Has anyone here ever thought of developing a new ideology? I mean an actual serious one with proper theory...

Not really developing something new, but I am trying to find the common ground between Marxism and Communalism and maybe to make Communalism more clear on some issues by employing Marxism. Maybe I am just to uneducated but I see no unbridgable differences yet from my very shallow education on these issues. Also it seems to me that the problems that originally lead to the split between anarchists and marxists can be reevaluated with the lessons learned and historic experience and placed on new grounds. Even if some core issues will remain reexamining this might be helpful.

But this might be all delusion because I havent read enough.

pic somewhat related

ITT: superstructure removed from the base, i.e. idealism

Read Althusser & Zizek for intro to the nature of ideologies.

I have my own revolutionary self-theory.

Why? Revolutions are made by classes, not ideologies. The idea of comparing ideologies with one another to choose the “best” is completely anti-materialist, nonsensical, and anti-proletarian. Making new ones, new excuse serves not to help the real movement of the proletariat, but instead will just be abused for sectarian infighting among others.

I still see no reason for you to be here. Your "ideology" has exactly one adherent, and 8ch let's anyone create their own board. I'll let you sum one and one together…

New ideologies are just adaptations of old ones to analyse and understand current capitalism better, to understand the current nature of classstruggle and to formulate strategies out of these analyses. They shouldnt be utopian projects but focusing on understanding and predicting.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/larry-law-revolutionary-self-theory

Everyone should be developing their own revolutionary self theory - seeking their own emancipation on an individualised basis.

Militarized autism

tl;dr: fascism

This. What gets me what I want, in the best way?

Honestly don't think fascists were so autistic they dreamed of giving every man a rank

Well thankfully what you do or do not understand is quite irrelevant to my continuing presence on this board.

The same could be said of many posters here.
I do doubt that there is more then one De Leonist for example.
The size of an ideology has no baring on whether it is able to participate here.

Please do feel free to provide any worthwhile criticisms.
Simple, tired insults do nothing to further discussion or debate.

Fair enough, I guess. Why do you want to give everyone a rank?

Oh, and what makes you not like a fascist?

Maybe you should stop being such an utopian and provide some basis for your ideas showing how they could come into existance and why exactly people would desire such a system.

You have a organization and categorization fetish, there's not much more to say.

There are a number of reasons.
The most pressing of which being that all aspects of society would be integrated into the military hierarchy.
As such providing all members of society with a rank (as such integrating them into the hierarchy) is only logical.
It would be rather silly to have a person working in the industrial production or transport corps, yet lacking a rank.

Well I reject Fascist Corporatism.
By definition I am not a Fascist.

Additionally: I want to unite our species under a single state rather then simply promote nationalistic tribalism, my ideology is decidedly both anti-capitalist and even anti-scarcity economics and my ideology could be generally described as socially progressive.
All such things one would not find a Fascist supporting.

Oh well that is quite simple.
Religion.

Based off of the wonderful work of the great Auguste Comte, I'm currently working upon a secular religion.
Not only do I intent do use it as an organizational and self/societal improvement tool once sovereignty is achieved.
But I also intent to use it as the means of introducing my ideology to people.

Get 'religious' followers first, use them to form the personal base of my ideology second.

If it were just organization for organisations sake, I would actually be inclined to agree.

But my desire for maximum organization comes from a desire to achieve the maximum possible happiness for the maximum possible number of people - Rule Utilitarianism.

So do you see yourselve somewhat in the tradition of previous religious utopians?

If not what is the difference besides the style and content of the religion? Do you want to attain statepower instantly or do you have some bottom up approach?

Saved that will read it after finals and post comments if thread is still alive

I probably suffer from the same type of autism as you do as I devised something similar couple of years ago.

Fuck off, the fact that you cant think for yourself and do anything to build upon and further advance ideas of previous thinkers doen't mean that everything is against muh class, ploretarian and material hur dur

Okay, but then I would still have to ask basically the same question.

Why do you think it's best for people to be integrated into a worldwide military hierarchy?

You are misusing the term fascist, please show more respect fascism as it has nothing to do with capitalism. What you are thinking of is called autorithatian right and good example of it would be Francisco Franco or Pinochet. Proper fascists would be Codreanu, Mussolini; Primo Rivera and such.

Not great fan of this because this would just create endless blob of people without any real culture, identity, personality. Aside from that - its not faisable because different societies face different structures of power and cant fight them with the same weapons.

Not only do I intent do use it as an organizational and self/societal improvement tool once sovereignty is achieved.

Žižek has been talking about something similar

WUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT

Dude you know Codreanu was basically a nazi right

Codreanu was a typo of guy who only cared about moral/ideological issues and paid little attention to economics, class problems and such. THis was an issue with fascists from the beggining - they simply didn't care about economy, they tried to subvert the marxist- capitalist divide by, in Hegelian manner, moving a ideological shift towards the problems of moral decay, societal corruption, deminishing values and such, they simply built upon Nietzsche's overcoming of nihilism.

This is why fascism truly was a "third way" but also why it failed.

Early thinkers were proscoialist on economical basis but they werent focused and didn't write about economy as much and by doing that they allowed capitalists to hijack the fascism. Fascism was already basically dead when Francoists killed Rivera and Hitler got rid of Asser.

*strasser lol, sorry for the typos

apparently you can't write /strasser on this board without it automatically being changer to Asser lol

I was referring to the fact that he hated jews, lol. Codreanu seems like a total psycho.

A democratic centrally planned economy. Combined with ultranationalism.

I will be quite honest here.
Unless one were to count Comte, I'm not very familiar with religious utopianism.
As I sated before, the religion I'm working on is more of a tool and is also explicitly secular and anti-supernaturalist.

Well being a secular religion.
I have kept in place all of the things that have always attracted our species to religion (a sense community and belonging, ritual etc).
But I have systemically replaced all elements of what in other religions would be supernatural, with psychology.

I have a genuine desire to help people.
So every ritual and practice has been infused with elements that I think are helpful to both the individual and wider society.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Secular Buddhism and Shared Adversity and the being the main elements of Psychology I have integrated in.

Instantly is preferable.

The idea is actually rather simple.
Gain control over those that guarantee state power.
If one were to gain the loyalty of both the Military and Police, the current state becomes irrelevant as the forces that it derives its authority from have abandoned it.

Maximization of Efficiency and Order.
Maximum efficiency -> Maximum production -> Maximum abundance -> Maximum happiness

how. Planned economies are usually a complete inefficient mess. And in Europe, our middle class sees capitalism as efficient and abundant. Doesn't make us very happy.

People don't like being cogs in a machine, dude.

...

That would be difficult. I would prefer to just stop things.

Interesting, while I think you miss some very important points and should read Marx its not completely retarded and atleast you are honest about your approaches and autism.

These has never been a planned economy that has integrated computers fully into the process.
Chile came close to doing that, but the regime fell before the program was complete.

People seem to like capitalism just fine.

Honestly this "read Marx" attitude needs to stop. Is it possible for you guys to understand that somebody read Marx but disagrees with Marx on some issues? Is Marx God?

No that's my point user. I hate capitalism but I do not think communism should be essentially worse.

Confirmed lol

Oh yes he was, I'm not denying that!

If.

I think hes a good starting point to understand historical processes and that Marxism offers very good critiques of utopianism. And I say that despite being a Communalist.

Chile came close to doing that, but the regime fell before the program was complete.

That's true. Can't predict the consequences of that.

In my experience, they hate the parts but never blame the whole. So, they feel alienated by mass society and despise their job, but it's never capitalism itself that's to blame.

Pure ideology, and so on and so forth

Btw I agree whole-heartedly with anti-materialism, I just don't think fascism has any answers whatsoever. It relies on mass society and nationalism, both of which are essentially artificial. Fascism is a reactive aesthetic which wants to be a form of state, it's not exactly well thought-out.

I guess it sometimes comes over as smug when someone answers a post with "you should read Marx". This attitude has poisoned the debate atmosphere a little bit recently. Leftcoms are worst when it comes to that.

One can just write "Regarding X, have you seen what Marx writes about this?" instead of talking at a poster from above. I'd assume that a lot of people here who post quality posts have read Marx, even when they present a different view contrary to orthodox marxism.

I just think recently the last debates involving Leftcoms have been unnecessarily bitter, emotional and heated. At this point we would just be better if some of us chill out a bit. I didn't mean to pick on you specifically, it's just something I've noticed.

Studies show that the soviet command economy was about as efficient as the West's economy.

jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/

Interesting user, I'll take a look

Something I can add to that:

gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/

...

Yeah you are right, although I dont really feel bad for shitting on technocrats.

Dude, in this article he has a few pages on how the economy was inefficient as shit. He says firms were efficient and then goes on to say market socialism is the best way to run an economy…

Centrally planned economies registered some accomplishments: when Communism came to poor, rural countries like Bulgaria or Romania they were able to industrialize quickly, wipe out illiteracy, raise education levels, modernize gender roles, and eventually ensure that most people had basic housing and health care. The system could also raise per capita production pretty quickly from, say, the level of today’s Laos to that of today’s Bosnia; or from the level of Yemen to that of Egypt.

But beyond that, the system ran into trouble. Here a prefatory note is in order: Because the neoliberal Right has habit of measuring a society’s success by the abundance of its consumer goods, the radical left is prone to slip into a posture of denying this sort of thing is politically relevant at all. This is a mistake. The problem with full supermarket shelves is that they’re not enough — not that they’re unwelcome or trivial. The citizens of Communist countries experienced the paucity, shoddiness and uniformity of their goods not merely as inconveniences; they experienced them as violations of their basic rights. As an anthropologist of Communist Hungary writes, “goods of state-socialist production . . . came to be seen as evidence of the failure of a state-socialist-generated modernity, but more importantly, of the regime’s negligent and even ‘inhumane’ treatment of its subjects.”

In fact, the shabbiness of consumer supply was popularly felt as a betrayal of the humanistic mission of socialism itself.

I'll take a look later user, thanks

Hm, I don't know, sounds like there is a huge bunch of feels > reals in your analysis. Can you pinpoint the things that Soviet consumers decidedly lacked? I mean sports cars would come to mind. I also fail to see how the majority of the Eastern Bloc countries wanted capitalism by 1991, considering that referendums everywhere had huge majorities for keeping the current system. The only case where you got a significant amount of people actually wanting capitalism was the GDR, which is a bit of a special case. The FRG focused on putting shiny elements of capitalism into the East Germans faces, for example building a noble mall like the Kaufhaus des Westens close to the wall and stuff like that.

Another thing the USSR lacked were some specific tropical fruits - this isn't the fault of a planned economy but rather the fact that almost all countries producing bananas were in the western sphere of influence.

See pic. I'm working on reading through D&G's works first and then Lyotard before I move on to Land.

That user is quoting from the article.
To get medicine you needed, for example, you needed to go on the black market. I have a grandmother who worked in a Soviet pharmacy who can tell you all about that one example. There were many others. People stole from each other all the time and trust was eroded. Your system sucks.

I'm sorry, but would you be so kind to actually name what they lacked when and where? Especially concerning medicine I find your anecdotal evidence hard to believe (I have a greatuncle lived in the GDR who said the except opposite), especially looking at the healthcare system of states like Cuba.

I'm on here a lot, so just seek me out if the thread dies, I'll see it most likely

Fuck off Mussolini

Eh dude, not sure if you're that left-accelerationist, but you are aware that capitalism is accelerating us right towards the ecological cliff?

Yeah, I was quoting the article.

Tbf, I actually don't think a centrally planned economy is impossible. By definition, tho, a demand economy is sorta dictatorial as it needs supply to match up to demand (so what type of labour you do, and how much, would be decided for you). I do not see central planning as more liberatory than capitalism: it seems somewhat suffocating to me. Instead of the machine being mystified, your tiny place in it would be both more obvious and more harsh.

A different user but I can relate some family stories. GDR clothes where ugly and off low quality, every girl yearned for western fashion and making your own clothes was widespread.

Foodstuff was often off low quality especially imported ones like fruits and coffee. Sweets like choclate where also of very poor quality or extremely exspensive. Nuts where rare and especially processed tomatoes where only rarely avaible. They also tried to sell incredibly shitty replacement products like aromatized pumpkin replacing pineapple.

There was a general lack of replacement parts.

In the late GDR when the demand for computers rose among smart hobbyists it was almost impossible to get good ones.

The line meme was true, when there was a line somewhere you just joined it because it meant something desirable was avaible.

Also GDR in the end lived of its substance and stopped maintaining infrastructure on mass scale.

I'm curious how well people liked their place in the system. Did they feel alienated? Or did they have a sense of purpose?

I don't see how economic planning isn't more liberating than a capitalist market economy. You are basically taking your destiny into your own hands and overcome a system where you subjugate yourself under an abstract concept of a "market" or the "invisible hand" which is working erratic and whimsical. That's also why I reject most proposes of decentralized planning (at least until we reach definite post-scarcity) because I don't think decentralized planning can be in any way a controlled project. Maoist China serves as an example for that.

However, what we do need is to implement democratic feedback systems for it to be less alienating. By letting state cooperatives compete with each other, post-1956 USSR wanted to the "consumerist" way, which didn't work. I don't think workers under Stalin were alienated, especially reading old accounts of workers and foreign visitors during the time of socialist construction. In capitalism, people are supposed to "vote" with their wallet. Obviously, we need to find a way to emulate that without giving in to consumerist deviations from socialism. Again, I can not urge people to read Paul Cockshott enough.

This isn't GDR related, but I recommend you to read John Scotts "Behind the Urals". It's the account of an American writer working in the Magnitogorsk steel factory in the 1930s, during the first Five Year Plan. He joined the CIA later so he surely is a critical source. He basically describes how workers, even though the work was hard, believed in building a factory for themselves, for the future. Workers even talked about how they produce stuff for use and not for exchange. Sounds like alienation almost didn't exist under Stalin.

Don't mind the weird grammar sometimes, I wrote this on my phone and autocorrect is a cruel mistress

Most people where alienated af and worked very unefficient. Nobody cared about the house they lived in. Workers motivation to increase efficiency was almost zero despite multiple campaigns. Most people werent politically involved in any sense and learned socialist theory like agnostics learn the bible if forced. Your job was save, your opinion did not matter, your creativity was ignored and in the end you just worked. The bueraucratisation even made people in managing jobs or designing jobs uninterested because they had to implement long term plans by some faceless comittee working with badly allocated or not enough ressources and almost no abillity to create their own ideas.

The rise of neonazis in the late GDR is a result of that and imo the same goes for the horrible treatment of nature.

Thanks user, will do. Always interesting to get a picture of the time period. I do remember that , under Stalin, workers believed in the utopia that was promised and believed they were all working towards it (even accepting working to death for the sake of their children, if I remember correctly). But even those beliefs fade with time. Still, will read the source and judge then!

I don't really get how central planning is taking your destiny into your own hands. You are told what to do by a central authority, that's the point of it.

Also, talking about the GDR, people may have felt alienated from their labor (not sure, hard to say) but usually the big state cooperatives (Kombinate) played a huge social role. They had kindergartens, retirement homes, community events, etc. Your company was some kind of family. This is mostly what ex-DDR citizens miss about modern capitalist workplaces.

Agricultural work was probably the least alienating in the DDR since it also had strong workplace democracy.

Yeah that's what I would expect. Interesting contrast with the early Stalin period as the user above described. Thanks for the reply user.

Eh but that conflicts with what the user above says, that they just didn't care and worked, worked, worked, completely alienated from the system.

The question is how much of that workers motivation was almost religious revolutionary energy and believe in progress and how much was systemic. I think decentralisation democratisation and shortening of product cycles is extremely important to overcome that. Puplic makerspaces where people can design and produce their own parts and products for personal use are probably also a necessary tool.

Agree, but I don't think implementation of democracy into the planning itself (at least on the bigger scale) was impossible during the 30s. The Gosplan was a technocracy, that's correct, but they also had some really smart people in it. That being said, there was still a lot of bottom-up planning existing, not regarding big industrial projects of course - which is logical, since Stalin often didn't have the authority in regions further away from Moscow. I refuse to believe that operations there could have been possible without strong local demcratic support.

Obviously, it isn't the 1930s anymore and this isn't Russia. We should definitely implement more democratic feedback as well as reciprocal participative systems for a modern version of soviet planning, involving computers, but I don't think that you'll ever have a democratic consensus through a referendum or something concerning the Gosplan level.

It doesnt conflict that much, many people have their coworkers as friends and still are alienated af. GDR brought both into extremes. Remember that people had not much influence on the daily running of the economy or where extremely uninterested so while they identified with their coworkers they had no real relation to the factory and the goods they produced.

You cant see this to seperated from a general alienatiom from the state that governs you through surveilance and opression, so the workplace was allways something hostile because it was state propperty and not collective propperty.

Yeah but that's not true. He may be right about shitty products (I'd have to look into that) but people had shorter workdays than in capitalism and definitely didn't work themselves to death. I mean, isn't that almost all the time the central argument of right-wing critique? That people didn't work enough? What people got upset about in the DDR was that the economy operated under exchange value. Basically in the 70s revisionist USSR decided to turn Eastern Europe into a sweatshop for the west. Pretty much all of IKEA was produced in the DDR. That led to cooperatives having a "competitive nature" in terms of their own overproduction, and managers often made numbers up to appeal to the polticial powers. This made people very upset, as they found out sooner or later that the goods that they supposedly produced didn't exist so they felt betrayed by their managers, not the ones involved in production, but the ones who worked as middlemen for the commodity allocation.

This didn't happen much in Russia, because Russian are usually more vigilant about these things and straight up physically removed the manager. Germans are just generally more subservient to bureaucracy.

Eh, consent isn't democratic per se. A lot of people consented to the nazis or to Mussolini, for example. Plus, it's not even enthusiastic per se. It can also be derived from intimidation. So, people could just agree with the gist of communism or be afraid of the dangers of dissent.

Tbh I'm really unsure as to the best economic system. Politically I'm weird as fuck (I sorta like some post-leftist ideas for example). Right now I sorta lean to the idea of temporary communes that are mostly self-reliant, as a way of combatting the alienation of the mass society.

But the downside of that is that it'd make people a lot poorer than we are now. That's my eternal conundrum: the more specialized and large-scale your economy is, the more effective it produces. And the more alienating it will be.

Oh, sorry, I was sorta misleading there. I just meant that working was just an experience of toil and boredom, apparently. But you could cut a lot of that if you just ripped out the consumerist shit.

Oh shit I accidentally selected that flag XD. Ignore that flag plz

I didnt want to claim that people worked themselves to death. They only drank themselves to death in some more desolate regions of the GDR. Also we have to consider the reasons why the GDR developed an export focus, it wasnt just revisionism. You are on point though about the issue of miss reporting, which was a resul of the bueraucratisation and centralisation though. People where only more accepting of these issues than in the UDSSR becausr living standards where higher in the GDR not some cultural spook shit.

I didn't see the post you were referring to. Yeah I can definitely accept some of that critique but I think some of it is exaggerated. I've talked to a lot of people who were adults in the DDR, and you'll get very different opinions. Some people say it was shit, saying the exact same stuff like the other user, some say it had good things and bad things, and some say it was better than West Germany. I think most of the time people are upset about how managers lied to them about the production output.

Thankfully this is changing fast rn, the material conditions are changing and all serious leftist movements will profit.

Agree but in my opinion this is the result of production for exchange under a planned economy. Soviet Union actually did have production for use, for three decades at least, till 1956. What people mostly critisize about that period was how democratic it was, and opinions obvious vary between MLs and non-MLs. However I don't think some fetish for democracy alone e.g. voting at your workplace overcomes alienation. I mean working at a cooperative can be just a annoying and tedious, try voting on who's is going to clean the pipes next week.

Thats a shit example. You decide on how to distribute the shit jobs fairly on everyone becaue people arent retarded. Kinda agree with the rest though except on Stalin ofc, but its allways a joy to have a decent discussion across sectarian lines.

I'd say it was the wrong implementation of bureaucratization and centralization. Germany had traditionally a strong dichotomy between bureaucrat and private citizen. In Russia, bureaucracy was more interlodged with private citizenry, it's the classic ML idea of making everybody a bureaucrat so nobody is a bureaucrat.

Come on, don't be an ideological drumhead. Culture is part of the superstructure and is important. I mean wouldn't you thay Confuzianism massively subjugated the people of China under some "obey - don't rebel" mentality? After all that was the main reason Mao did his Cultural Revolution.

Lol one of the things I like about post-leftism is Bob Black's criticism of democracy.

Dunno if alienation is fixed by producing for use, though. People usually just feel alienated because, if they die, almost no one would really care except friends since they are so replaceable. So, by the logic of this observation, production would have to be for the people that matter to you to be non-alienating.

Tbf if we don't cut production we're prob. gonna drive ourselves off the ecological cliff.

Same, I'm really liking this discussion.

Probably was a (literally, kek) shit example. Just wanted to express that I see the existence of exchange value as the crux of the matter.

Btw, I'll use a flag now so we can differentiate between ourselves.

Also I forgot to add that the living standard wasn't very good in the GDR after the war, and by 1950, the living standard in the USSR was amazing, on par with the USA.

There is a reason USA went crazy under McCarthy against communism to the point where they surgically wanted to remove the parts of the brain that make you communist (yes that really happened). They pissed their pants because socialism seemed to keep on rolling. Only in the 70s they became more relaxed about it because they sensed that the USSR couldn't keep up in the long term (which doesn't mean that the fall of the USSR in 1991 was necessarily inevitable)

It seems like a cop out to mention culture as a main reason why an economic system failed. Clearly you need to adabt according to local traditions but east germany was and is very prussian in its conception of bureaucracy and I would rather argue that this is the reason why it worked somewhat well, but any decent system should be able to tweak itself which the GDR economic system was barely able too, and especially if the current way goes against your culture it should be able to. The political system played a far bigger role in making people quitly subserviant to the bureaucrats imo.

Yeah, this seems to be a problem with communes as well. Most communes fall prey to jealousies and domination of one or a few persons. But communes can be disassembled and then reformed with other people; a society can't just take such a step.

thread ended here

Count me in, fellow technoscat.

t. soon-to-be sky marshal (or marshal of internal security if you wish to sit upon the throne.)

100% de-alienation is not possible unless we are talking about the far future. However, people seem to love to organize themselves in community politics which concerns more than just their immediate circle of peers. Industry producing for local use should not be alienating then, and big industry producing for nationwide use should at least prevent alienation insofar as you can say "see those roads everywhere? We built them". Right now in modern capitalism almost every big industry is retail and designed for export (in the West at least) which alienates the worker a lot more.

Sadly the cold war and the senseless building of weaponry will make a fair judgement of ths soviet economy very hard for ever. The McCarthy era was to a good part though a paranoid reaction to internal opposition all the way to the 70s its very hard to destinguish how much was paranoid delusions and internal poltics and how much was genuine fear of the soviets.

Ecological collapse wont be the issue, we need to be lucky af with climate change but everything else is survivable for human civilisation and the historical process. Neo-Malthusian worries are not relevant and growth no longer dependant on higher exploitation of nature is just going to increase exploitation. We are not going to fall of some ressource cliff, capitalism can deal with that stuff just fine for a while.

*just going to increase worker exploitation

I am getting tired and incoherent.

I didn't say that. I mentioned is an example as to why a specific problem occurred.

Not sure, people are spooked about Prussian efficiency. I believe what kept the system working was a belief in a bureaucratic masterrace (the same way they believed that Prussian generals are a masterrace in World War II, which they were not, they failed on a strategic level). Something going back to Bismarck and the general mentality of the East Prussian Junkertum which can, it it's ideological history, traced back to the teutonic knights. But that's derailing this thread right now.

I think Žižek would argue that the fact that the DDR bureaucracy worked in dichotomy to the private citizen is, when you make the negation, both the reason for its survival as well as for its destruction.

Tbh, I never got that impression (that people like communal politics). I'm Dutch and where I live, people want to be left alone.

True, it might very well be better.

McCarthy and his gang were nutcases, but they weren't delusional. If I was alphabet soup in the 50s, I'd shit my pants seeing how the USSR almost surpasses us in GDP per capita and how communism wins in China.

Reagans arms race was done from a way more laid-back, self-confident position, I believe most of the deep state already knew they are going to be the one victorious at that point.

Yeah me, going to bed now

Hm, but now you're not proving anything, just putting a couple of statements that need backing behind one another. I guess we both need sleep :)

That's because our European municipal and communal politics are absolute dogshit the way they are organized. I live in Bavaria, and I get the impression that it works better the more rural the area is and the smaller the communal units are.

I think communal politics are less alienating in Australia, for example. At least that was my impression when I went there. Probably some Aussi is going to BTFO me on that one

Well thank you, but please feel free to highlight anything you believe that I have 'missed'.

Did you ever think why we need even more ideologies?

You should work off of already established theories and political ideolgies to build a system that will work for your people in the particular situation they're in. If it's workable and it resonates, it will become an ideology naturally. Anyone serious about politics does this naturally, I believe.