- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist party, UK ) on March 31, 1999 at 12:28:04:

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

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

As well it might, since an ideology is 'alienated' from is producing class, and projected above it to appear neutral, and classless, so sometimes, as in teh recent Pinochet case, an ideology can be used against the ruling class- think of it like Judo- they put out a hand to restrain us, but we can grab it and throw them over, or they can shift position to stop us.

: 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.

Hmmm- but Gramsci's hegemony theory comes in here- he states that what we have is a ruling elite, that has a certain set of ideas, but in order to stay in power, they must have as broad a consensus as possible, people must agree with the system to work under it- other groups have other ideas, but the ruling group will shift ideas, form 'coalitions' with various groups, in roder to ensure that they remain in charge.

Hence we have fascist groups waiting in the wings, at the moment they oppose the dominant hegemonical ideas, but if things turn bad, the elite may turn to them to try and form a new coalition, and in the end analysis, will use them to justify using force to stay in power...

Hence we end up with an anlaysis featuring the dominant, and various oppositional, or outsider ideological currents.

: 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? 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.

No, the Chicago school demonstrate a split in capitalist thinking, at teh moment hegemony is supported by one theory, but within bourgeoise intelectuals there is a conflict going on, and if Hegemony needs the chicago schools ideas, it will use them...

: 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:

c)the master is in two minds, and can't decide what he wants to do.

Ideology is formed by division of labour- specificallymental division of labour, capitalist hegemony necessarilly needs competiting ideas so it can keep moving, and stay fresh, if ideologies didn't change capitalism would stagnate.

Further, the Chicago school opposes the IMF for a different reason- for capitalist reasons, I oppose the IMF, because its a part of capitalism, and I oppose all capitalism.

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

This post:
2:Straw man?

: a) The School of Chicago, Gee, the Good Doc', myself, et al are immoral and evil
: b) The above also oppose the IMF and World Bank
: c) Gideon (specifically) opposes the IMF and WB.

: Does this mean that Gideon is evil and immoral?

We are all evil. Praise the dark one.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup