Very interesting question, thank you! Most innovations, including ideological ones, tend to be adopted firstly by a small, elitary group, gradually trickling down to larger segments of the population later on in time. This is because a large segment of the population often aspires to become like those on top of the pyramid and, thus, adopt their ideas, ideologies, aspirations and even, as research shows, their forenames.

If Marx made this particular remark in a debate, I would probably raise doubt on the idea that there is such a thing as one undivisible class commonly united against those 'at the bottom'. More often than not, rulers are each other's greatest adversaries. Marx, however, probably meant that 'the ruling class' (which I regard as a generalization of reality) uses ideas and ideologies as a mean to hold on to power. But I believe that there are epochs where the most popular ideas were not the ideas of the ruling class. The French Revolution, for example. I am interested in hearing your ideas on the topic.

The French Revolution was based on an exploration of power away from inherited power. Away from the aristocracy. It was a Paris led, urban revolution based on the claims to power of the middle, mainly professional, classes but one fought by those occupying lower classes. Therefore difficult to assess. Its inspiration was the American Revolution and knowledge of the past. The creation of a new elite in effect, which perhaps still holds power in France. Ideas can be mobile but are not necessarily constructed for all levels of society.

Questions of ruling ideas and ideologies call for a more subtle approach than that of Marx. Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia was a step in that direction. Proclaimed ideas may be quite different from what is actually believed, and both may be different from what is implicit in practice. Here be cognitive dissonance galore.

Karl, I think I was saying that in my understanding of revolutions. The French Revolution dealt with a number of ideologies, but equally concerned the late arrival in France of professionalism and a middle class separate from landed wealth. Horizontal payment systems not controlled by an elite group.

But there is still a case to be made. I suggest that a number of things we believe in as true function in the way Marx wrote. Fashions in thinking also occur. Thinking that emerges out of cultural determinants, especially when inserted into education systems meets this description. Where do our ideas come from on the general nature of things but through a number of processes and from a number of origins that converge? There is surely little genuine autonomy involved in our general ideas?

What Marx states is true.

Going back to the French Revolution, the ideas of Equality, Fraternity were taken up by the urban poor (it is believed) but really provided power for the professional and middle class who assumed government. An elite developed out of Communism although shared rights through labour was a prominent feature of the theory. The manufacturers of these theories were also parts of governance in the sense of rising power bases blocked by older power bases. Changes in power between groups came with ideologies attached or constructed.

Most pervasive ideas I can think of are related to competition, market, performance. I think it's hard to object that the ruling class today is a mix of politic and financial power. This class firmly believe in the invisible hand and in self regulation of market. Furthermore it truly believe that we should, as individual and as society, aim for performance in a never ending curve of amelioration. It seems that current ideas of meritocracy stem from this class.

Another, longer, version of the same quote goes: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force."

I, humbly, understand it within the scope of "Might is Right"! The material forces dictate and impose its ideas. They, naturally, rule not only within local societies but also, globally, on the level of states.

Political power is backed by wealth. Look at USA. You can only become President with money in USA. All the American dream is just veneer. Just look at what Trump had in store for the wealthy, more tax cuts. In UK we have Boris from the landed gentry who uses his power to help business friends. He has no desire to advance welfare...yes I could go on.

The voices of the rich are heard through many news outlets...social media may save us

Beverly Dawn Metcalfe I agree with you. Not only the powerful rich but virtually all mainstream media only gives voice to people of a given amount of wealth. You basically never see a factory worker giving opinion on what should be done politically. You barely sees factory worker for that matter.

“In his 1846 ‘the German Ideology’, Karl Marx enunciated that ‘in every epoch, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class’. Is this true?.”

- that is indeed true, whereas that

“…Questions of ruling ideas and ideologies call for a more subtle approach than that of Marx. Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia was a step in that direction…”

- really isn’t correct, including since that

“… Proclaimed ideas may be quite different from what is actually believed, and both may be different from what is implicit in practice. Here be cognitive dissonance galore.…..”

- is quite inessential; because of it relates to some principally non-avoidable existent cognitive problems of human’s consciousness at elaborating of any problems, including at elaborating of the question – is some idea rational or not? Thus indeed in many cases a cognitive dissonances galore inevitably appear.

However the problems above fundamentally exist for any ruling classes humans as well, and in this case some cognitive dissonance galore inevitably also exists, and so all these ideas, concrete perceptions of the ideas by concrete humans, with concrete cognitive dissonances,

- all of that above is just the “ruling ideas” in concrete societies in concrete times, and nothing else.

On the other hand that Marx’s principle above cannot be considered outside whole Marxism, where a number of other basic principles are postulated. First of all that is the main principle, which was, though, stated by Adam Smith a rather long time before Marx “The material Being eventually completely determines personal and social Consciousness”; or as to Adam Smith, “material interest completely determines humans purposes, behavior, etc.”

And this principle indeed was dominating in whole humanity history in Marx time, and is dominating till now. From what follows a couple consequences for this thread question case:

- (i) the indeed really existent diversity of personal interpretations of the ideas and of “cognitive dissonances” really isn’t arbitrary, if, we say not about some rare cases, but about vast majority of people, i.e. “ruling ideas”. All these interpretations and dissonances are in framework of the material interest; and so, again, at that the diversity and dissonances above are completely inessential; and

-(ii) – as that Marxism postulates completely correctly – when it becomes be clear, that abilities of satisfactory of the material interest of large enough people group can be actualized much more effectively, than that is in existent ruling class and ruling ideas, new ideas appear, which, after the group, by a revolution, becomes to be next ruling class, with next ruling ideas in society.

So Marxism remains to be utmost rational theory of social development till now; though, of course, its application now differs from that was soon 200 years ago, because of drastically changes in technological ways and instruments at satisfaction of the material interest.

That is another thing, that Marxism is fundamentally typical mainstream philosophical doctrine, whereas in the mainstream, including Marxism, the utmost fundamental in this case phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness” are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational; and so, Marxism by no means can explain, say, – so what is this “material interest”? why it dominates in social relations?, etc., and

- correspondingly, when Marxism was applied at attempts to build some societies, which essentially are based on really non-material principles, these attempts completely logically inevitably failed.

Really any fundamental social problems can be rationally scientifically explored only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s indeed philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_AbsoluteDOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, where the phenomena “Matter” and “Consciousness” are scientifically defined; and, first of all, it is rigorously shown that “Matter” and “Consciousness” are fundamentally different systems.

At that the fundamentally non-material consciousness resides on practically material body, and so concrete consciousnesses’ operations – and further humans’ behaviors – are determined by two different purposes: satisfaction of “material body’s needs”, i.e. behavior aimed at to have more food, comfort, safety, etc.; and by own the consciousness ‘s non-material needs.

Etc., more see “The Information as Absolute” conception: Marxism and “now” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1116209; to read SS posts in the threads

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_purpose_of_creation_of_the_universe#view=60912560bf6cac23f906d604

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-could-be-proof-of-consciousness

- it is useful for first reading as well.

Cheers

IMHO, the best analysis of the hegemonic ideology and and how it is related to the class structure of the society was done by Gramsci in the Prison Notebooks. It is much more complex than the Marxian aphorism. Gramsci suggested, that bourgeoisie creates the hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeoisie became the 'common sense' values of all. But the hegemonic culture and values are in continuous struggle with raising counter-currents that arise from from exploited classes and their allies - the "historic block". This is very dynamic system changing all the time to react to the changing social conditions, actually process and not a frozen structure.

Michael, if you read my work on psychiatry this is the analysis I tend towards, that a small elite group reflect a wider groups norms and impose them within often unlikely and unproven ideas and methods. In this instance, psychiatry provides both ideas and proof for the validity of those ideas.

Gramsci's points look to detectable historic developments often centred on the development of professionalism, the emphasis on kinds of knowledge, power and control from the late 19th century onwards. Becoming a professional usually involves investment in the state and assumed power over others combined with superiority of viewpoint. It involves an agreed form of knowledge, capable of memorising by rote, exams and qualification.

Professionalism developed as a consequence of the rise to political and social dominance of the upper-middle class, and later middle class, outside the boundaries of land ownership and the growth of financial investments.

Stanley Wilkin That's an interesting perspective. It resonates quite well with analysis I read from "the critique des médias" (I don't know english for it). In mainstream media there is a systematic bias towards the position of neoliberal economy, capitalism as a default, current state of affairs as the only possible one. Presenting someone as a "professional" gives a immediate impression of legitimity in he's opinion. The other classic word is "specialist",

Perre=Yves,

This position is evident in Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde in which the three protagonists represent the growing professional classes and their control of perception, principally doctors and lawyers, and how interlopers are destroyed if they attempt to undermine that power. The construction of a reality is evident.

Stanley Wilkin Your point is that reality is constructed by the dominant class by creating a framework of idea that function a bit like self-fulfilling prophecy? The class of doctors and lawyers would therefore play a quite similar role as the clergy by being bounded to institutions and the only legitimate bringer of the "truth".

Pierre-Yves,

Can do, but many views coalesce. I try to avoid dogma.

Nevertheless, I came across a view of the physicist Lee Smolin in Einstein's Unfinished Revolution The Search for what Lies Beyond the Quantum 2019. He is a realist like Einstein and not an anti-realist like Bohr. He writes of the triumph of Quantum Mechanics as the result of older professors moving aside and new professors teaching the physics and thereby confirming a preference. Reality is thereby subject to an academic and scientific generational change.

Let me step back to psychiatry which fascinates me because its claims are constantly contradicted by independent research. Mine and a growing number of others. Have they autonomously created a bevy of illnesses, the treatments for them and the success of those treatments or is mental illness as understood by psychiatry genuine. Mental illness as presently understood benefits psychiatry and pharmacology giving both immense power in modern societies. Scepticism fails here now.

How many of our ideas are simply mirages hiding other concerns, such as resources (the argument against professionalism) and power. Are they here merely to sustain a wide based governing elite as religion has done in the past? The history of psychiatry concerns control of the dispossessed, poor and vulnerable. Does it still?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Reinaldo-Requeiro/research

I have seen conflicting answers, with some I do not agree. That is not to say that they are not good arguments. As they are good arguments for this discussion, I recommend them.

Irremediably true, you just have to see how the ruling classes are also dominant over the means of production and in the media that today are almost dying, say newspapers, television, cinema and others.

With that total power, does anyone think that the ruling classes are going to go to the trouble of spreading an ideological model that is dissonant with their own interests?

Do the economically dominant classes have a suicidal vocation? It is an extensible logic from class power, anchored in an economic base that will inevitably be reflected in the superstructure of society, say culture, religion, education.

All the integral parts of the superstructure will work, according to a common ideology, to prolong the time in the political power of the classes that possess it. Today this phenomenon is being explained from other philosophical positions, but in practice, many of the new theories have assumed a categorical apparatus different from that used by Marx, to explain the same phenomenon that Marx anticipated since the nineteenth century. Like it or not, the essence of Marxist thought still stands.

Reinaldo Requeiro

I find the wording "total power" to be very well describing the particularity of the current situation. It goes to the point that the existence of an objective conflict between the aspiration of the majority and the interest of dominant in preserving this class structure is almost never pointed out. Although there are elections in many "democratic" country, these elections are part of the reproduction of the domination system and not much more.

I've wondered for long and I still am wondering about how an actual change may happen without an international revolution. The problem is that such a large revolution seem unlikely to happen given the situation of total power that have raised capitalism to the status of a law of nature.

Pierre-Yves the manner in which dominant groups continue is complex and interesting. My work on psychiatry shows such a group, their members from the elite strata, fashioning human nature within normalising codes of their own that emphasise social conformity, including tropes of obedience with rebellion as a sign of mental illness. A further example, their drugs, even tranquillisers create obedience within the patient or client.

Nevertheless, I believe that we need to get away from old systems of analysis of these matters and note more closely the development of ideologies. My book 'The New Fascism' describes authoritarian codes through medical and social services and how, through these, governments/authoritarian bodies have eased themselves into all parts of life making autonomous behaviour difficult. Beneficence can be a means of concealing controls.

Dear stanley wilkin

inusidated that prospect of social obedience

The technological Revolution, as we know it today, seems to have relocated the proletariat on the socio-political map, but not so much the bourgeoisie. What used to be the industrial proletariat, dealing with low wages and extreme poverty in the midst of increasingly social production and increasingly concentrated property, is no longer exactly like that and therefore the rules of the game have changed.

Now the bourgeoisie as the ruling class has managed to impose its consumption patterns. The proletariat is transformed and with it, its interests are changing. Today we have an increasingly technological workforce, computer operators most of all.

A part of the proletariat increasingly identifies with a way of life that responds to Burquese patterns of consumption, and it seems that this will not be reversible. The comfort standards of workers in leading companies are far removed from the working conditions of yesteryear.

Now, does this reality have a global character?

Is that the reality of the peoples of Africa, of Latin America?

Of course not.

Development is not homogeneous and it is in these places where there are greatest contradictions.

Do the proletariate, in Marx's understanding, still exist?

Certainly the proletariat of today is not the same as it was in Marx's time. There are substantial differences, but yes, there is certainly a working class, with unequal opportunities and interests, of course.

In this case, the differences associated with the existing social economic development model are added. Highly developed capitalism is not comparable to the prevailing capitalism in third world countries. The differences in the levels of well-being are undeniable and consequently will have a specific impact on the proletariat.

Reinaldo, I doubt if the working class represent a bloc, nor did that a hundred years ago. The urban population then, called cockneys, had their own culture and values based on independence and family values.

Now we have an underclass who exist because factory work has gone and other skilled jobs have disappeared also, or require limited numbers, and they are unable to perform technical/computer work.

Recent SS comment in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now/comments

- and in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness/commentsas well, though,

- are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

The Nazi/fascism could justifiably be said to have exploited both the poor and rich/elite using ideologies of exceptionality based on racism and early German myths. Those ideologies were framed by American geneticists in order to frame the inferiority of black races, British thinkers from the same era to frame and back up imperialism under the exceptionality of Anglo-Saxons, so therefore Hitler's ideologies were not his own. These ideas came from a gradually declining cultural force and represented a final burst of energy.

Yes indeed as the ruling class always tries to protect their own interest at the detriment of the interest of the subjects.

Bitter Reflection

Until the French Revolution the commanders were nobles, clergy, bourgeois, merchants of goods, merchants of money.

The basic productive engine, from which they drew their livelihood, were the peasants.

With the industrial revolution the workers joined.

Both, peasants and workers, in advanced societies, appear destined to shrink, as the competitors are machines without trade unions.

Today we elect the "lords" who govern us every 4-6 years.

We talk about it as if the situation was pre-French revolution.

Giorgio,

Are people as fixed as ever in status. Is it still mainly the middle-class who go to university.

The notions of ideology, hegemony and resistance might be useful to elaborate on this thread. I may recommend having a look at Gramsci's, too

Chapter Antonio Gramsci’s Theory of the Civil Society

No, that's not true. At the very least, these ideas contain a lesson on how they can be replaced. Ideas thus have a certain autonomy in relation to their bearers. Ideas rule classes, not the other way around. This is especially true in a situation where only a dictatorship of capital is possible, and not a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Djordje, I tend to believe it is far more complicated than this. But the ruling classes claim ideas in so far as any group exhibits combined identification. Do ideas have autonomy when they become 'knowledge'?

Stanley, I agree that things are far more complicated, but I did my best to condense them into a couple of relatively clear thoughts. My answer is on the line of, perhaps syncretic (not eclectic), amalgamating of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and early Baudrillard. Epistemologically, ideas become most interesting when they become a cultural code through knowledge. I declare myself as a post-postmodern Marxist. Now I have to go to lectures, students are already waiting ...

Une petite digression:

"You can have thousands of ideas, but a thought [une pensee] is something else! I do in fact believe you only ever have one in your life."

Jean Baudrillard. 2004. Fragments: Conversations With Francois L’Yvonnet. Translated by Chris Turner. New York: Routledge, 3.

Albena, that is a difficult one. If I said liberal ideals, which are reconstructed by each generation, can this cover the globe? These ideals involve active states which alter those ideals. For some the end result is equality, considered fuzzily. May I suggest this reflects the media, both its members and the ways that the mechanisms of media have been fragmented by technology. It presents an inclusive approach, all who agree are included, exclusive in that those who disagree are demonised. (Is it that clear cut?)

But apart from the above it represents a particular social set, educated members of the media, and is distinct in its approach from many of its distinct thinkers.

I will be only acknowledging it due to certain circumstances, one of the examples: "material conditions" represent a power within the general process of social, political, and intellectual life (education) that encompassed the global necessity in advancing the intellectual property based on the capitalist economic system which generates bourgeois and proletariat. Where specifically portray that the ideas of "shared-interest" whose catenate between one country to another is supported by a free market economy. By the means of a free market economy itself emphasized the law of supply and demand to be more focusing on the private prosperous that may be the precedence of being proclaimed to be the contingent interest of the ruling class (capitalist) which will be beneficially profited in term of exploitation of the working class due to non-interference from the government as it may be potentially diminishing marginal utility of wealth because fact that in the end it will be leading to negligence the economic integration as there will be high chance of increasing the corruption cases. However, if we can consider that neither Marxism and Capitalism ideology have their own propaganda may seem illogical because the power of political ideology itself only can be determined by the political actor/economic political actor to regulate its governmental or even their relations between private sector/firms/the governmental institution. In the end, I think Marx's statement will be just addressed towards the future prediction of a further development of the capitalism to monopoly the profitable nations which will be potentially reappearing colonialism in term of "Neocolonialism".

Article Ідеологія як механізм конструювання простору: Імперія VS Дер...

Article Ревизия социологического дискурса идеологии в дефинитивной перспективе