When doing philosophy, I do try very hard to keep my ego out of the final analysis. This is very hard to do; in the end you just have to be mindful of your own projection, and sort of extrapolate a world around that projection as if you hadn't existed.
Just talking about many concepts, systems of thought, and modes of administration can provoke a reaction without you thinking about it. I and many others have been excluded from a nominally "capitalist" system (and even this isn't entirely true) so the first reaction is a sort of "ew gross" or even a "youch," as if you've been zapped and can't help but resent that bare wire just a little bit.
So the ideology that forms from this experience is going to have this sort of "youch" affectation built into it. I happen to think that these provincial modes of thought, though gratifying to a wounded ego, are not necessarily productive or useful unless you are trying to gratify tons of egos, which is always a dangerous proposition, though you can sure get some quick and powerful results! Though these results will most likely be perishable. So I'm going to try to counteract that by saying to myself, well OK so this system formed out of processes thousands of years old and has developed in a direction that is pretty difficult for any one person, organization, or even state or nation to control. However there remains the fact that something is going wrong, and that we should collectively be doing something to fix it.
Which is still a response that is peculiar to the way that I think. And maybe that is OK. The mere fact that one is writing and thinking necessitates that one lives amongst human relations and interests. One necessarily has the desire to help, to do good, however daunting the task seems as a whole. So you have it that that an ego looks out upon the world and sees other egos in pain and says to itself: how to reverse this state of affairs? Or at least assuage the myriad problems?
We can complicate this problem by acknowledging that there are many ideas of what the ego actually is: there is a simpler conception that sees the ego as simply the continuous and somewhat circumscribed entity that experiences, or the psychoanalytic conception that sees the ego as a distinct mechanism in a causal relationship with other mechanisms like the superego and the id, or the conception of the ego or self as a distinct object that can be held in conscious attention - who you think you are, or finally, the ego or self as this distinct, lasting entity, this sort of distinct presence.
And then perhaps each conception can tell us something independently. But for our purposes let's just say the ego is whatever is thinking and experiencing as a distinct subject.
Anyways, at the risk of contradicting what I wrote a little earlier, perhaps it is better to let go of the idea that one can be completely free of one's own subjectivity. We have this curious cultural tendency to shrink from taking a position of any kind, perhaps attributable to being steeped in an individualist culture for so long; one gets in the habit of tucking in one's elbows, so to speak, or attempting to brandish the shield of "objectivity" in as prominent a position as possible to ward off all of those nasty attacks that are often directed at those that think differently, or better yet, are of a different opinion.
Of course the attempt at objectivity can be useful in some disciplines (I'm thinking of the hard sciences, engineering, and mathematics, and there is even some fuziness within those; good) and it tends to make much more rigorous a given body of thought, but we do also have to acknowledge that we are a certain species at a certain historical position which sees the world in a certain way. There are some basic fundamentals we can get down, such as "water is wet" and whatnot if we can all agree on certain definitions and semantic relations, but many of our other conjectures oscillate through various stages of stability and instability, but I've gone way off the path now.
I'm going to twist this mobius strip a little further and suggest that maybe I'm not contradicting myself after all. It isn't a terrible idea to try one's level best to account for as many facts as possible, across a variety of perspectives, and to attempt to smother one's ego to understand as clearly as possible this greater reality. However one necessarily exists in relation to a given historical period, and by implication, to one's own ego. The impulse to smother one's ego is an act of ego; one is still altering one's extension in space, is one not? Besides, more and more people hear the word "capitalism" and get a little "yick" feeling in the stomach, and perhaps that is a good thing.
Shit smells bad and we don't like how it looks. Living long enough with the fact that it is probably dangerous to-reconsume or even live in proximity to has taught us instinctually to stay away from it.
Capitalism requires unlimited growth to function correctly (yes, yes perfect free markets establish equilibria and blah, but we are human beings remember) and perhaps we should be doing away with unlimited growth. Good then! Let capitalism "stink" to our egos and let's be done with it. It had a great run.
A good reaction, but to get my previous point home, the "yick," the "yuck," the "ew gross" and the "youch" are useful sentiments but let's not get too hung up on them. The communists hated the guts of the capitalist pigs and then it got them in an existential game of antagonism - and I know this isn't entirely fair, the US empire was going to hurumph-against and eventually try to squash whatever it didn't like.
But for all practical purposes, establishing oneself in opposition to something ideological necessarily transforms oneself into the mirror image of that ideological object of hate; one beckons the forces of mimesis and antagonism. A truly revolutionary ideology turns away from the object of hate - perhaps with a little pity - as if it is an old beached ship sinking into the mud. A revolutionary ideology seeks to live above all else, and on its own terms.
