Re: Comments

["Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 17:24 29/05/98 +0000, Mason Clark (I think) wrote:
>3
>  Responding to recent comments on the list"
....

>      "Ideology is inherent in market societies,
>       which are split down the middle between capital(ists)
>       and labor(ers). I wish it wasn't so,"
>
>  It *isn't* so -- at least in the U.S.  Laborers fantasize themselves
>  or their children becoming wealthy.  They persistently vote for what
>  will benefit the wealthy.

	Misplaced referent.  It is not ideology that is split down the
middle in the above perspective, it is society.
	Of course this *could* lead to an ideological split, but a polarised
social system might not be as effective at reproducing itself as a system
where common ideological language is used to legitimate authority and to
grant some rights to those who are under that authority.
	Specifically, framing the institutional rules which protect capitalist
rights to authority within corporations as if they are the same rules that
laborers depend upon to build up the personal resources to help them cope
with their position is an effective way of keeping ideology from being
split along the lines that society is split.


Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx