The marxist consept of "ideology" is intresting. Marx created this word, and in its original meaning it means something like "theory that makes people act against what is in their best intrest". This theory is often religious (Lenins famous quote about "religion being the opium of the people"), but it can also be political. The left and the right have created different theories of manipulation in order to disiplin the people and make them act in the intrest of the political and economical elite. The theories of the left and the right are offcourse always devoloped further by people who are payd (by rich people) to make theoretical noise, but they can they both follow a certain "theme" wich is the foundation that the other theories grow from.
The leftwing theme:
The state represent the will of the people, thus - the state must be as big as possible, and have as much direct controll as possible over both production and the daily lives of its servants. Activites that are not controlled and directed by the state happens against the will of the people, because the will of the people is the state.
The rightwing theme:
Capitalism is the only alternative to the evils of the parliamentary left
some sort of combination and compromise beetween the flawed consepts above is the best. Compromise and political trades are always positive. Good for the politician that can alow himself more flexibility, and have a easier way to the top in a situation where the rightwing and leftwing theme is equaly strong. Good for the people because "the middleroad is always the best"
To try to challenge these themes is offcourse impossible, and also unwise because those who maintain the illusions above only accept criticism that creates more theory - So according to Sorel, the only way to stop it is by withdrawing from their "democratic" institutions, and to deal with the different powerbrokers and their destructive activities in a more instinctive way. First and foremost by listening to ones emotions, and then by using non-democratic and anti-democratic tools if one gets angry enough to actualy do something (strikes, protests, sivil disobidence)
It will offcourse take time to accomplish annything in this way (A population of Sorelians would be unruly, angry, childish, somethimes violent, and completly disintrested in the lives and carriers of their masters in parliament and their theories) but after some time, destructive institutions such as the army, the education-system, parliamentarism and the welfare-state would start to collapse, but capitalist liberalism would last much longer, as it does not need the active support of its servants - like socialism and social democracy does - and also because it is much less destructive. The liberal rightwing-dicatorship that Sorels sees as a potential, and positive developement within capitalism can survive for a very long time under pressure from a angry, sorelian population - but socialism and social democracy will break easily. Marx himself said that socialism would take all the good stuff from capitalism with it (liberalism, multiculturalism, small or non-existing state, and so on) in order to function. But over time, capitalism would offcourse also have to be replaced by something different, and Sorel (as the anarcho-syndicalist he was) is offcourse completly in line with the doctrine of anarcho-syndicalism here.
However, this takes a loooooong time - And this is why Sorel stresses the value of well-functioning anarcho-syndicalism, and marxist socialism (the kind of socialism where the state has ceases to exist) as a energizing "myth" that drives anti-parliamentary and anti-socialist (in its statist meaning) action foreward. Also, the anti-democratic and direct action is collective where the anonymous ritual of voting is individualist. By breaking the chains of democracy through non-participation, a huge part of the individualist myth (wich is one of the most surpressive myths of the rightwing) is broken. That way, collectivism is re-introduced into the lives of millions of people who have previously been trained to be ultral-selfish individualists
Is this cool or what? I think its extremly important to dig up Sorel again, because he has some very important thoughts on how one can stop the movement towards increased surveillance, slavery, totalitarianism and socialism that the left (and perhaps also many forces on the right, more resources went into survailance and controll under the Bush-administration in the US, and simular parties here in Europe might follow this trend, even though they claim to be liberalists) are working towards right now.