|
Tags: Replaced Visual edit |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Disclaimer: | | I have deleted the contents of this page, as it has evolved in my private drafts into something much larger, which is probably not going to be finished for a while. |
| This is a very unfinished draft of a much longer piece I want to write.
| | <span style="color: #8B0000; font-family: Verdana;">[[Comrade:420dengist|420]][[Special:Contributions/420dengist|'''dengist''']]</span> 18:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC) |
| <span style="color: #8B0000; font-family: Verdana;">[[Comrade:420dengist|420]][[Special:Contributions/420dengist|'''dengist''']]</span> 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC) | |
| == Introduction ==
| |
| The evolution of capitalism necessitates the evolution of our analytical tools as Marxists. This fundamental principle pretty much shapes the development of mainstream Marxism-Leninism——Lenin armed us against imperialism, and together with Stalin bedrocked our ability to grasp the national question; Mao further developed ideas of anti-colonial revolution, and all of these ideas synthesized with all sorts of indigenous understanding is a powerful scientific theory of national liberation. Others, like the Kims, laid down analytical frameworks through which to view human's relationship with art, architecture, nature; yet other thinkers did the same for gender. And so on and so forth.
| |
| | |
| With that said, I want to argue that Althusser provides us scientific socialists with analytical tools to grasp something equally important: the social shape of ideology, and the means by which ideology reproduces itself. And when I say fundamental, I mean that this is not limited in scope or application to any particular national context, and should have long since been the mainstream scientific socialist take on ideology.
| |
| | |
| In Althusser's so-called Structuralist Marxism, ideology is not simply a "belief system", a "set of ideas" or any other philosophical abstraction——instead, ideology is interpreted as a ''concrete social relation'', one between the subject and the ideological arm(s) of a class (primarily that of the ruling class). This analytical framework allows us to scrutinize in greater detail the specific material forces that reproduce ruling class ideological hegemony within class society.
| |
| | |
| I believe this might prove particularly useful in the imperial core, to explain some of the ways Christian and/or neoliberal ideology has become entrenched in the popular consciousness of even self-identified "left" persons and groups; or explain, for instance, to the backdrop of patsoc chauvinism vs. Sakaiist defeatism, why many seemingly “working class” or “marginalized” individuals in the Euro-Amerikan colonial territories still stand staunchly opposed to the liberation of the peoples.
| |
| | |
| == I. Structuralism and Marxism ==
| |
| The philosophical tradition called "structuralism" contemplates human culture and thought as products of a complex network of underlying relationships. Rather than concerning itself with critiquing individual belief systems, structuralists instead seek to explain how overall social structures shape and govern them.
| |
| | |
| I would guess a majority of readers can see the inherent similarities between that approach and the dialectical philosophical angle that's so fundamental to Marxism. A holistic analysis that views things as a product of other things interacting in complex relationships? Sign me up.
| |
| | |
| So it is unsurprising that structuralism found some purchase with Marxist-Leninists; it was one of the rare few late 20th century European philosophical movements that was rooted in a properly “scientific” method of analysis, and which acknowledged the vast social forces that surround individuals and act upon them. It framed the complex relationship between thought and material reality in a borderline-Marxist way; basically, structuralism seemed ripe for a synthesis with Marxism, if only in the sense that it could potentially reinforce the already existing structuralist aspects of Marxism and turn them towards the study of ideology.
| |
| | |
| Althusser's "structuralist" Marxism specifically seeks to explore the concrete means of ideological reproduction within class society, the methods by which ruling class ideology can come to "dominate" society. In some ways, you could say this is a synthesis of Marxism, using the structuralist approach to redefine "ideas" as material forces in their own right-- things with real material impact-- and which are themselves shaped, in dialectical fashion, by the material reality they affect.
| |
| | |
| == II. The Theory of Ideology ==
| |
| Have you ever stopped to wonder exactly how an inherently divisive, destructive, and short-sighted system like capitalist-imperialism would even be capable of consistently reproducing ideology that helps reinforce its position as the dominant mode of production? And, how exactly does ideology help reproduce material forces, anyway?
| |
| | |
| Few Marxists have a coherent analysis of how ideology works, or even a concrete definition of what "ideology" ''is''. As a result, they may also not have a concrete understanding of how exactly the “superstructure” part of the base-superstructure model operates. Yet at the same time, all of us are a product of ideology; although Marxism-Leninism is a beacon that can guide you towards proletarian ideology, us westie Marxists all certainly carry some Christian-Liberalism inside us.
| |
| | |
| Historical materialism generally posits that the economic base predominantly influences the superstructure. A mechanistic and, in my opinion, incorrect conclusion often drawn from this, is that the culture of a society is an ultimately pointless puppet show of ruling class ideology, that is best completely disengaged from. It is not enough for a westie to simply never consume "MSM" and only the Grayzone; in truth, ideology is always all around us, embedded in subtle traditions and the little rituals of our everyday lives. The "non-Marxist anti-imperialists" might talk about "brainwashing", but that analysis fails to grapple with the reality that anyone subject to this "brainwashing" is in fact an active participant in that process.
| |
| | |
| Simultaneously, while I believe the Marxists' "people believe what they want to believe because it benefits them" angle is fundamentally correct, I think it also risks swerving too far in the other direction, and completely neglecting a proper "structuralist" appraisal of how ideology works. They are correct in saying that the ideology isn't particularly complex; that does not mean, however, that the means by which they are distributed are not sophisticated, and I certainly believe they are worthy of in-depth analysis.
| |
| | |
| Althusser's theory, I think, provides something of a middle point between these two ideas; there ''are'' structures that affect mass-scale “brainwashing” (I cannot stress enough how much I hate that word), but you, depending on your material position, are more of less the person responsible for washing your own brain. And if you live a particularly distinct lived reality, as a marginalized individual for instance, further removed from the Christian-Liberal mainstream, you might actually be internalizing all kinds of ideas that run more contrary to the Christian-Liberal consensus than some white Christian "leftist".
| |
| | |
| I think this credits capitalist superstructure with a fundamental complexity, while not pretending that the Christian-Liberal ideology is particularly impressive or sophisticated in and of itself; merely acknowledging that the means by which they are socially reproduced are in fact systemic in nature (and not some personal failing you can "just break free from", etc.)
| |
| | |
| == III. Social Formations ==
| |
| The social formation encompasses the totality of all classes, nations, modes of production and accompanying superstructure in a given society. Inevitably, some self-described Marxist-Leninists might balk at the statement that multiple modes of production can coexist in a single society-- but really, you already know this, if you are a Marxist-Leninist, because you've surely read Mao, and Mao's time was characterized by the existence of multiple systems of production side-by-side within the same social context.
| |
| | |
| In 1940s China, the dominant mode of production was a complex mix of feudal and imperialist relations that Chinese Marxism characterizes as "semi-feudal and semi-colonial"; with the feudal system and landlord class still present, there was also the influence of Western and Japanese imperialism, especially in urban and coastal areas where capitalist production had been introduced. Then, there was small commodity production, particularly in rural areas, where peasants had some personal land to grow crops that could be sold in local markets. This existed alongside and often within the feudal system, with the peasants working both their landlord's land as well as any small plots of their own.
| |
| | |
| Thus, in that time in China, we can see a situation where feudalism, imperialism, capitalism, and small commodity production, all distinct systems of production, intermingle and interact, with individuals and classes subject to multiple different modes of production at the same time or at different points in time. This kind of reality naturally produces myriad contradictions, and more importantly, myriad ideological expressions tied to various forms of production, with varied levels of reactionary and progressive content.
| |
| | |
| And in the post-revolutionary social formation, there will certainly remain an element of capitalist production; in Russia, for instance, after the Revolution, there existed successive transitional social formations such as War Communism and the New Economic Policy (NEP). These were attempts to shift the dominant mode of production from semifeudal capitalism towards socialism, yet also saw a complex coexistence of several modes of production; even during War Communism, small-scale agrarian enterprise and small commodity production continued, and during the NEP, it was even encouraged.
| |
| | |
| In other words, non-socialist relations of production coexisted with the proletarian party-state.
| |
| | |
| The concept of the "social formation", which appreciates the totality of production in a given society even during various transitional phases, is in my opinion a very useful analytical tool for Marxists. Specifically, as we find ourselves increasingly interrogated by ultraleftists over our support of 21st century China, perhaps a tool like this can help some uncertain Marxists enunciate exactly how and why the existence of China's "billionaires" and China's "socialist state" are not contradictory, and in fact, if anything, indicate that China is indeed on a transitional path towards the future.
| |
| | |
| == IV. The State Apparatus ==
| |
| What is the state apparatus (also known as "the state")?
| |
| | |
| Marxist-Leninists have historically defined the state as inexorably tied to the existence of class society. As long as there are class antagonisms, there is a state; as long as there is a state, there must be class antagonisms. The state functions as a system of class suppression, which is wielded with great authoritarianism by a class to safeguard its favored form of class society.
| |
| | |
| But what exactly does it do, functionally? How, concretely, does a state apparatus reproduce the dominant mode of production?
| |
| | |
| Althusser defines two subtypes of "state apparatus"; the ''Repressive State Apparatuses'', covering means of physical repression, and the ''Ideological State Apparatuses'', which include such things as the education system and mass media. These two types of systems, together, comprise the totality of the "state apparatus".
| |
| | |
| The class struggle is not just a physical fight with bayonets, rifles and cannons, to determine who owns what piece of industrial machinery. It is a "total war" in the truest sense, which necessitates equally violent ''ideological struggle'' over ''cultural machinery'' (if you will). All Marxist-Leninists know this; we can trace the development of the proletarian ideological framework through numerous great polemics against opportunists, denunciations of revisionists, and victories against backwards chauvinism.
| |
| | |
| So class struggle has a dual character; there is the physical, economic, bloody class struggle, and there is the cultural, concrete, teleological class struggle. And they are two parts of the same whole, of course, fundamentally interrelated, yet distinct at the same time. Mao and others impressed upon us the need to be vigilant in both arms of the class struggle, and fight the ideas of the enemy with the same fervor as its armed footsoldiers.
| |
| | |
| As a result, it would be too simplistic to define the state apparatus, our tool for class warfare, as merely comprised of physical suppression mechanisms, like police, military and prisons. While these are obviously key instruments in the wider toolbox of class dictatorship, there are also subtler, ideological systems through which a class affects the intellectual and cultural landscape of the social formation——through which it fights the ideological class struggle. Think of the Pravda or People's Daily, the pointed, witty essays of Lenin, or the website '''RedSails.org'''.
| |
| | |
| Ideology, through its effect on the real struggle, is a de facto material force with inherent class character. Logically, if it is to be capable of reproducing the conditions of production, the state apparatus must necessarily include ideological institutions through which to reproduce ideological conditions. In this sense, the state is a two-pronged apparatus.
| |
| | |
| As such, the state can be more concretely defined to encompass many interrelated systems which are all geared towards the reproduction of economic and ideological conditions. These systems are wielded by a class in pursuit of its fundamental interests, which means the realization and/or perpetuation of a specific mode of production.
| |
| | |
| Althusser doesn't dismantle the traditional base-superstructure metaphor but rather transforms it, positing that, far from being a simple reflection of the conditions of production, superstructure is actually a relatively autonomous entity, able to independently affect the base. And I think we can extend this to posit that there are potentially multiple superstructures at one time, reflective of different classes, nations, and modes of production in a given social formation. However, generally speaking, I suggest that one of them is dominant.
| |
| | |
| (Consider Lenin's theory of "Dual Power"; it is conceivable that at certain stages of the class struggle, two states, wielded by two warring classes, can coexist within a social formation at one time. Both of them may have their own repressive and ideological apparatuses, their own flags and full-blown claims to statehood.)
| |
| | |
| == V. The Reproduction of Ideology ==
| |
| To understand ideology as a material force, you need to understand the context in which ideology is materialized. During production, individuals are in constant interaction with the material and ideological apparatuses of capitalism. It is within this matrix of relations that ideology is produced and reproduced.
| |
| | |
| == VI. Ideological Resistance and Transformation ==
| |
| In spite of all these mechanisms, ideological hegemony is not absolute or unchallenged. Within the social formation, there exists space for ideological resistance and the potential for transformative struggles; Althusser emphasizes that individuals and social groups are not passive recipients of ideology, but are capable of engaging in practices that question or subvert dominant ideological discourses. Contradictions within the social formation, particularly those generated by the different modes of production, can give rise to social struggles and revolutionary movements.
| |
| | |
| After the proletariat seizes the Repressive State Apparatus during a revolution, it does not necessarily follow that it also wields full control over the ideological superstructure; not only does reactionary or counter-revolutionary sentiment likely still pervade institutions of science, education, and media, it is entirely possible that the disenfranchised bourgeoisie continues to produce ideological output, such as newspapers, and circulate it among the people, in the same way that the bourgeoisie is capable of staging attempts at violent counter-revolutions.
| |
| | |
| Again, as stated in section IV, the ideological struggle and the physical struggle are waged at the same time, but may be at two very different stages at any given point in time
| |
| | |
| (''some stuff about bourgeois counterrevolutionary ideas successfully infiltrating despite a relative lack of bourgeois material production, and how that came to fruition in the USSR under Khrushchev'')
| |
| | |
| blah
| |
| | |
| == VII. Class, Race, Gender and Ideology ==
| |
| Different social groups experience and respond to ideology differently based on their positionality within the social structure
| |
| | |
| == VIII. Structuralist Marxism vs. Humanist Marxism? ==
| |
| on the dialectical contradiction between them..
| |
| might need to brush up on Juche before committing to this part.
| |
| | |
| == IX. Towards A Structuralist-Humanist Synthesis ==
| |
| trick question: it's just marxism-leninism
| |
