Ideology, science and consciousness

[Tower of Bebel]

I created an article for my blog which said I was leaving, but before I do I have a question to pose which (among other questions) keeps troubling my mind:

Is ideology false consciousness?

Here are some relevant links:

Ideology and False Consciousness (http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htm) (by J. McCarney) (contra)
Engels to Franz Mehring (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1893/letters/93_07_14a.htm) (pro)

The German ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm) ("Ideology in General, German Ideology in Particular")

And a derrivate: is it correct to claim that the working class has as one of its tasks the development of its own socialist ideology (in times when liberalism seems to prevail)? Or is scientific socialism the direct opposite of this idea?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I posted a thread awhile back on behavioural economics and the possible introduction of "rational self-interest" into Marxist discussions as an alternative to both "false consciousness" and "ideology."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/behavioural-economics-finance-t97546/index.html


Much has been said long ago about cultural hegemony and obstacles to class consciousness. However, is it possible that some behavioural economics and finance can explain other obstacles?

Classical political economy was all about the "rational," "self-interested," and "utility-maximizing" human being - a.k.a. "homo economicus." Marx, naturally, based his critique of political economy on a materialistic basis.

However, consider the right-wing worker who consistently votes for politicians who immiserate himself and his class. That certainly isn't "rational," "self-interested," or "utility maximizing." Thoughts?


A deeper problem, I think, is the difficulty of phrasing Marx`s predictions in terms of individual behavior. This isn`t really a problem, because Marxist analysis never really sought to account for how individuals, as opposed to classes or societies, behave. Thus, the lack of a "Marxian" framework for behavioral economics is probably rooted in the ambiguity of the role (much less nature) of the individual in Marx. However, if one does believe that as a matter of principle Marx`s predictions and analysis, should be derivable from individual behavior (like "utility maximization"), then this project must account for behavioral economics.


And in mainstream circles, the conclusion of behavioural economics is that some force hierarchically above the main actors has to induce them to behave "rationally."

What was the term Keynes used for "irrational" tendencies of consumers? I think we're on to a unified theory of "irrationality" that expresses itself "behaviourally" for investors, such-and-such term that Keynes used for consumers, and "false-consciously" for workers.

In regards to the third, this pretty much kills the ultra-spontaneist notion that the non-vanguard workers can "self-organize" under a period of bourgeois hegemony. The classical Social-Democratic division of authority between those working-class elements in a coordinating/leadership/"voluntarist" function (educator-theoreticians, rhetorical agitators, and grunt organizers) and the non-vanguard worker-followers still applies.

[...]

I've come to the realization that I'm treading upon dangerous waters here. Those who conceptualized "behavioural economics" did so for the purpose of doing to "consumers" what Bakunin wanted to do to the working masses in general: invisible dictatorships, realize rational self-interests through action upon action, etc.

[...]

I didn't arrive at the other extreme of workers being purely "rational." I've said elsewhere that the class consciousness of "ordinary workers" tends to be like the mind of a horny teenager (as someone else said, "a provocative and light-hearted way to convey that the group as a group has high and sometimes erratic and mixed aspirations but no advanced game")

[Comrade Martin]

And a derrivate: is it correct to claim that the working class has as one of its tasks the development of its own socialist ideology (in times when liberalism seems to prevail)? Or is scientific socialism the direct opposite of this idea?

I hope I understand your query and am addressing it faithfully. If not, my bad; I'm in a rush but wanted to comment.

"Ideology" is a terribly confused issue amongst Marxists.

The great majority, unfortunately being party to the Leninist consensus, see ideology as a "building block" of revolution.

Something we "spread" so that we can "make" a revolution.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

As historical materialists, we would be hard pressed to provide evidence that ideology (distinct and proletarian - or "socialist") preceded any revolution. They always "just happen" - and the most able faction in that struggle seizes power or, where the people will not accept new leaders, are sidelined and ignored.

That happened, for example, in the Paris Commune.

Where was "socialist consciousness" in the Paris Commune prior to its formation? It was being preached by marginalized intellectuals like the Blanquists - the proto-Leninists of that revolution. Their cries for a small group to dictate revolution fell upon deaf ears, and this inability to subvert the revolution was the cause of the Commune's progress.

Popular control was the order of the day, and that, comrades, is Communism.

I argue that there were "material reasons" Parisians were not receptive to new bosses - and why Russians were... And I think it is due in large part to the fact that the former was a city of proletarians, while the latter was a nation of peasants.

Whether or not there are "conscious proletarian revolutionaries" to "guide" the struggle, it will "happen" as necessitated by the cumulative human and material forces through history either way.

This is the Marxist narrative - I agree with it because its the best paradigm we have.

What alternatives are there?

Divine intervention? That events randomly occur without determinable causes? Perhaps genetics? If any of the non-Marxist narratives of history are right, there's nothing we can meaningfully do to change society - and I think history proves, by its progress, that we humans can change and have changed anything... even if the ideas of "what to do" and "how to do it" did not emerge until the very boiling point of revolution.

I think its important to study and think for ourselves, coming up with the best explanations we can. Its in the nature of our subjective minds to consider our work important, or hope it will be someday - and who knows? Perhaps, in some small way, it will!

That's our incentive to act and think... Not becoming some inflated "Marxist guru" who "solves" all the "burning questions" about Socialism, leading forward the victorious workers' and peasants' red army... blahblahblah

If I wanted a cult to join, I wouldn't be on RevLeft.

[kalu]

Ideology, according to Althusser, "interpellates" the subject. For example, given our interpellation by capitalist ideological and repressive state apparatuses, when a policeman yells "Hey you!" we freeze. Althusser attempts to challenge the traditional definition of "ideology as false consciousness," by examining the ways we are in fact produced as subjects through ideology. In a sense, there is no "post-ideology" era, although Althusser advocates the constant examination and critique of ideology though Marxist science. Ideology, however, is the domain of action. I would recommend checking out his collection Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, particularly the essay "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses."

I am not too familiar with other Marxist approaches to ideology. Terry Eagleton (Marxist lit critter) has a book called Ideology, I don't know if it's any good. I also would take into consideration Gramsci's theory about the hegemonic struggle, particularly "the superstructure" and the battle to determine the ethical-political ideals of society (is that ideology?).

[mikelepore]

Is ideology false consciousness?

Some components of ideology are true and some are false. When an ideology contains an idea which is false, that is a case of false consciousness. When an ideology contains an idea which is true, that is a case of the mind realizing the truth.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Martin, I know you've read RS2K's articles and all, but those articles, which reek too much of Steve D'Arcy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/steve-darcys-alleged-t124935/index.html), didn't take into consideration "party-movement building" in the Second International as a whole.

[Tower of Bebel]

So, for those who say that ideology isn't necessarely false consciousness; what is the relation between ideology and science then? What does it say about (utopian) socialism and "scientific socialism"? And is it true that ideology serves the power of a ruling class or small clique (like the executive bureau of a random Trotskyists party), while (the unrestricted development of) science allows everyone to share power?


As historical materialists, we would be hard pressed to provide evidence that ideology (distinct and proletarian - or "socialist") preceded any revolution. They always "just happen" - and the most able faction in that struggle seizes power or, where the people will not accept new leaders, are sidelined and ignored.

That happened, for example, in the Paris Commune.

Where was "socialist consciousness" in the Paris Commune prior to its formation? It was being preached by marginalized intellectuals like the Blanquists - the proto-Leninists of that revolution. Their cries for a small group to dictate revolution fell upon deaf ears, and this inability to subvert the revolution was the cause of the Commune's progress.

Popular control was the order of the day, and that, comrades, is Communism.

I argue that there were "material reasons" Parisians were not receptive to new bosses - and why Russians were... And I think it is due in large part to the fact that the former was a city of proletarians, while the latter was a nation of peasants.

Whether or not there are "conscious proletarian revolutionaries" to "guide" the struggle, it will "happen" as necessitated by the cumulative human and material forces through history either way.

This is the Marxist narrative - I agree with it because its the best paradigm we have.

What alternatives are there?
Mate, I can agree with some things you say, but I think a nuance is needed. There was socialist ideology prior to the Paris Commune, and the Blanquists were not the only faction. The Commune didn't just happen, it was what is called a "conscious creation". France had a tradition of socialist agitation among the workers. There were communes created during the French revolution and there was even a social democratic party in parliament between 1848 and 1851 (before to the coup of Louis Napoleon). The tradition of socialism was still caried on between 1851 and 1871 by large and small groups of socialists whether reformists, anarchist or communist.

Of course there were some factors present like population density, large scale industries, etc. But that is not enough. Spontaneity by itself cannot exist. It needs some fertile soil and that soil is the other halve of the Marxist medallion called organization.

When Marx wrote about letters and adresses against the war, spread by x number of workers, he wrote about workers organized and lead by very intelligent leaders. These leaders were trained in the class struggle. The thing is, the big difference between the Commune and the Russian civil war is not one of a free revolution and a betrayed revolution (from the beginning). It's that during the former workers set up a pretty decent system that would ensure a proletarian democracy and ergo proletarian "rule"; while the latter suffered from dictatorial measures cummulating in a party and police dictatorship.

So, the Parisians were receptive to new "bosses" (leaders, parties, intellectuals, etc.), but by electing them through a system which they controlled. This system was made up of republican measures like universal armement of the people and universal suffrage. Many representatives of the Commune were from petit-bourgeois origins though, and some had years of experience agitating and organizing workers in France.

[blake 3:17]

If this something you're really interested in, you should read Terry Eagleton's book Ideology. There's a new edition out from Verso so should be pretty available.

The term has many different meanings -- started as the study of ideas, and has come to mean so many more things. It's also a fairly entertaining read -- Eagleton can be pretty funny.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I'd like someone to explain the term 'false consciousness'. Is it like a false beard? Or a false ceiling? Or a false voice? Or false teeth?

This is, it's not really 'conscousness', just imitation...?

And, wtf is 'consciousness' anyway? A sort of 'collective soul'?

In answer to this, comrades tempted to think along traditional lines about this and associated concepts might find these suitably corrective:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-t105849/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/consciousn...438/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-we-t98047/index.html

Or, if you are brave enough:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm