Editing Systematic ideology (section)

== Theory ==
The theory of the group developed over time and was re-christened systematic ideology by Walford in 1976. Its basic premise was that people's assumptions and identifications (the factors making up their ideology) are not explicable in terms of [[materialism|material conditions]] in general and their relationship to the [[means of production]] in particular—and are never likely to be. Instead, there are persistent and distinct ideological groups in society, cutting across [[social class]]es and forming a series, with the largest groups being most typically guided in their thoughts and actions by a preference for family, authority, familiarity and tradition. Politically, these preferences find predominant expression in the ideas of the large number of so-called non-politicals in society and in [[conservatism]] and then [[liberalism]] (the strength of these preferences gradually weakening through the series).

As the series progresses further, the next, progressively smaller, ideological groups seek to repress these identifications and preferences in favor of dynamism, social change, logical thought and the pursuit of theory as a guide to decision-making, these being expressed politically in [[labourism]], more overtly still in [[communism]] and then in an ultimate and extreme form in [[anarchism]] (or [[Libertarian socialism|anarcho-socialism]], the purist variety of it allegedly expounded by the SPGB). The more an ideology represses the preferences for family, tradition and so on in favour of social change, dynamism and the pursuit of theory as a guide to action, the fewer in number its adherents are likely to be, with anarchists (or anarcho-socialists) being the smallest of all. Those seeking radical social change, so the theory contends, will always be hampered and restrained by the enduring preferences of the largest ideological groups.

=== George Walford ===
In his book ''Beyond Politics'', George Walford seeks to analyse ideologies on the basis of its adherents' surface behaviors, their underlying sentiments and assumptions ("ethos") and underlying cognitions ("eidos"). Of particular interest to him are a single group, the non-politicals; and five major political ideologies (conservatism, liberalism, socialism, communism and anarchism) which can be listed as a series, with each seeking to repress its predecessor. He forms a series of hypotheses about the nature of those six ideologies, observing that they may be gauged upon different dimensions. According to relative size and political influence of its adherents, their relative reliance upon theory over practice and the degree to which they sought change. He postulates that the non-politicals have the greatest influence and least interest in theory while anarchists exhibit the least influence and greatest interest in theory, with the rest having mixed degrees of those properties.

He also formulates that each is relative to certain ideological ethos: a) (short-term) expediency; b) (traditional) principles; c) precision; d) (fundamental) reform; e) revolution; and e) repudiation. By his formulations, historical change, development of technology and development of more complicated social relations can be explained as occurring in stages along this series:

# For Walford, all societies historically begin in a state where a mass of individuals engage in expediency at the hunter-gatherer level. This state of affairs is characterized by short-term individual economic behavior and collective political action.
# Societies grow to have more advanced and secure political systems at the same time that they make better use of agricultural technology with more long-term goals in mind. In the process, economic behavior becomes more and more collectivistic. From then on, the societies engage in wars and conquer. Empires grow and create obedience with the mask of traditional principles.
# Finally, societies enter a stage where principles espoused actually begin to be followed, enacted, and made more precise. Similarly, economic production becomes more bureaucratic and rationally goal-oriented.
# The remaining three forms of ethos—reform, revolution, and repudiation—when taken together are seen to compose the envisioned fourth stage in historical development.

While some other philosophers have expressed the opinion that political liberalism is the peak or end-stage of historical development (see [[Francis Fukuyama]]'s "End of History" thesis), Walford claims the opposite, saying: "More than ever before, our world is a boiling, bounding, bubbling ferment of ideological novelty, and the rate of change is accelerating. If the ideological system has reached completion it is only in the sense that a newborn child is complete".