JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
>
>I'm curious whether this lack of interest in the industrial sector is driven
> by the trend towards interpenetration of financial companies with those which
> actually employ people to produce goods. If GM, for example, is making money
> on insurance with one tentacle, it's unlikely to advocate its abolition even
> if it's costly to another tentacle. I just haven't seen anyone break that down
> wrt health insurance companies.
In addition to this, the insurance companies presumably own or control large stakes in other corporations and are represented on their boards.
> It's still true, though, that keeping the workforce disciplined (i.e.
> desperate to keep a job for health insurance) benefits all capital sectors, at least
> until we revolt. If, by 'ideology,' you mean class interests rather than more
> narrow industry interests, I guess you could call that ideological.
Something like that is one sense of the _word_ ideology as its used. But there is also ideology in the sense of spontaneous understanding of appearances -- i.e., common sense. (To see how this operates, simply read a selection of Wojtek's posts, which exhibit common sense as kneejerk acceptance of cliches.) In this sense, ideology is that which is taken for granted (without particular examination) unless challenged in some way. As such it needs to be distinguished both from propaganda _and_ from conscious class interest. When Hillary Clinton dismissed single-payer out of hand as simply not up for discussion, I suspect it was conscious class interest at work. But when most corporate executives, small businessmen, independent professionals, and your run-of-the-mill politicians give knee-jerk resistance to _any_ government social program, its usually ideology in the sense I use it here.
Carrol
>
> Jenny Brown
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk