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". So, what if this dominant ideology turns against its maker? 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. No ruling ideology theory can be supported, then, if those proportedly comprising its constitution oppose its very foundation.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.
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:
a) Lark, Deathy, Qx, et al are part of the ruling class.
b) the School of Chicago is the herald of the proletariate.
So, which is it guys? Is the School of Chicago socialist? Or are y'all capitalist?
As a bonus question:
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?
