![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The "Two versions" are a horrible way to explain dominant ideologies. The phrases top-down and bottom-down dont even match with the distinctions proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.20.226 ( talk) 20:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
A reference to the essays where Marx talks about this would be helpful. There are currently no citations or external links. 129.19.1.130 ( talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I find it very difficult to believe that this concept did not predate Marx's work and if it did the intro should not imply that it did not. — Cupco 20:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a good read. It says a lot more about why dominant ideology has less power than in early capitalism and before (e.g., the severance between ownership and control) and some related topics that I'll eventually add if someone doesn't get to it first. I checked some of the recent citing references to make sure it was being cited favorably. — Cupco 11:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Editor Cupco:
Please abide Fifelfoo's advice, and fully inform yourself about this MARXIST subject. Yes, it has non-Marxist versions in its quiver, but, as such, as the Dominant Ideology it originated in the work of Magister K.H. Marx. Your poor, hurried writing, replete with spelling and grammar errors, AND the sock puppetry, betray BAD EDITORIAL WILL, and other ideological baggage, with which you have simplistically over-simplified the article. In this case, despite the historical background, the subject (not the concept) cannot be realistically divorced from Marxism. . . .
So, gird your loins, do the wider reading, and participate in good faith; be a sport, not a spoil sport. Knowing whereof you speak makes you credible. . . really, it does.
Best regards,
Mhazard9 ( talk) 15:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Google just vastly expanded the source documents in their N-gram viewer today.
It now appears that only one of the several uses of "dominant ideology" from 1800-1928 in the new corpus are explicitly Marxist. From 1929 to the present the vast majority are, for what it's worth. Plexis Pi ( talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up
Dear Plexis:
Your work is valuable and worthwhile, because it underscores the intellectual and practical validity of Marxist philosophy and theory, at this very, very late date (?) in the Twenty-first Century. Especially in the cases of right-wing plagiarism, wherein semi-, demi-, quasi-, part-time-, and pseudo-intellectuals seek to use Marxism, whilst claiming ideologic originality, in service to nefarious right-wingery and other such truthiness. For example, in U.S. politics, cultural hegemony is the basis of Pat Buchanan's nasty "culture war" racism; the political action committee (PAC) is just a type of vanguard party, i.e. Leninism, which Lenin derived from Magister Marx, and so forth and so on, and the silliness, herein, about ″I cannot believe. . . . that Marxist common sense is Marxist.″
Thank you, for the contribution; I think Wikipedia is maturing, and might someday (sigh) prove a reliable, factual source.
Best regards,
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The "Two versions" are a horrible way to explain dominant ideologies. The phrases top-down and bottom-down dont even match with the distinctions proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.20.226 ( talk) 20:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
A reference to the essays where Marx talks about this would be helpful. There are currently no citations or external links. 129.19.1.130 ( talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I find it very difficult to believe that this concept did not predate Marx's work and if it did the intro should not imply that it did not. — Cupco 20:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a good read. It says a lot more about why dominant ideology has less power than in early capitalism and before (e.g., the severance between ownership and control) and some related topics that I'll eventually add if someone doesn't get to it first. I checked some of the recent citing references to make sure it was being cited favorably. — Cupco 11:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Editor Cupco:
Please abide Fifelfoo's advice, and fully inform yourself about this MARXIST subject. Yes, it has non-Marxist versions in its quiver, but, as such, as the Dominant Ideology it originated in the work of Magister K.H. Marx. Your poor, hurried writing, replete with spelling and grammar errors, AND the sock puppetry, betray BAD EDITORIAL WILL, and other ideological baggage, with which you have simplistically over-simplified the article. In this case, despite the historical background, the subject (not the concept) cannot be realistically divorced from Marxism. . . .
So, gird your loins, do the wider reading, and participate in good faith; be a sport, not a spoil sport. Knowing whereof you speak makes you credible. . . really, it does.
Best regards,
Mhazard9 ( talk) 15:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Google just vastly expanded the source documents in their N-gram viewer today.
It now appears that only one of the several uses of "dominant ideology" from 1800-1928 in the new corpus are explicitly Marxist. From 1929 to the present the vast majority are, for what it's worth. Plexis Pi ( talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up
Dear Plexis:
Your work is valuable and worthwhile, because it underscores the intellectual and practical validity of Marxist philosophy and theory, at this very, very late date (?) in the Twenty-first Century. Especially in the cases of right-wing plagiarism, wherein semi-, demi-, quasi-, part-time-, and pseudo-intellectuals seek to use Marxism, whilst claiming ideologic originality, in service to nefarious right-wingery and other such truthiness. For example, in U.S. politics, cultural hegemony is the basis of Pat Buchanan's nasty "culture war" racism; the political action committee (PAC) is just a type of vanguard party, i.e. Leninism, which Lenin derived from Magister Marx, and so forth and so on, and the silliness, herein, about ″I cannot believe. . . . that Marxist common sense is Marxist.″
Thank you, for the contribution; I think Wikipedia is maturing, and might someday (sigh) prove a reliable, factual source.
Best regards,