- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Meanwhile...back at the Institute for Jacobean Excuses

Posted by: Quincunx on March 30, 1999 at 11:41:16:

In Reply to: The Poverty of the 'Ruling Ideology' Theory posted by Joel Jacobson on March 29, 1999 at 16:13:08:

JJ: The dominant ideology theory from Marx is one that has appeared here repeatedly, mostly in the form of analysis of the state as the tool of legitimizing private property and, therefore, the means of "extraction of surplus value" and "exploitation".

Qx: This is an attempt to reduce many criticisms of to being "Marxist". Joel needs to do some reading.

JJ: So, what if this dominant ideology turns against its maker?

Qx: Then Joel could be supplied with the excuse that it's an "employer's market".

JJ: One black swan refutes the assertion that swans are white and so does the assertion that a ruling ideology is governing of its consitituents if these same constituents oppose it.

Qx: Very weak analogy since many places on the face of the globe are inhabited by majorities of their respective populations who oppose the ruling ideologies of their respective domeinant elites.

JJ: No ruling ideology theory can be supported, then, if those proportedly comprising its constitution oppose its very foundation.

Qx: There is such a thing as hiding ones true intents. Ever heard of the ?

JJ: So, what then, of the School of Chicago? Several here have asserted that the World Bank and the IMF, existing at the bequest of the "capitalist ruling class", are to be rejected as machinations of said class. Why, then, does the School of Chicago oppose this specific and particular entity and its supposed ends?

Qx: The Chicago School is pretty much indefensible in what it has done by producing so many pseudo-scientists who call themselves "economists" and many of these rational courtesans go to such places as the IMF and the World Bank. There is such a thing as public relations and one shouldn't be surprised that rightwing wingnuts make hay over some of the most innocuous issues.

In short, the people heading up the Chicago School of Economics are still enamored of neo-classical economics and so is the World Bank and the IMF. The feuds between the rival orders of Jesuits and Benedictines was pretty much the same in flavor.

JJ: If we apply Hegel and Marx's Identity of Opposites then The Chicago School must be of either one or the other; master or slave.

Qx: You're not too bright Joel but go ahead and keep shooting yourself in the foot. Here's a link to read.

JJ: If, according to this doctrine, Master Capitalism supports the IMF then The School of Chicago is truly socialist (i.e. slave). But, if Deathy, Lark, et al, are indeed of the slave/proletariate and agree with the School of Chicago regarding the IMF and World Bank then:

Qx: This is the juicy part where does his best to show that the Chicago School of Economics is truly socilaist. I wonder of he understands that it basically supports socialism for the rich.

JJ: a) Lark, Deathy, Qx, et al are part of the ruling class.

Qx: Which is an indicator of how Joel wants to twist this thread into a finger-pointing contest. Not too good.

JJ: b) the School of Chicago is the herald of the proletariate.

Qx: In Joel's wildest dreams and irrationally at that.

JJ: So, which is it guys? Is the School of Chicago socialist? Or are y'all capitalist?

Qx: The Chicago School of Economics is pretty much been shot to hell by the fact that the economists ( i.e., fortune-tellers) make forecasts that have been consistently unrealistic and when applied to the real, material world is found wanting. Read some more about Chile and the lies that Fibertatians like to flout on the Internet about how that economy fared during the Pinochet years.

JJ: As a bonus question:

Qx: Actually, as a bogus question or even a non-question....

JJ: a) The School of Chicago, Gee, the Good Doc', myself, et al are immoral and evil

Qx: I think amoral and anti-social would be the terms to be appropriately applied to the policies supported by the Chicago School. Calling people "immoral" and "evil" via this medium is rather dodgy but then again you've been quite prone to being dodgy. However, I do think Gee and Dr. Cruel are smarter than you and more capable of applying critical thought.

JJ: b) The above also oppose the IMF and World Bank

Qx: I feel they do that for basically reasons of ideological purity more than the real world sufferiongs perpetuated by the IMF and the World Bank.

JJ: c) Gideon (specifically) opposes the IMF and WB.

Qx: And for better reasons than the Chicago School of Economics, Gee, Dr. Cruel, and Joel. *hint( read Gideon's postings for those reasons).

JJ: Does this mean that Gideon is evil and immoral?

Qx: What it means is that you're so hell-bent on winning an argument that you've been digging a hole that has swallowed up your (and other pro-capitalists') credibility. For the readers who read here and know better your posting binge is direct evidence of that.

P.S.: Please provide evidence that the Chicago School of Economics really does oppose the policies of the IMF and the World Bank.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup