Essay:The importance of Althusser in Contemporary Analysis of Capitalist Ideological Reproduction

This essay intends to introduce you to Althusserian thought, or Structuralist Marxism. Althusser is a hard read, in my opinion, and it took me a long time to understand him, but when I did, I found it really useful. Hence, my intention to present it in a more readable overview, for other Marxist-Leninists to peruse.
Currently this is still EXTREMELY UNFINISHED and in fact so far from finished that it doesn't even make its main points yet. So it might be a disappointing read right now... be warned. 

420dengist  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 posit that Althusser’s “Structuralist Marxism” provides the analytical tools to help scientific socialists 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 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 angle might prove particularly useful in the imperial core, to explain some of the ways neoliberal ideology has become entrenched in the popular consciousness of even self-identified "left" persons and organizations; or explain, for example, 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 reality as a complex network of relationships, abstracting the individual components to instead focus on how they produce the overarching reality. I would guess a majority of readers can see the inherent similarities between that description and the dialectical materialist view which is so fundamental to Marxism. A holistic analysis that views reality as a product of things in complex relationships? Sign me up.

So it was unsurprising that structuralism found some purchase with Marxist-Leninists; it was one of the rare few late 20th century philosophical movements rooted in a properly analytical, “scientific” approach, and it viewed the complex relationship between thought and material reality in a borderline-Marxist way already.Basically, structuralism was ripe for a synthesis with Marxism, if only in the sense that it could reinforced the already existing structuralist aspect of Marxism.

Marxism, or more specifically, historical materialism, states, among other things, that the economic base predominantly influences the superstructure of cultural and political institutions. Althusser's "structuralist" interpretation of Marxism specifically seeks to explain the means of ideological reproduction under capitalism, which in turn play a crucial role in the reproduction of the conditions of production, and thus are of vital analytical importance to Marxists.

II. The Theory of Ideology

Have you ever stopped to wonder exactly how an inherently divisive, destructive, and short-sighted system like capitalist-imperialism is even capable of consistently reproducing complex 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, we all certainly carry a little bit of liberalism inside us.

Structuralist Marxism sidesteps intellectually sterile dead ends like “brainwashing” (or, as I like to call it, "sheeple theory"), yet still credits capitalist superstructure with a fundamental complexity. Mind you, this does not mean that the ideas themselves are particularly complex or impressive, merely that the means by which they are socially distributed are sophisticated.

Althusser doesn't dismantle the traditional base-superstructure metaphor but rather transforms it. He posits that, far from being a simple reflection of the conditions of production, the capitalist superstructure is actually a relatively autonomous entity, able to independently affect the base. If you take a closer look, the interplay between ideas and production has to be more complex than “economic systems produce ideology that justifies their continued existence; the end”. If it were that simple, how does the working class ever grasp a proletarian ideology under capitalism? And how could there ever be a counter-revolution in a socialist state if socialized production was enough to constantly reproduce proletarian 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.

III. The Social Formation

Another term introduced by Althusser to cover dynamics which we all know existed, but didn’t necessarily have a name or an analytical framework for, is “social formation”. The social formation encompasses the totality of all modes of production active in a given society, including all the ideological expressions they generate.

But, huh? I thought there were capitalist states and socialist states? Well, no. You already know this, if you are a Marxist-Leninist, because you have read Mao, and Mao deals extensively with the existence of multiple systems of production side-by-side within the same society. 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". This means that while the feudal system, with its landlord class and bound peasantry, was still present, there was also the influence of Western and Japanese imperialism, especially in urban and coastal areas where capitalist production had been introduced. There was also the presence of "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 Mao-era China, we see a situation where feudalism, imperialism, capitalism, and small commodity production, all distinct "modes of production", intermingle and interact, with some individuals even producing in multiple different modes of production at the same time or at different points throughout their life. 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.

Similarly, in pre-revolutionary Cuba under Batista, there were multiple modes of production as well; dominant was imperialist capitalism mode, linked with the US through a mafia-neocolonial relationship. This manifested primarily in the production of sugar for export, facilitated by large-scale plantations, which were worked by a starving rural peasantry. Alongside this, there was small commodity production by individual farmers, a petty bourgeoisie, as well as a burgeoning national capitalist industry complete with a growing proletariat in the cities.

Now let's have a look at some post-revolutionary social formations

IV. The State Apparatus

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 (except I haven't written that yet lol), the ideological struggle and the material 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