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

Disclaimer:
Althusser is a difficult read, in my opinion, if you can even get your hands on a PDF of his important works. Even then, it took me a while to get a good understanding out of him, as I was young when I started studying Marxism, and there was a limit to how much sophisticated philosophical terminology I could understand. 

However, there was part of Althusserianism that I always considered a helpful model, which defined much of my understanding of dialectical materialism as an analytical and philosophical framework. That's why I want to write this essay, touching on several topics that are fundamental to Marxist analysis, reframing some of them in Althusserian terms, to more concisely present Althusser's key contributions to Marxism in language that is easier to understand.

So I'm not necessarily endorsing all of Althusser, but trying instead to present what I consider to be his "70% Good"; I may touch a little bit on the 30% Bad, but that is not the focus of this essay.

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 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 looking at individual belief systems, structuralists instead seek to explain how overall structures shape and govern ideas.

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 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.

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. In truth, though, ideology is always all around us; those whose analysis is fundamentally liberal will talk about "brainwashing", but Marxists can't rely on superficial analyses. We have to dive deeply, to really dig into the specific forces at work, to ultimately draw a materially grounded conclusion as to what the strategy of our real movement should be.

Althusser's "structuralist" interpretation of Marxism specifically seeks to explore concrete means of ideological reproduction within the class struggle, and define the systems by which ideas can dominate society through practices and traditions. In some ways, you could say this is a synthesis of Marxism, using structuralist approaches to redefine "ideology" as a material force in its own right, with real material impact, and which is itself shaped, in dialectical fashion, by the material reality it affects.

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 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?

III. Social Formations

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 countries" and "socialist states"? Well, no. You already know this, if you are a Marxist-Leninist, because you have 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.

Similarly, in pre-revolutionary Cuba under Batista, there were multiple modes of production as well; dominant was imperialist capitalism, 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, again, small commodity production by individual farmers, as well as a burgeoning national capitalist industry complete with growing proletariat in the cities.

Now let's have a look at some post-revolutionary social formations; in Russia, after the Revolution, there existed successive transitional social formations known 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 private enterprise and small commodity production continued, and during the NEP, it was even encouraged for some time in the agrarian sector.

In other words, non-socialized 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.

Dual Power and the Social Formation

Under the 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, complete with embassies and international relations. The classic example of Dual Power is the State Duma vs. the Petrograd Soviet in the period of revolutionary Russia, but this theorem can also be applied to the Chinese Civil War up to contemporary cross-strait relations, or even the situation on the Korean peninsula.

In other words, the amount of influence that a state actually exerts over the totality of its claimed nation(s) can vary greatly, depending on the particular stage of struggle.

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