I think it can be instructive if the actual life of the philosopher is related to their moral philosophy. Nietzsche was sickly as a child, and had serious health problems all his life, many relationship disappointments, job issues, and yet his answer was a beautiful idea he termed Amor Fati. Love your fate. Love the good AND the bad. Love it so much that you will be reluctant to go to Heaven.
Or consider Foucault and Sartre. Child molesters and perverts in private life. I try to consider what they write with an open mind, but it's hard to separate their writing from the men themselves.
If you are reading communist writers, most of them fell far short of living out the principles they espoused. To me this indicates that it's far easier to describe the perfect person, or the perfect governmental system, than it is to live it out. And here's where they fail. Communism depends on a person who has never lived and will never live. It depends on a great amount of altruism, and a person who will not misuse unlimited power (power of the state). This requires a near perfect person, in fact a society of near perfect people. Democracy, along with Capitalism, acknowledges and guards against the inevitable shortcomings of people. Democracy builds in checks and balances, protection for the minority, and individual rights are spelled out. Capitalism tries to redirect the inevitable greed and competition into a positive for society. The hard part of democracy is figuring how much to regulate that greed and competition. Communism, on the other hand, can get out of control very quickly, and end up one man, one party rule.
Very well said. Same goes for socialism, libertarianism and fascism.
By the way, certain fascist principles,
(THE PRINCIPLES, not the boilerplate social ideology) are ideal in a corporate setting.
Some socialist principles,
(again the PRINCIPLES and NOT the boilerplate social ideology) work well in a social setting, in the public sphere, so to speak.
Your warning about the potential volatility of democracy, and to the extent to which it may be applied, is reminiscent of the warnings of the founders. They too understood that democracy, while egalitarian to a fault, contains enormous potential for abuse, and can, under the worst circumstances, devolve into mob rule and tyranny of even a slight majority.
Hence the reason they compartmentalized it into the framework of a constitutional republic and left democracy to govern representative elections and then delegated the remainder to the states.
All I ask is that NO ideology or system, be it capitalist economics, libertarianism, socialism, fascism, or any other, be elevated and purified to the level of religious dogma. All of these things are only ingredients in a recipe, and in social, political and economic endeavors, there are many ways to apply them.
One is by force, one is by the voice and will of the people, or it may be applied by recommendations of councils of experts in a technocratic manner; there are many ways to apply such ingredients but I offer the suggestion that perhaps outcome based expectation is a fair measure provided that it is tempered with a healthy respect for the democratic process and respect for checks and balances.
The recipe is supposed to yield something which, in a free country, is palatable and digestible to the people, something which is capable of empowering them, something which has the potential to help them grow and grow strong and prosperous, while taking care of the vulnerable and less fortunate to at least some reasonable measure.
Thank you for your well thought out and well written post, Waddy.