Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Prototype
Items
Properties
All Categories
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Philosophical Research
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Ontology:CapitalismNotMonolith
(section)
Ontology
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|Prototype]] notes == <ol class="hue clean reset"> <li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z" submitter="vidak">Australian Labor Party </li><li class="field_exstruct" value="618" data-dimension="Z" submitter="vidak">Australian Council of Trade Unions </li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="Z" submitter="vidak"><cite>The Dominant Ideology Thesis</cite> (Turner, Abercrombie, & Hill 1981) </li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2" submitter="vidak" data-remark="RD on 2019 essay">[S2] There is no such thing as the dominance of capitalist ideology [https://vidak.substack.com/p/hypermaterialism-ideology-under-late] -> cool thought, but I am gonna have to push back on that one. ideologies exist in the form of socially-linked groups of people configuring themselves a particular way (sociophilosophies). some of these ideologies benefit the reproduction of capitalism. some ideologies are neutral, like a socially-linked group of Trotskyists scrambling to try to stoke workers' movements but maybe not figuring it out. some ideologies are particularly bad, like Existentialism-Structuralism. almost everybody believes this ideology just because it's the easiest ideology to subscribe to aside from fascism. yet when people believe Existentialism they go off in every direction competing against each other, thinking that changing their own perceptions of what's possible and Freely Willing really hard can get them whatever they want, and continuing to believe that even when it leads different demographic identities to fight over economic structures and hate each other's identity politics movements. some fraction of them and some small fraction of that with rather specific goals will become territory owners. thus Existentialism generates the bourgeoisie, and it helps them, and it's everywhere, "dominating" the country, but the bourgeoisie don't actually design Existentialism specifically to suit their own interests, they just let it keep spreading around because it helped them get where they are and the lack of good ideologies aids them. there's no need for owners to deliberately promote their own bespoke ideologies to manufacture a particular kind of society, not when people's default stupidity literally achieves the same goal. right-Liberalism goes around every so often but only a select few people believe it. at the same time, "capitalists' favorite ideology" they would much rather see than Marxism can still <i>predominate</i>, and it can still predominate in a replacing, "let's put South Korea over the top of Korea" type way, exactly to the point it is acting in the sense of "bourgeois ideology" mentioned in older Marxist texts. "bourgeois ideology" means something, and Existentialism-Structuralism is basically serving that role. </li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="S2" submitter="vidak" data-remark="RD on 2019 essay">[S2] Upper classes create the only visible ideology </li><li class="field_ML" value="618" data-dimension="F2" submitter="vidak" data-remark="RD on 2019 essay">[F2] Upper classes create the only ideology that exists [https://vidak.substack.com/p/hypermaterialism-ideology-under-late] -> yeah. in these two forms the point is fine. if the claim is that a proletarian SPS cannot be generated and some models are saying there is only one society with no plurality of countable ideologies at all, that is clearly not correct. you always see a few people trying to push for everyone that isn't owners and notably people who can't work physically or are arbitrarily pushed out of society like the Stonewall "illegal gay bars being funded by the mafia" incident. the weird thing about the "class consciousness" you actually see is that it is very often anarchist and really bad at recognizing ""artists"" as owners and some other kinds of small shops. the natural class consciousness people develop without being organized is bizarrely a lot more ideological than we want to admit, in the sense of developing into a very specific philosophy rather than just an understanding that the proletariat exists. </li></ol> [[Category:Anarchism ontology]]
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Philosophical Research may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar
free resource
.
Copyright is complete nonsense
, but people do have to buy items to be able to charge anyone taxes.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)