(Marx)False Consciousness; (Antonio Gramsci)Cultural hegemony

[Amphictyonis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony


The question of the day. What will it take to overcome these?

[penguinfoot]

No, not, "(Marx) False Consciousness;", Marx never used the term false consciousness, and it's entirely inadequate as a description of his understanding of ideology. Marx doesn't see ideology as something that is "done" to the working class by apparatuses of the kind that are central to Althusser's theory, and he doesn't view ideology as merely a matter of falsity and illusion, instead he sees as ideology as something that is organically and spontaneously produced by the dominant material relationships in which producers are embedded, such that it has its roots in a deficient kind of practice, and can be understood as a solution in consciousness to deficient practice, in that part of its role is to make it possible for human beings to live in deficient societies, even if it is also and primarily mystifying, because it obscures the inner relations of capitalist society, and is ideology rather than consciousness in general for this reason - as such it can only be overcome through revolutionary practice, because only revolutionary practice can abolish the material conditions and processes from which ideological consciousness emerges.

[scarletghoul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

[Amphictyonis]

No, not, "(Marx) False Consciousness;", Marx never used the term false consciousness,

You're starting to annoy me. He never used the term globalization either but predicted it non the less. Do me a favor and go to my page so you can look at every post I've made- click view all posts then go to each one and insert some childish snide condescending remark in reply. Afterward pat yourself on the back for a job well done. The whole world will give your ego a standing ovation. You're very important. A special little snow flake.

As for your unnecessarily aggressive attack- "as such it can only be overcome through revolutionary practice" No kidding snow flake. What will spark mass revolutionary practice?

[Amphictyonis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

The basic question is what will spark a shift in consciousness when the bourgeoisie just about create our social consciousness in advanced capitalist nations? What will open workers in the west minds to socialism? Cheaply available lap tops and I-pads? Readily available mortgages and new cars?

Can this be done through a battle of idealism alone or will it take drastically declining material conditions to set the stage for acceptance of socialist ideals? Why do you think the bourgeoisie have been pumping megatons of anti communist propaganda in advanced western nations during this current crisis?

[Zanthorus]

Cultural hegemony is hardly Gramsci's idea. Pannekoek had the same basic idea, that the working-class was subjected to the capitalist class spiritually as well as materially, years before. Pannekoek's 'solution', which I believe should also be ours, was for the party to take a consistently revolutionary line against the institutions of bourgeois society.


You're starting to annoy me.

I cannot speak for penguinfoot, but I can assure you that the feeling is reciprocated.

And there was nothing childish, condescdending or aggressive about penguinfoot's post, in fact I would say he was correct. If anything the boot is on the other foot here.

[Amphictyonis]

Cultural hegemony is hardly Gramsci's idea. Pannekoek had the same basic idea, that the working-class was subjected to the capitalist class spiritually as well as materially, years before. Pannekoek's 'solution', which I believe should also be ours, was for the party to take a consistently revolutionary line against the institutions of bourgeois society.



I am fairly sure that the feeling is quickly becoming mutual to everyone you've conversed with so far.

And there was nothing childish or condescdending about penguinfoot's post, in fact I would say he was correct.

Not really. I'd have to disagree. The Penguin guy has pretty much been condescending, if you'd like we can retrace each of his posts in the threads he's followed me into?

How's that "debunking" of Luxemburgism going by the way....


Is there something you want to discuss? I could care less who originated the idea, no one human has ever originated anything alone (if you want to nit pick- which seems to be the point with you two?).

The point of this thread is, what will get the working class, en mass, to embrace class struggle? If we could discuss this without taking it in the direction of childish nit picking I'd appreciate it. Is it going to happen during a period of crisis or will it happen when capitalism is in a boom period? Simple question. What will be the deciding factor in snapping the working class (in advanced capitalist nations) out of the slumber?

What do you think Engels meant when he said this-

"We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the
economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human
minds also play a part, although not the decisive one."

[penguinfoot]

He never used the term globalization either but predicted it non the less.

It's not just a case of Marx using a different term though, it's that "false consciousness" fundamentally mischaracterizes the nature of his views, because the emphasis is on the falsity and ideology is constructed as something that only exists in the sphere of consciousness, the implication being that there is a sphere of consciousness that is more or less distinct as a level of the social totality, even whilst it might be the product of material conditions, when what Marx wants to show is that ideology is a direct product of activity in economic relationships to the extent that, for Marx, the activity of production itself cannot be understood only as the production of commodities but needs to be grasped also as the simultaneous production of ideas. The recognition that men are not only acted upon by the world but that they also interact with the world - such that the world is never something given, never only an object of contemplation - and that they change themselves and their fellow human beings in the process, including changes in their own consciousness, is the key to historical rather than traditional materialism. Not only that, false consciousness also does not capture, to take a term from Althusser - this insight being the rational kernel of Althusser's project - the necessary practico-social character of ideology, that is, its role in making the world capable of being acted upon and lived in by human beings.

For this reason, when Engels says that historical materialism is about recognizing that the economic conditions are decisive but that ones to do with traditions in consciousness are important as well, he is trying to avoid falling into a reductive type of materialism, but only at the cost of distorting and restricting the meaning of Marx's project, in that Marx never saw material conditions only in terms of the economy, but in the broad sense of human practice, embodying above all production, with all its dimensions.


The point of this thread is, what will get the working class, en mass, to embrace class struggle?

Class struggle is not something that the working class "embraces" at a given point in time, it is an ongoing process that assumes different forms - a "now hidden, now open fight", as the Manifesto says.


Is it going to happen during a period of crisis or will it happen when capitalism is in a boom period?

Do you not think that capitalism is currently in crisis? Do you not think that the contradictions of capitalism were manifesting themselves in terrible ways during WW1?

Also, I'm sorry if I've come across as patronizing, although I don't think I have.

[Amphictyonis]

It is, in part, when workers adopt the views of the bourgeoisie and fail to see the chains of their own making (that they are being alienated and exploited and have the power to change it). False consciousness is basically the reality created by capitalism. The mode of production (economic system) creates the entire 'superstructure' of society. Workers are living in a 'reality' created by capitalism,a 'reality' which facilitates false consciousness. Workers think wage slavery, alienation, nationalism and plutocratic rule is normal because it is their every day lives....a society based in competition and greed is normal- these capitalist values are INGRAINED in us. Most people can't even see they're alienated.


"For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones."
(The German Ideology p62) Just about 90% of the USA is suffering from being saturated mind, body and soul with the reality capitalism creates- they don't simply lack the ability to recognize the process of alienation. This is where ideology comes into play. In order to get people to see and understand the reality capitalism creates ideology is key but again, the question is, why aren't more people accepting socialist ideology? As I said before I'm not a material determinist- I see a sort of middle ground between material conditions and ideology but I put material conditions out in front as a sort of spring board to acceptance of socialist ideology. Bad material conditions won't create a proper (socialist) class conscious population but worsening material conditions will most likely lead to struggle and in that struggle, in that opposition to the status quo, class consciousness will emerge- this new consciousness will be key in facilitating a successful socialist revolution.


Look at the Spanish Revolution.


In the 1930's Europe was experiencing one of its' worst ever slumps. The Wall Street crash came in 1931 and its repercussions were felt far and wide. Spain was no exception. By 1936 unemployment had gone over 30% in many of the towns and cities Out of a total workforce of three million, one million were out of work. There was no dole and as prices rose by 80% in the five years up to 1936, many encountered severe hardship. Would you say material conditions lead to a shift in consciousness? Why didn't the Spanish Revolution take place during WW1 when Spain was in a boom period?


Boom

Spain's boom period had been during World War I when it had remained neutral. Agriculture thrived due to the large foreign markets for its exports. At the same time some industrialisation took place. After the war, though, this boom came to an end, especially when tariff barriers were thrown up by Britain and France against Spanish exports. While the boom lasted the landowners reaped the benefits but when the slump arrived it was the peasants who suffered. conditions in the Spain of the 1930's were comparable with the Orient. Starvation was _normal_ between the harvests. The press of the time carried reports of whole districts living on roots and boiled greens. The industrialisation that had taken place was mainly confined to one area- Catalonia. Situated in the Northeast bordering on France, Catalonia, especially its capital Barcelona, became the industrial centre of Spain, with 70% of all industry and 50% of industrial workers. Many peasants left the land to seek work in Barcelona, which added to the already existing unemployment.
Other forces at the time were the Catholic church and the army. While there were 25,000 parish priests there were a further 70,000 in religious orders. The Jesuits alone owned 30% of the country's wealth. The numbers in the orders actually outnumbered the total of secondary school students. While millions were kept illiterate (40% could neither read nor write) the church preached superstitious reports of incredible incidents such as statues seen weeping and crucifixes exuding blood.
The Church was renowned for siding with the bosses and while the priests were living in luxury the peasants around them often starved. It is little wonder the Church was hated.
The army was famous for its number of officers. There was one for every six soldiers! This officer caste had been developed under the monarchy (which was ended in I 931) and was responsible for the whole colonial administration along with much of that in the country itself. Drawn from the upper classes they were tied by kinship, friendship and social position to the industrialists and reactionary landowners.

What makes you think, one day, millions of marginally comfortable office workers, accountants, service sector employees and government workers (who are saturated by the reality capitalism creates) will, after reading the communist manifesto, facilitate a socialist revolution? For the advanced capitalist nations to turn to socialism (and thus for socialism to manifest) it's going to take drastically declining material conditions and struggle fighting for better material conditions under those declining conditions. That's really all I'm saying.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Check out this sticky above:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1060455&postcount=1

Especially this article on Marx and 'False Consciousness':

http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htm

[Amphictyonis]

KKbHA76-Hi0

Are we 'free to choose' or is our very reality morphed , guided and manipulated by the ruling class?
IckU_wzoSQA


Our culture is not ready for communism (today, right now at this moment) because we lack, as a culture in advanced capitalist nations, a proper view of the world due to the effects the current economic system has had on the human mind. It's going to take sharp decline in material conditions to snap us (in the west) out of this warped interpretation of 'reality' many westerners live in. We are saturated with capitalism. Like sponges.

What do you think will radicalize the masses of workers in the advanced capitalist nations? I'm not promoting economic determinism I'm simply saying declining material conditions will open up the door for ideology to be effective.

[Futility Personified]

I've always felt that with regards to getting past cultural hegemony, circulation of a paper that would be like an ultra-left version of the Guardian, keeping a lot of conventional crap that most mainstream papers do but with a large Socialist bias. No clear out and out indication of Socialism, no daily-mail esque style writing, just typically factual reporting avoiding Leftist wording. That way the values sink in without the stigma that anti-capitalists often suffer from.

The problem with anti-capitalist journalism and literature is that while it will always appeal to radicals, combating the stigma that wasn't there when the left was actually strong is something I feel you can't do out and out using the S, C, C, words (Socialist, Capitalist, Communist and Class) as it scares off typical folks. Subversion of capitalist mindsets through leftist bias minus the marxist terminology to draw people in is what's required imo.

Another problem is through subversion via art, I can't help but notice that while you'll get a lot of anti-capitalist types in punk, ska and reggae scenes, those scenes aren't exactly mainstream and again it just appeals to radical sorts. Trouble is how to you write Socialist pop songs? :P The Internationale wouldn't be the best thing to remix in a danceable way! That said, more attempts at integration with the mainstream and subtle dissemination of values minus the buzzwords is something worth trying.