is:

Full Definition of PHILOSOPHY

1a (1) :  all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) :  the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) :  the 4-year college course of a major seminary

c :  a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology

2a :  pursuit of wisdom

b :  a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means

c :  an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

3a :  a system of philosophical concepts

b :  a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>

4a :  the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group

b :  calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

[Note: while this is partially true, the assertion that philosophy is based in logic negates the notion that physical observation and experimentation have nothing to do with philosophy.  The modern concept of science is based on the work of philosophers.]

What we understand as “conservatism” is an excellent example of a philosophy.  By “conservatism,” I mean the philosophy established by and most often credited to Sir Edmund Burke. I state this because there is a difference between Burke’s philosophy of conservatism and the political notion of conservatism as expressed in contemporary American politics – but that is a subject for another post.  What matters here is that Burke worked out a thorough system of thinking and dealing with the matters of social, economic, religious and political life. In a nut shell, Burke accepted change, but he stressed the need to change slowly, deliberately and with due consideration to the effects of change on heritage, tradition and culture.  In essence, Burke sought to preserve those things which identify a people, their culture: hence the name, “Conservative.”

But note: Burke’s philosophy allowed for change.  So, if advancements in technology necessitated change, or if actual observation revealed a flaw in a law or social norm, Burke’s philosophy made allowances to change, to adapt to the times.  In addition, Burke’s philosophy not only allowed for individual rights and liberty, it advocated their protection through the rule of law.  The same cannot be said about an ideology.

Again, the working or practical definition:

ide·ol·o·gy

: the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party

And the full definition:

Full Definition of IDEOLOGY

1:  visionary theorizing

2a :  a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture

b :  a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

c :  the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

What we generally refer to as “Collectivism” is the perfect example of ideology, but there are many forms of collectivism.  For the matter at hand, I will focus on Marxism.  Marx did not develop a philosophy; he developed an ideology.  We know this because his ideas were based entirely on theory and supposition and not on actual observation.  As a result, the thinking of those who follow Marx is fixed.  It has not evolved with time, nor has it acknowledged real world evidence that contradicts Marx’s theories.  As a result, those who follow Marx have not evolved or adapted their thinking.  They are confined by – defined by — their ideology.  For them, it is their only reality.  This leads to the creation of ideologues:

Full Definition of IDEOLOGUE

1:  an impractical idealist :  theorist

2:  an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

An ideologue will seldom admit mistake.  Because their identity cannot be separated from their ideology, to admit mistake is to admit that they and their ideas are wrong, which means their understanding of reality is also wrong.  Quite understandably, when they fail, this inability to separate themselves from their ideology leads the ideologue to “double-down” on their ideology.  They will assert that their ideas are not wrong and they didn’t fail, they just were not executed properly, or by the right people, or any number of excuses.  The ideologue can never accept responsibility as that is an admission of failure, which is an admission of being wrong.  So, “naturally,” the solution (in the ideologue’s mind) is to assert their ideas on others through the use of force: so that their ideas cannot fail and they are ultimately proven correct.  Unfortunately, if they encounter too much resistance to their use of force, the ideologue tends to exhibit a rather nasty tendency to seek the elimination of his/her opposition.  A classic example of what I am trying to explain can be found in the words of Karl Marx, himself:

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.

However, before we leave this subject and I close this post, there is an important point we need to be aware of that could be used to deceive you into believing my argument is incorrect.  I stated that the ideologue does not adapt to changing times, and I will defend this assertion.  But an ideologue may well point to changes in their method of pursuing their goal as “proof” that they adapt and, therefore, cannot be an ideologue – at least, not by my definition.  Sadly, if you encounter such an assertion, you have actually encountered evidence in my favor, as this is fallacious reasoning.  I did not say that the ideologue’s methods do not change; I said their ideology does not change.  These are not the same thing.

If my ideology is my destination (in Marx’s case, Communism), but I change the route I am trying to take to get there (say, from violent revolution to gradual, progressive changes through legislation and cultural engineering), then have I changed my destination?  And what if I not only change the road, but also the means of transportation I use to travel it (rather than stressing direct democracy, maybe the student of Marx might try regulation to achieve the changes they desire)?  So, if I change the path and the vehicle, have I proven that my thinking can adapt?  No.  All I changed is the road I am traveling and the vehicle I am using to get to where I am going, but my destination remains the same.  So, be careful and watch for these sort of rhetorical traps.  In all probability, the ideologue most likely doesn’t even understand that they are traps.  To them, it is just a reasonable sounding rationalization of their ideology made necessary by the fact that “they can’t possibly be wrong.”

“I have always believed that it would be necessary to give the National Government complete power over the organization and capitalization of all business concerns engaged in inter-state commerce.”

–Theodore Roosevelt

This statement illustrates one of the fundamental fallacies that have become a part of our nation’s understanding of our government.  I am not speaking about the notion that government should have authority over all economic activity.  That is a natural extension of the principle about which I am actually speaking.  Notice that Roosevelt considered the Federal Government to be a National Government.  They are not equivalent concepts and, in the case of our constitution, the document which represents the Social Contract from which our government draws its rightful authority, the United States established a Federal form of government.

Equating these two concepts was not a mistake: it was a deliberate action designed to undermine the protections afforded by the Constitution.  In other words, we have been taught to think of the Federal Government as a National Government so people whose wish to control this nation could break the Social Contract we call the U.S. Constitution.  By definition, this is subversion, but that doesn’t matter.  If the people do not understand the difference between Federal and National, then they will not understand subversion – nor are they likely to care.  SO let’s look at what these two words actually mean and how one supports individual rights and liberty while the other destroys them.

Full Definition of FEDERAL

1archaic :  of or relating to a compact or treaty

2a :  formed by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government

b :  of or constituting a form of government in which power is distributed between a central authority and a number of constituent territorial units

c :  of or relating to the central government of a federation as distinguished from the governments of the constituent units

3capitalized :  advocating or friendly to the principle of a federal government with strong centralized powers; especially :  of or relating to the American Federalists

4often capitalized :  of, relating to, or loyal to the federal government or the Union armies of the United States in the American Civil War

5capitalized :  being or belonging to a style of architecture and decoration current in the United States following the American Revolution

[NOTE: the definitions in red do not agree with the understanding of this term at the time of the founding of this nation, therefore, they represent a real possibility that the fallacies of etymology and equivocation have been inserted into this definition.]

In this definition, we can see that the change in what our founders understood ‘federal’ to mean has even infiltrated our dictionary definition.  In this definition, one could get the impression that a federal government is sovereign over the governments of its member States.  This is not the way our founders understood the concept of federalism!  They did not believe that, once joined, the federal government became the ultimate authority over the member States.  They understood the member States as retaining their sovereignty and that they remain in the union and, therefore, voluntarily submit to the authority of the federal government.

The notion that, once joined, the Social Compact cannot be broken is that of Hobbes and the European understanding of Natural Rights (which is based on man’s authority).  This is the essence of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.  But the founders of this nation declared that the people always retain the right to dissolve government bonds.  One need but read the Declaration of Independence to find that this is true.  The sovereignty of the People and the States was even protected in the Bill of Rights (see 9^th and 10^th Amendments).  This then casts some shadow of doubt on the dictionary definition’s reference to the American Federalists.  Over the years, the true history of who these men were and what they believe has been revised.  They did not advocate for a central government in the sense that it would be a National Government with ultimate authority over the States.  One need but read The Federalist Papers to find this truth, especially when read side-by-side with the Anti-Federalists.

We also have this evidence that, at the time of ratification, the founders understood that the States retained the right to secede from the Union:

The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite powers and whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution the measure of its powers.

[We should be] determined… to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government… in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.

–both are from Thomas Jefferson

This is why the Progressive movement, first established as a Party by Theodore Roosevelt, at the time a Republican, started out to destroy and depends on the destruction of the Social Contract known as the U.S. Constitution.  Along with the notion of a “living document,” the Progressives sought to transform the public conception of the Federal Government.  This actually started with Lincoln, who is the President who should actually be credited with the destruction of the Constitution.  But the Progressives deliberately set out to transform the American peoples’ fundamental understanding of their government.   The continued to call it a “Federal Government,” but they started treating it as though it were a National Government.  So we should look at what a National Government is and how it differs from a Federal Government, especially ‘federal” as our founders understood the concept.

Full Definition of NATIONAL

1:  of or relating to a nation

2:  nationalist

3:  comprising or characteristic of a nationality

4:  belonging to or maintained by the federal government

5:  of, relating to, or being a coalition government formed by most or all major political parties usually in a crisis

[NOTE: the definitions in red do not agree with the understanding of this term at the time of the founding of this nation, therefore, they represent a real possibility that the fallacies of etymology and equivocation have been inserted into this definition.]

Notice how the notion of a National Government embodies the impression that the nation is identified by and defined by the government: as though the nation and its people are the government and the government is the people and the nation.  One way to understand the logical extension in this principle is to look at the actual name of a National Party/Government, the National Socialist Workers’ Party – better known as the NAZI Party.  The ideology of the NAZI Party was centered on the concept of Nationalism:

Full Definition of NATIONALISM

1:  loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :  a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

2:  a nationalist movement or government

Nationalism is intimately connected to the ideology of Fascism.  Theodore Roosevelt promoted Nationalism, as did Woodrow Wilson.  Both men were founders of the Progressive movement, and both men wanted to destroy the constraints placed on them by the Constitution.

There is another important aspect of this general discussion we need to understand, as well.  One of the primary differences between the Communists and the Fascists is Nationalism.  Fascists cling to the idea whereas Communists reject it:

I don’t care what becomes of Russia. To hell with it. All this is only the road to a World Revolution.

The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them.

–Both are from Vladimir Lenin

To bring this last point home and wrap this discussion, let us recognize the second fundamental difference between the Communist and the Fascist (both of which are socialist systems).  The Communist opposes private ownership of business, whereas the Fascist is willing to allow private ownership and operation of business – so long as those owners do the bidding of the National Government.  This then explains the difference between the Communist Progressives in the Democrat Party and the Fascist Progressives in the Republican Party.  The Communists in the Democrat Party oppose the concept of American exceptionalism and private ownership of business while the Fascists promote the Nation and private ownership of business.  Consider the debates you see in our political arena from the position of this understanding and see if it doesn’t start to explain many things that, beforehand, have always been chalked up to ‘incompetence.’

[NOTE: The “Federal Reserve” is not “Federal” in any way.  This is another example of Progressive word games designed to deceive.  The Federal Reserve is privately owned and was even established in a manner that allows it to operate independent from any direct government control.  It was only called “Federal” to give the impression that it is actually part of our government.  It is not!]