Supposed Althusserian Elitism? [Archive]

View Full Version : Supposed Althusserian Elitism?

D-A-C

13th October 2014, 18:12

Vladimir Innit Lenin

14th October 2014, 22:05

blake 3:17

14th October 2014, 22:59

It's refreshing when Left academics acknowledge their elite position... I haven't time to reply to this properly but a very nice change from many who pretend they're humble serfs.

I've issues with Althusser's seemingly magical ominisicience.

My least favourite former comrade was always going on and on about the educators needing educating and so on -- blah blah. After a very long time I finally understood it was his way of appearing to be democratic while not, avoiding action, and making meetings go longer. "But yes we must listen! Listening is very important! We should listen more."

blake 3:17

17th October 2014, 23:15

I found the book Defenders of the Truth enormously helpful in understanding political games in academia. It also helped me understand what shit heads leftists can be. This is a decent brief review: http://www.bookideas.com/reviews/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayReview&id=651

Richard Lewontin comes off as a total asshole and I found it a bit tricky as he was someone I'd previously quite admired. Other leftists stayed out of it and did their academic work and did their politics as two distinct things -- quite often very admirably.

Maybe on a more relevant and personal note I can think of a couple of academics who do labour studies. One is always trying to urge for "self emancipation", but basically trying to boss people around, while the other, again a socialist, just gets down to business and does their job and I think does a much better service in terms of facilitating the emancipation of the working class -- they do research and put together studies and synthesize information that working people simply can't do.

They're involved with this blog: http://worklabournewsresearch.tumblr.com/ which I find much more helpful than many more typical lefty blah blah opinion things.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

17th October 2014, 23:31

So, OP:

Have you actually gone and spoken with the masses in need of guidance by "truly knowledgeable individuals"? Have you done any sort of real boots-on-the-ground work with poor and precarious workers? Have you really dug in and understood what the ideas and activities of the hard core of the proletariat actually are?

Or is this just an ideological game for you? Are you playing with theories that say, "Well, they must be reactionary! Their consciousness must be stunted!"?

This is a sincere question.

This also seems like a good occasion to remind everyone of this (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm).

Hit The North

18th October 2014, 00:28

Well, the problem is not only that the philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways but that, if we accept that the point is to change the world, the philosophers are incapable of doing so.

Unless, of course, your position is that ideas are the motive force in social change, which, whether true or not, would be a departure from Marxism and historical materialism.

Intellectuals have their role because political battles are fought by self-conscious human agents. But there are different types of intellectuals. There are academic professors who are paid to theorise and write it up for journals, and there are organic intellectuals who, armed with class consciousness, engage in the class struggle from the point of view of their class.

The idea that the revolution should be led by an intellectual elite is one that must be strenuously fought in the workers movement. Like all elitist positions it resolves itself in substitutionalism. But the emanicpation of the workers must be the act of the workers themselves.

blake 3:17

18th October 2014, 04:15

To be fair to D-A-C, I think he raises some interesting questions that simple grass roots rank and file type organizing can't start to explain -- like wtf did happen in China?

But you know, life's weird. You can start doing some of that day to day kind of organizing and get to know people and discover "ordinary people" are actually quite clever and sometimes pretty book smart, heck they might have read that Deutscher biography of Stalin and have some pretty sophisticated thoughts on all sorts of things. One of the most nuisancey left overs I've found amongst parts of the Marxist Left is that working people walk around with empty heads waiting to be filled, or if they're full of thought they're full of bad or incorrect thoughts.

I do think there is a special place for Marxist analysis -- unfortunately most Marxists don't bother to make one, they mimic them.

I thought I'd be bored by it, but I found Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine very helpful in understanding a number of societies in transition, I know very superficially, but in a way that gave some sense.

A book I'd highly recommend, and does come from very hard academic study, and lots of discussion, and talks about history, but also the present and potential futures is Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts It's a challenging read, and not much fun, but the material is presented about as accessibly as possible. The stuff on agriculture in China and India is just amazing, and the particular bunglings by the colonists is something else.

That's a book that'd be a pretty hard to read if I'd had any other responsibilities beyond work and basic relationships and day to day stuff. Well worth it.

I think one of the problems with academia is that if you're part of certain games you've got to be picking camps all the time.

Rafiq

18th October 2014, 05:01

Unless, of course, your position is that ideas are the motive force in social change, which, whether true or not, would be a departure from Marxism and historical materialism.

Marx believed this at a point in history in which the philosophers really have exhausted the most detailed interpretations of the world as it existed. And the world has changed greatly since then - and yet, we don't know shit about it. You cannot change a world you do not completely understand or lack the whole mechanisms of interpretation.

Hence the important of philosophers like Althusser. All Marxists today take advantage of the contributions of Marxists after Marx - philosophers included. Marx and Engels didn't say a damn word about many things we write off as inherently Marxist. To Marx, the point was to change it - this was during a time where class struggle was at its prime and when everyone knew that the cause of the commons was true. This isn't the case now. Ideas are not a primary motive in social change - because this is contradictory, the very notion of social change pre-supposes that it is a social change. That being said, ideas play an absolutely vital part in the process of social change - humans do not create history by being completely self-conscious about this social change, the social change itself is mediated and expressed through ideology. Without ideology - without ideas, there can be no social change in the same way that without flirtation there can be no sex (You KNOW what I mean, don't go and say "technically no". You get the idea).

Philosophy, while not being a cause of ideology, which has no immediate political utility (I.e., you're not going to get more supporters with philosophy), is absolutely important as far as giving Marxists direction. Philosophy is a means to understand ideology itself - moreover, philosophy is class struggle in theory. The point isn't that philosophers themselves are going to directly change anything - the point is that they provide weapons which we must equip in the process of trying to change the world. Alexander without Aristotle would be a lost man (again, this isn't a historical argument - it's a metaphor).

consuming negativity

18th October 2014, 05:08

I suppose because you will soon have those 3 letters after your name you feel comfortable shrugging your shoulders at elitism and dictatorship from your ivory tower.

So, without bieng too rude, I think yes you are most certainly giving ground when you accept the narrative of the 'stupid worker'. If you go down that road, then what is your actual motivation for your politics? It's certainly not the emancipation of workers, more rather self-interest. And, given that academics are not considered working class in Marxian sociological theory, that would mark you out as diametrically opposed to working class politics.

I suggest you re-think the motivations for your own politics and, if you truly are for emancipation of workers rather than your own-self interest as an academic, then I would re-consider your own views on the potential of workers to become class- and politically-conscious.

You're not being rude, you're being prolier-than-thou. Academics are certainly part of the working class unless they are not, and making ridiculous distinctions otherwise is playing right into the "working class people are dumb laborers" nonsense that you seem to be accusing the OP of. Have you stopped to consider that maybe it is actually in the self-interest of academics to bring about socialism for a reason? I mean, your tendency is Marxist; who do you think Marx was, exactly? Who was Engels? Or Mao? Or Lenin? Or any of the other persons from wealthy backgrounds who are quasi-worshipped nowadays as if everything they said is somehow beyond our reach?

D-A-C

18th October 2014, 14:05

Let me start by saying thank you to everyone who replied to my post so far. I also would like to explain that I often have problems initially laying out the core beliefs of my ideas, but in responding to these posts I hope some things can become a little clearer, so that even if you disagree, you at least understand my point of view.

I suppose because you will soon have those 3 letters after your name you feel comfortable shrugging your shoulders at elitism and dictatorship from your ivory tower.

So, without bieng too rude, I think yes you are most certainly giving ground when you accept the narrative of the 'stupid worker'. If you go down that road, then what is your actual motivation for your politics? It's certainly not the emancipation of workers, more rather self-interest. And, given that academics are not considered working class in Marxian sociological theory, that would mark you out as diametrically opposed to working class politics.

I suggest you re-think the motivations for your own politics and, if you truly are for emancipation of workers rather than your own-self interest as an academic, then I would re-consider your own views on the potential of workers to become class- and politically-conscious.

It's refreshing when Left academics acknowledge their elite position... I haven't time to reply to this properly but a very nice change from many who pretend they're humble serfs.

I've issues with Althusser's seemingly magical ominisicience.

My least favourite former comrade was always going on and on about the educators needing educating and so on -- blah blah. After a very long time I finally understood it was his way of appearing to be democratic while not, avoiding action, and making meetings go longer. "But yes we must listen! Listening is very important! We should listen more."

I found the book Defenders of the Truth enormously helpful in understanding political games in academia. It also helped me understand what shit heads leftists can be. This is a decent brief review: http://www.bookideas.com/reviews/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayReview&id=651

Richard Lewontin comes off as a total asshole and I found it a bit tricky as he was someone I'd previously quite admired. Other leftists stayed out of it and did their academic work and did their politics as two distinct things -- quite often very admirably.

Maybe on a more relevant and personal note I can think of a couple of academics who do labour studies. One is always trying to urge for "self emancipation", but basically trying to boss people around, while the other, again a socialist, just gets down to business and does their job and I think does a much better service in terms of facilitating the emancipation of the working class -- they do research and put together studies and synthesize information that working people simply can't do.

They're involved with this blog: http://worklabournewsresearch.tumblr.com/ which I find much more helpful than many more typical lefty blah blah opinion things.

Maybe I am reading your posts incorrectly but it certainly reads to me that you both have a resentment of intellectuals and I can't really do much about that if that is the case.

First off let me thank you for the book citation Blake, a section of my PhD is devoted to 'science' insofar as one of the goals of my thesis is to develop a more scientific methodology for the study of film so that those of us involved in Media Studies can get past alot of the 'feelings' or 'I think' debates about media texts into a more socially grounded examination of their content and effects upon society. So perhaps a few useful quotations may be found in that work.

With that being said the thesis seemingly presented within the book based upon that review isn't much of a surprise, at least from an Althusserian perspective.

Knowledge, far from being omnipresent or always existing independently waiting to be discovered and realised into existence is in fact a form of production; and it is a form of production based on the concepts that the scientist develops or uses to study their given object. Also, as Althusserian Marxism displaces 'Man' as the centre of the universe (or at least within theory) and replaces that concept with an analysis of the structural forces which create 'Man' in a given period in time, it is therefore the social conditions into which a scientist is born that will determine what theoretical concepts are available for him to make use of (unless we get into the theory of epistemological/knowledge breaks but that is another debate altogether).

My point is, that theoretical debates, as the quote from Althusser I have in my forum footer alludes to, have a very important political effect, especially when you consider that a teacher/professor/academic, is responsible for educating perhaps hundreds or thousands of people over the course of his life, introducing them to theoretical concepts, that can potentially become the tools which they can then use to understand the world in which they live. I certainly would not take up a Gramscian position and argue for a battle and war of position to be waged within social structures, gaining ground, appointments, that will lead to their domination, but I would however argue that theoretical debates within academia can and do compose of a front within which Marxist revolutionary practice often can, does and should challenge the omnipotence of Bourgeois Ideological self confidence. Because make no mistake, now that it has achieved its position as controller over the means of production, the Bourgeois has furnished both itself and society with an ideology which both protects and perpetuates it continual exploitation of the mass of humanity, but also posits itself as an unchallengeable, omnipresent force on the stage of world history, a presence in their minds preordained and everlasting.

Now if Academics in general are given a privileged position within society I think that has more to do with how society itself is currently constructed, its actually quite easy to take pot-shots at academics for living in Ivory Towers removed from the burdens of the class, at least in the case of Left Academics, they seek to aid. But what would you like to happen? Universities become the sole domain of a privileged elite, exclusively bourgeois in class origin? One of the reasons Althusser is so important for me is because he shows the importance those in academia can play in the class struggle, you can obviously mutter 'how convenient', but as Lenin stated, and as I have as my other footer quotation, 'Without Revolutionary Theory, there can be no Revolutionary Movement'

So, OP:

Have you actually gone and spoken with the masses in need of guidance by "truly knowledgeable individuals"? Have you done any sort of real boots-on-the-ground work with poor and precarious workers? Have you really dug in and understood what the ideas and activities of the hard core of the proletariat actually are?

Or is this just an ideological game for you? Are you playing with theories that say, "Well, they must be reactionary! Their consciousness must be stunted!"?

This is a sincere question.

This also seems like a good occasion to remind everyone of this (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm).

I have discussed Marxism with all of my immediate friends and family, and in social situations that allow for it. I would honestly say because I am grounded in examining Films I have an advantage in terms of starting a 'chat', although I would say more often than not most discussions end with 'it's just a film' i.e. all the talk of film being both an avenue for a self-critical examination of society, and a means to change peoples perceptions of their social situation often gets reduced to 'it's just a film'. That said I have had some surprising conversations with people who, if they had been academically gifted and/or inclined would be capable of engaging in the kind of debates that are usually reserved for journals and books. I also have had a few people say methodology I have worked on called 'renarrating' has given them a completely different outlook of the way the watch and consume media texts.

However I am of the firm belief that in order for people such as myself to become truly engaged with the working class in must be through a Marxist Party. A Party would help both with the dissemination of ideas of intellectuals amongst workers and also encourage real grassroots, boots on the ground activism in a directed and meaningful way. Such a Party does not exist where I live, and indeed that is the problem with many countries around the world. How to take the scattered remnants of a movement that has been forced onto the defensive for over two decades and reform it into a hammer to smash the rule of the existing social order.

With that in mind, I detect a little Maoism in your post, I could be wrong of course, but if that is the case, the Maoist idea of sending the privileged students and academics to learn an honest days labour and the way of life of those they represent had often tragic repercussions when it was tried by French Students in the 1960's as told from this book (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9127.html) . So I won't be abandoning my PhD in favour of work at a factory or call centre as is increasingly the case in the Western World so that I can gain a mythical appreciation of a noble worker spirit. As a side note, I actually hold certain tenants of Maoism and like Althusser Mao himself in high regard for what he thought and attempted. That said, that theory is not one of them. Maybe that in itself is also 'quite convenient' for me?

Well, the problem is not only that the philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways but that, if we accept that the point is to change the world, the philosophers are incapable of doing so.

Unless, of course, your position is that ideas are the motive force in social change, which, whether true or not, would be a departure from Marxism and historical materialism.

Intellectuals have their role because political battles are fought by self-conscious human agents. But there are different types of intellectuals. There are academic professors who are paid to theorise and write it up for journals, and there are organic intellectuals who, armed with class consciousness, engage in the class struggle from the point of view of their class.

The idea that the revolution should be led by an intellectual elite is one that must be strenuously fought in the workers movement. Like all elitist positions it resolves itself in substitutionalism. But the emanicpation of the workers must be the act of the workers themselves.

Some of your ideas sound very Gramscian. I struggle with Gramsci as I sometimes enjoy and agree with his insights, but it conflicts with Althusserian theory in often subtle ways (partly because of so much overlap and agreement between aspects of their ideas).

With regard to the emancipation of the workers being an act they must themselves engage in, can it be said that any of the great Revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba, Vientnam etc followed that idea? I'm not necessarily saying they didn't nor do I oppose the sentiment, but there are degrees with that statement as to how you weight the actual involvement of the mass of workers. If the mass of workers are led, guided and compelled by a tiny group of professional revolutionaries with an intricate theoretical understanding of the social situation of their time does that alter the statement or conform to it?

I wouldn't argue that ideas are the driving force of history, but increasingly I have come to understand the role which ideas play in guiding and controlling the direction that society and the subjects that inhabit it take in their lives. I certainly agree, and my experiences have convinced me of this, that philosophers on their own cannot change the world, but I would also say that they can play a leading role none the less. It might not always be immediately noticeable, but where would any of those of us on this forum be if Marx had not furnished us with the revolution concepts we use to struggle against exploitation? That these concepts where derived from the material conditions in which he existed, the advent of the industrial revolution and ascendency of the of the bourgeois etc would nonetheless negate his importance in imparting these concepts to us so that we can see our world for what it truly is, and then engage in its alteration.

There is a great joke Zizek tells that kind of mirrors my argument:

A guy was sent from East Germany to work in Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors, so he told his friends: “Let’s establish a code. If a letter you get from me is written in blue ink, then what I say is true. If it is written in red ink, it is false.” After a month, his friends get the first letter. Everything is in blue. It says in this letter: “Everything is wonderful here. Stores are full of good food. Movie theatres show good films from the west. Apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot buy is red ink.”

If you lack the language and theoretical concepts to give voice to your own opression and exploitation how can see, identify and combat it? That would be the point I would take from that joke.

Things then aren't always as black and white as they can appear in terms of ideas and intellectuals and their ability to materially change social existence. I'm certainly no idealist though :)

Marx believed this at a point in history in which the philosophers really have exhausted the most detailed interpretations of the world as it existed. And the world has changed greatly since then - and yet, we don't know shit about it. You cannot change a world you do not completely understand or lack the whole mechanisms of interpretation.

Hence the important of philosophers like Althusser. All Marxists today take advantage of the contributions of Marxists after Marx - philosophers included. Marx and Engels didn't say a damn word about many things we write off as inherently Marxist. To Marx, the point was to change it - this was during a time where class struggle was at its prime and when everyone knew that the cause of the commons was true. This isn't the case now. Ideas are not a primary motive in social change - because this is contradictory, the very notion of social change pre-supposes that it is a social change. That being said, ideas play an absolutely vital part in the process of social change - humans do not create history by being completely self-conscious about this social change, the social change itself is mediated and expressed through ideology. Without ideology - without ideas, there can be no social change in the same way that without flirtation there can be no sex (You KNOW what I mean, don't go and say "technically no". You get the idea).

Philosophy, while not being a cause of ideology, which has no immediate political utility (I.e., you're not going to get more supporters with philosophy), is absolutely important as far as giving Marxists direction. Philosophy is a means to understand ideology itself - moreover, philosophy is class struggle in theory. The point isn't that philosophers themselves are going to directly change anything - the point is that they provide weapons which we must equip in the process of trying to change the world. Alexander without Aristotle would be a lost man (again, this isn't a historical argument - it's a metaphor).

That is an incredibly well thought out post and very interesting to read; I could be wrong, but you sound like you have read Althusser? If not, you definately are in the same ball park as many of the ideas he espoused and I have taken up in my work as being correct.

I was going to write a few paragraphs basically parroting your ideas and sentiment but I think I will just let them stand on their own, and say that I am in total agreement.

Also with your permission I really would like to find a space in my PhD for that Alexander the Great and his teacher Aristotle example, that was really illuminating for the whole concept that you were summarising and which I myself totally agree with.

You're not being rude, you're being prolier-than-thou. Academics are certainly part of the working class unless they are not, and making ridiculous distinctions otherwise is playing right into the "working class people are dumb laborers" nonsense that you seem to be accusing the OP of. Have you stopped to consider that maybe it is actually in the self-interest of academics to bring about socialism for a reason? I mean, your tendency is Marxist; who do you think Marx was, exactly? Who was Engels? Or Mao? Or Lenin? Or any of the other persons from wealthy backgrounds who are quasi-worshipped nowadays as if everything they said is somehow beyond our reach?

I absolutely adore that expression 'prolier-than-thou' and can't say that I have ever come across it, as with the Alexander/Aristotle example I admired, I would definately ask for your permission to try to find space in my PhD for that phrase.

You also make a great point I very much agree with, that the sociological background and upbringing of a person, whilst imprinting upon them certain features, ideas, outlooks, in no guarantor of their political affiliation. Many, or indeed most even, of the people who have furnished us with a theoretical understanding of the world in which we live, and have influenced our political outlook where themselves not directly part of the class of people they fought their whole lives to champion and improve the conditions of.

It is easy to dismiss intellectuals in certain respects, and I certainly would not suggest they are above repproach, but I think sometimes there can be tendancies towards negating their revolutionary role. That again why I admire the work of Althusser and hold it in such high esteem. For me, in my life, he is the person who has said that the kind of work I do can have a revolutionary impact, that the role of intellectuals is vital and so he doesn't suggest chucking it all in to pick up stones to throw at police, or pickup an AK47 and fight in some jungle, but says instead to continue to pick up books and fight on an equally important revolutionary front ... the battlefield of ideas.

Lord Hargreaves

18th October 2014, 14:28

I have some genuine questions:

The problem is that the OP seems to uncritically accept these Althusserian ideas, without bothering to justify them to the forum himself (nevermind Althusser's own later self-criticisms of, and distancing from, the structural Marxist tropes he is still most famous for). Why don't you tell us whether this "elitism" is justified? After all, it isn't surprising that such an academic style of Marxism should attempt to justify the revolutionary potential of academic work.

Althusser's work actually poses as many questions to Marxism and it answers. Many ex-Althusserians, after the height of intellectual Althusserianism (many decades ago now it has to be said) have either become some kind of post-Marxist e.g. Laclau, gone on to prefer Foucault or Deleuze-Guattari, or abandoned Marxism altogether. What say you on this? How have your studies of Althusser actually strengthened your belief in Marxism, and in The Party, if it seems to generate such pessimism in the revolutionary potential of the proletariat?

consuming negativity

18th October 2014, 16:03

I absolutely adore that expression 'prolier-than-thou' and can't say that I have ever come across it, as with the Alexander/Aristotle example I admired, I would definately ask for your permission to try to find space in my PhD for that phrase.

You also make a great point I very much agree with, that the sociological background and upbringing of a person, whilst imprinting upon them certain features, ideas, outlooks, in no guarantor of their political affiliation. Many, or indeed most even, of the people who have furnished us with a theoretical understanding of the world in which we live, and have influenced our political outlook where themselves not directly part of the class of people they fought their whole lives to champion and improve the conditions of.

It is easy to dismiss intellectuals in certain respects, and I certainly would not suggest they are above repproach, but I think sometimes there can be tendancies towards negating their revolutionary role. That again why I admire the work of Althusser and hold it in such high esteem. For me, in my life, he is the person who has said that the kind of work I do can have a revolutionary impact, that the role of intellectuals is vital and so he doesn't suggest chucking it all in to pick up stones to throw at police, or pickup an AK47 and fight in some jungle, but says instead to continue to pick up books and fight on an equally important revolutionary front ... the battlefield of ideas.

Ugh. You don't get it either. The idea that intellectuals are a "class" of persons in the same way as the proletarians or the bourgeoisie is nonsense. Anybody can be an intellectual; all you have to do is enjoy learning, be good at it, and have the resources available so that you can study and learn from other people. Of course, this forum makes all kinds of millions of different distinctions based on nonsense. We think that bosses aren't proles, we think that cops aren't proles, we think the military aren't proles; in fact, we think pretty much everybody who isn't in the stereotypical factory worker (or now service sector) position are somehow not "prole" enough to be a member of the proletariat. "Oh, but they reinforce the ruling class!" SO DOES EVERYBODY. You can't fucking be alive and NOT support the status quo unless you are directly undermining it, and nobody can constantly live a life of complete illegalism; although it is certainly admirable to try. But in truth, we literally have no choice BUT to do work to support the ruling class, and that is exactly what defines us as a fucking class! We don't own shit and thus we work for other people. It's SIMPLE. But no, we'd rather create a million different divisions based on arbitrary bullshit that is really only interesting from an analytical perspective that nobody really gives a shit about. All people actually need to understand is that they're not getting paid enough for the work they do and that we think it's cool for them to be able to build their own home and get a real say in how things are run. That's self-interest. But we pretend as though self-interest is bad, when in reality, it's pretty much fucking impossible to NOT do what you want to do within the constraints of your situation. Yes, owning shit is terrible, wanting to be paid for your work is terrible, how dare anybody act in their own self interests... as if it isn't in ALL of our self interests - in the longest term - to get rid of fucking capitalism.

As for "prolier-than-thou", I borrowed it from someone on this forum. It's a neat little term, and you should definitely include it in your book or your paper or whatever, but it's not something I came up with myself.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th October 2014, 18:00

You're not being rude, you're being prolier-than-thou. Academics are certainly part of the working class unless they are not, and making ridiculous distinctions otherwise is playing right into the "working class people are dumb laborers" nonsense that you seem to be accusing the OP of. Have you stopped to consider that maybe it is actually in the self-interest of academics to bring about socialism for a reason? I mean, your tendency is Marxist; who do you think Marx was, exactly? Who was Engels? Or Mao? Or Lenin? Or any of the other persons from wealthy backgrounds who are quasi-worshipped nowadays as if everything they said is somehow beyond our reach?

Academics who have a tenured position do not generally have to sell their labour power on a day-to-day basis in exchange for compensation, in the same way that waged or contracted-salaried labourers do.

Further, the academic, through royalties from published books, is essentially an owner of intellectual ideas.

To the OP, and related to the above point: as a teacher, I have nothing but enthusiasm and admiration for intellect. It is what I live my life for. For that reason, I want to see the widest variety of philosophical, political, historical, social, and cultural ideas spread to the greatest number of people in the greatest number of places. My problem with (some) academics, is that they can conform to the 'ivory tower' generalisation whereby they write books about subjects and people who they have no real-world interaction with, and then publish their books in such a way that make their ideas/criticisms inaccessible to said subjects and people (through, for example, complicity in the textbook pricing scandal).

It is clear to me that academics benefit greatly from the tradition of tenure that exists in capitalist academia.

Decolonize The Left

18th October 2014, 18:07

Hello Comrades,

I am currently in the final year of my PhD studying the works of the Marxist Louis Althusser and applying them to the study of film, however I wanted to sound out my response to a critique of Althusser here as, institutionally nobody apart from my supervisor gives a sh*t about philosophical theories, Marxist debates etc.

So, I have been reading Jacques Ranciere's book Althusser's Lesson, and in it he takes aim at the inherent 'elitism' of Althusserian theory, which through its various philosophical thesis would attribute a very real political impact to those engaged in theoretical debates/academia in general. Ranciere seems to be arguing that such theories reinforce the Bourgeois division of labour and ultimately act as a sort of theoretical policing action that both prevents workers from acting politically and also reinforces Party Orthodoxy.

The problem I am having is that I am very comfortable with supposed 'elitist tendencies' within Marxism in general because I subscribe to the kind of sentiment from the following quote from Isaac Deutcher's biography of Stalin, basically that, 'The communist pessimist treats his own doctrine as a piece of esoteric knowledge. He does not believe the working classes are really capable of accepting it, unless it is, brutally speaking, pushed down their throats.'

Forgive me, but isn't this notion (expressed in the last line of the above-quoted text) completely anti-materialist? It would seem to me that simple logic would dictate that class struggle, material struggle, creates class consciousness. The "ramming" of class consciousness down worker's throats would imply that either a) there is no class struggle (obviously false) or b) there is no creation of class consciousness resulting thereof. The latter may be true, but the solution would then be to either a) intensify the class struggle (the work of so-called revolutionaries) or b) identify and destroy the barriers to said consciousness creation.

"Education from above" is patronizing and, in my opinion (as an 'intellectual,' 'academic,' and a working class union member) completely counter-productive. For the same reason American Indians don't want the white man's help, the "unconscious" working class Joe doesn't want the help of the intellectual. At this point I would like to appeal to our goals of the revolution and say that it is only within communism that our integrity as people is actualized fully: revolutionaries (or those who advocate thusly) ought bear this integrity at all times. Elitism carries no integrity, it lacks a spine and crumbles in the face of change as it is fundamentally rooted in material privilege.

It probably sounds shocking to some of you, but nevertheless all my studies of Marxist and Althusserian theory have led me to sympathize with the notions involving a minority of truly knowledgeable individuals struggling for the benefit of the masses. When you add to that the arguments of Leninism, Spinozist notions such as 'people fight more for their slavery than their salvation' coupled with Althusserian theories of Interpellation, Reproduction of the Relations of Reproduction, State Apparatuses, History as a process without a Subject, etc, etc, I think a little pessimism is well earned.

Pessimism is indeed well earned, so much so that it permeates most leftist writing, organizing, and theory. Pessimism is nothing other than the victory of capital. To combat this view we require a combination of theory, practice, and strategy. We have an abundance of theory, no practice, and hence no strategy as strategy is born in praxis only.

However pessimism doesn't mean in this situation, inaction, rather it means an acceptance of the real conditions we today find ourselves in since the collapse of the Soviet Union, China's path to capitalism, the destruction of the Left in 1980's etc. Also taking into account the mutation of and evolution of Capitalism from industrial to post-industrial and the ideological fall out from this shift. All of these things combining then to give a real importance to a solid theoretical grasp of what is going on in the world so that the best action can be taken to change things.

I would argue that intellectual/academic pessimism means precisely inaction. As someone who is waist-deep in such an atmosphere, I assume you are aware of the tendency within academia to critique and then to hold said critique up as action. Even a pessimistic critique is better than nothing, no?

I believe that a truly Marxist analysis would look at the intellectual/academic relationship to the means of production and observe how their class attitude reflects this relationship. This isn't to say that I don't think they are a part of the theoretical proletariat, I do, but that class attitudes obviously do not fall in accordance with class lines.

"Solid theoretical grasp" matters only in-so-far as it is the other side of the coin of solid political practice.

So, who educates the educators? Society does when it produces subjects, who due to their position and social upbringing within their particular socio-political conjuncture have a tendancy to become proponents of certain of these truths. Obviously because of a combination of a 'need to just get by', 'political pessimism' and the various forces of capitalist power, the mass of people do not really pose to much of a challenge to the existing social order. However a core of theorists and political activists, can and do struggle to change people's perceptions and try to quite literally, 'change the world' which as we know from the famous Marx quote is the whole point.

So I guess my point is to try to see what some of you think of such beliefs, as well as asking, does my acceptance of 'elitist' forms of Marxism which play down the spontaneity of the masses and thereby assert a more privileged role for those engaged in theoretical struggles pose any problems?

The Vanguard Party, perhaps in this case an odd combination of this and the imaginary party, an imaginary Vanguard?, is a fine practice so long as it is actually done. I, for one, support a multitude of political actions so long as they are rooted in a material, class-based, analysis. The problem is when people think that the Vanguard Party is a good idea but don't allow/support other ideas in flourishing - sectarianism (stemming often from your supported "pessimism") has done its work well.

On this note, I, for one, have no interest in your self-proclaimed elitist Marxism. However, if you were to truly enact this and establish some sort of a Vanguard elite, I would support your actions. And I would expect the same kind of respect and comradery. I ask you then, if you were to support something which appeared less intellectually developed, less elite, less refined, and if you were to lend your support fully as we are both working towards the same class goal, does not your "elitism" lose a bit of its shine?
;)2

Hit The North

18th October 2014, 18:40

Marx believed this at a point in history in which the philosophers really have exhausted the most detailed interpretations of the world as it existed. And the world has changed greatly since then - and yet, we don't know shit about it. You cannot change a world you do not completely understand or lack the whole mechanisms of interpretation.

I agree but do not believe that we "know shit" about the world. I'm not ruling out the role of intellectual engagement or assuming some philistine anti-theory position. But we have to ask: understand the world from whose point of view? Or, a theory which advocates what kind of action?

Hence the important of philosophers like Althusser. All Marxists today take advantage of the contributions of Marxists after Marx - philosophers included.

Sure, Marxism, if it is anything, is an accumulation of observations of the world and should be in a state of continual engagement with the class struggle. This is what we find in Kautsky, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Bordiga, Gramsci, etc. Those generations we might refer to as 'classical Marxists'. This is also what we find in the work of the more modest Marxist leaders after the second world war, such as Cliff, Grant, Mandel and others. Whatever their shortcomings, like the classical Marxists they were actively engaged in the workers movement and tailored their developing understanding of a changing world to the task of organising resistance and building class consciousness. But Althusser? Well, he imported an unwarranted structuralism into Marxism which might have helped him to resolve, or at least rethink, some theoretical issue but ultimately it leads to a political cul de sac of intellectual elitism. If there's a worse crime than intellectualism, it is ineffectualism, which is where Structural Marxism leads us, imo.

Ideas are not a primary motive in social change - because this is contradictory, the very notion of social change pre-supposes that it is a social change.

Ideas are part of the social. They don't just pop into people's heads, they need to be circulated, heard, understood and applied, and this is another problem I have with Althusser and the academic Marxist thinkers who follow in his wake. Whatever their understandings of the world are - however valuable - they are communicated in an obscure, priestly language which most human beings (those not engaged in PhD study) would find baffling. When you read Lenin or Trotsky (when they're not engaging in their turgid philosophising) the directness and urgency is palpable, the words and phrases leap off the page as if these ideas cannot be constrained by mere paper and ink from entering into the world and participate in its transformation. Althusser, by comparison, might as well be writing trigonometry. In fact, I'd suggest that Althusser might be the guy responsible for convincing generations of theorists that social theory is a kind of quantum physics that demands an abstruse codification in order to capture it.

That being said, ideas play an absolutely vital part in the process of social change - humans do not create history by being completely self-conscious about this social change, the social change itself is mediated and expressed through ideology. Without ideology - without ideas, there can be no social change in the same way that without flirtation there can be no sex (You KNOW what I mean, don't go and say "technically no". You get the idea).

This is true, but unlike flirting, the idea sometimes emerges after the act, rather than as a precursor to it. Certainly, particular ideas only gain currency once the conditions for them have been arrived at.

Philosophy, while not being a cause of ideology, which has no immediate political utility (I.e., you're not going to get more supporters with philosophy), is absolutely important as far as giving Marxists direction. Philosophy is a means to understand ideology itself - moreover, philosophy is class struggle in theory.

Personally, I think philosophy is a form of ideology and that ideology is a sociological phenomenon (an effect of our social relations before it becomes a habit in our thinking) which only a form of empirical sociological investigation can explain and only a social revolution can resolve.

consuming negativity

18th October 2014, 18:46

Academics who have a tenured position do not generally have to sell their labour power on a day-to-day basis in exchange for compensation, in the same way that waged or contracted-salaried labourers do.

Further, the academic, through royalties from published books, is essentially an owner of intellectual ideas.

To the OP, and related to the above point: as a teacher, I have nothing but enthusiasm and admiration for intellect. It is what I live my life for. For that reason, I want to see the widest variety of philosophical, political, historical, social, and cultural ideas spread to the greatest number of people in the greatest number of places. My problem with (some) academics, is that they can conform to the 'ivory tower' generalisation whereby they write books about subjects and people who they have no real-world interaction with, and then publish their books in such a way that make their ideas/criticisms inaccessible to said subjects and people (through, for example, complicity in the textbook pricing scandal).

It is clear to me that academics benefit greatly from the tradition of tenure that exists in capitalist academia.

How many academics do you know who own their own printing companies and bookstores; who get to publish their ideas based on merit rather than on what will sell or what will get them published? Almost none of them except for the ones who are bourgeois in the first place, regardless of their academic credentials. Language is not a choice: if you want to be published, you write within the confines of the system. A paid academic is just someone who has been able to monetize their thoughts and make a living through almost purely intellectual labor. It is an enviable position to be able to have as much control over what they do as they do under capitalism, sure; but in the end, persons truly interested in the pursuit of knowledge benefit from socialism. It isn't conventional work but it is what it is.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th October 2014, 19:01

How many academics do you know who own their own printing companies and bookstores; who get to publish their ideas based on merit rather than on what will sell or what will get them published? Almost none of them except for the ones who are bourgeois in the first place, regardless of their academic credentials. Language is not a choice: if you want to be published, you write within the confines of the system. A paid academic is just someone who has been able to monetize their thoughts and make a living through almost purely intellectual labor. It is an enviable position to be able to have as much control over what they do as they do under capitalism, sure; but in the end, persons truly interested in the pursuit of knowledge benefit from socialism. It isn't conventional work but it is what it is.

I'm not sure what is admirable about people selling their souls to benefit the capitalist system, when given their education they could choose another avenue of labour.

The whole point about the proletariat is that it is a section of the population that must sell its labour power in order to survive. The academic does not have to do this, as an academic. Rather, they choose to do this because it provides them with a lifestyle more comfortable than most workers.

consuming negativity

18th October 2014, 19:21

I'm not sure what is admirable about people selling their souls to benefit the capitalist system, when given their education they could choose another avenue of labour.

The whole point about the proletariat is that it is a section of the population that must sell its labour power in order to survive. The academic does not have to do this, as an academic. Rather, they choose to do this because it provides them with a lifestyle more comfortable than most workers.

The reason why doesn't change the relation to the means of production. I could easily scrape by living under a bridge somewhere and dumpster diving, but I don't because I have a certain, if low, standard of living that I prefer to maintain for myself if I am able. Does it make me bad to have standards such as these? Maybe. I don't think so, though. I don't really see myself as fundamentally different from anyone else in that I want to maximize my enjoyment out of life, which means selling my labor value even beyond what is necessary for my basic survival. So how could I blame academics for just being more spoiled than me, or for having access to a better way to sell their labor within capitalism?

Rafiq

18th October 2014, 20:35

Althusser's work actually poses as many questions to Marxism and it answers. Many ex-Althusserians, after the height of intellectual Althusserianism (many decades ago now it has to be said) have either become some kind of post-Marxist e.g. Laclau, gone on to prefer Foucault or Deleuze-Guattari, or abandoned Marxism altogether. What say you on this? How have your studies of Althusser actually strengthened your belief in Marxism, and in The Party, if it seems to generate such pessimism in the revolutionary potential of the proletariat?

The prevalence of Althusser's work among disconnected academics is not necessarily reflective of the nature of his work. It is simply that Althusser provided a radically strengthened and different understanding of society through Marxism, i.e. a radical application of Marxism in post-68 capitalism - this as led to, as you yourself have said, the opening of more questions than answers. But is this a weakness? On the contrary, the opening of questions is precisely the point of philosophy - the opening of the right questions.

Because the theoretical vitality and prowess of Althusser's works still prevailed despite the international collapse of the Left and the destruction of the worker's movement, they are still popular and widely circulated, analyzed, and discussed by academics - hence the alleged 'Althusserian elitism'. The problem isn't that there is too much theory, or that Althusser's works are inherently elitist - but that there simply isn't a worker's movement, and revolutionary politics is non-existent. This is our reality, and Althusser had nothing to do with it.

Rafiq

18th October 2014, 20:54

I agree but do not believe that we "know shit" about the world. I'm not ruling out the role of intellectual engagement or assuming some philistine anti-theory position. But we have to ask: understand the world from whose point of view? Or, a theory which advocates what kind of action?

Marx and Engels were not members of the working-class, and those members of the working class who became theoreticians (i.e. Bebel) also became members of the intelligentsia in the process. Marxism was not inherently bound to the worker's movement - it was Kautsky who introduced this merger. So if you're asking, from which point of view? From the point of view of the intelligentsia, of course - who can only decipher, recognize and codify the interests of the proletarian class as they exist in capitalist society. Not to say that the worker is incapable of doing this himself - but that if he does, he is with the intelligentisa too. If the proletariat seeks to abolish itself, and the social condition of the proletarian also entails the oppression of the proletarian - then to speak of "proletarian intellect" could only ever refer to the intellect of which seeks to abolish the condition of the proletarian, not reinforce it. What this also means is that recognition of their condition will usually not derive solely from their oppression itself, and in the event that it does - without the intelligentsia, it is prone to falling into the abyss of petty bourgeois reaction.

For the proletarian to become class-conscious, it also means becoming conscious of the everyday mechanisms of oppression which hinder him from acheiving class consciousness. This is why Althusser said Only the blind can look straight at the sun - it is easier for the intellectual, or the academic to understand the world because they are unhindered by these active mechanisms of oppression. This is why Zizek, one of these intellectuals, said that the first step in achieving any form of revolutionary consciousness is to "beat the shit out of yourself" - the slave does not win his freedom by celebrating his condition of being a slave, he wins his freedom by recognizing that he is nothing more than a slave and that he will continue to be one unless he fights for his freedom.

Hence the importance of an active merger of the worker's movement with Marxism. While it was true Althusser himself was not directly involved with the worker's movement - without his understanding of capitalism, Marxism cannot consistently have any application today. Althusser was not the merger of Marxism and the worker's movement, but he sure as hell laid the foundations for it.

This is true, but unlike flirting, the idea sometimes emerges after the act, rather than as a precursor to it. Certainly, particular ideas only gain currency once the conditions for them have been arrived at.

This is an utter impossibility. Sure, new ideas can emerge "after the act" but always there must be ideology, and a system of ideas which express the very act itself. To say otherwise is mechanistic - the point isn't that ideas only came after an "event" - the point is that there is really no such thing as the "event", it is a process. The point isn't that ideas cannot come before, i.e. that people blindly carry out their class interests, after which they find themselves generating ideas. Ideas spring about in coincidence with the struggle itself - they actively express class interest, not necessarily follow it.

which only a form of empirical sociological investigation can explain and only a social revolution can resolve.

Which form of empirical sociological investigation? What character would this take? You are already stepping into the domain of pure ideology - you do not recognize it as ideology but as "objective mechanisms of understanding the world". If you yourself recognize that ideas are part of the social, then you have to recognize that this is an impossibility. And if you recognize that, you are stepping into the domain of philosophy. Philosophy isn't the same as ideology, but certainly ideology is present in philosophy. The point is that philosophy is a form of consciousness about ideology, whether it is conscious about being conscious about ideology or not.

Decolonize The Left

18th October 2014, 21:13

Marx and Engels were not members of the working-class, and those members of the working class who became theoreticians (i.e. Bebel) also became members of the intelligentsia in the process. Marxism was not inherently bound to the worker's movement - it was Kautsky who introduced this merger. So if you're asking, from which point of view? From the point of view of the intelligentsia, of course - who can only decipher, recognize and codify the interests of the proletarian class as they exist in capitalist society. Not to say that the worker is incapable of doing this himself - but that if he does, he is with the intelligentisa too. If the proletariat seeks to abolish itself, and the social condition of the proletarian also entails the oppression of the proletarian - then to speak of "proletarian intellect" could only ever refer to the intellect of which seeks to abolish the condition of the proletarian, not reinforce it. What this also means is that recognition of their condition will usually not derive solely from their oppression itself, and in the event that it does - without the intelligentsia, it is prone to falling into the abyss of petty bourgeois reaction.

For the proletarian to become class-conscious, it also means becoming conscious of the everyday mechanisms of oppression which hinder him from acheiving class consciousness. This is why Althusser said Only the blind can look straight at the sun - it is easier for the intellectual, or the academic to understand the world because they are unhindered by these active mechanisms of oppression. This is why Zizek, one of these intellectuals, said that the first step in achieving any form of revolutionary consciousness is to "beat the shit out of yourself" - the slave does not win his freedom by celebrating his condition of being a slave, he wins his freedom by recognizing that he is nothing more than a slave and that he will continue to be one unless he fights for his freedom.

From this it would seem as though a proletarian movement, in its most honest embodiment, involves the working class becoming the intelligentsia as a whole. As class consciousness entails the consciousness of everyday hindrance mechanisms against said class struggle and its realization, it would follow that a class conscious movement of workers - what we are casually calling a proletarian movement - would involve these workers all occupying at once the position of intelligentsia (recognizing and codifying their interests within the context of capital). Does this seem a fair trace of logic? If so, I am very interested by this idea.

Rafiq

18th October 2014, 21:32

From this it would seem as though a proletarian movement, in its most honest embodiment, involves the working class becoming the intelligentsia as a whole. As class consciousness entails the consciousness of everyday hindrance mechanisms against said class struggle and its realization, it would follow that a class conscious movement of workers - what we are casually calling a proletarian movement - would involve these workers all occupying at once the position of intelligentsia (recognizing and codifying their interests within the context of capital). Does this seem a fair trace of logic? If so, I am very interested by this idea.

This is most ideal, but I would think all becoming intelligentsia is impractical. I would expect a minority of those in the workers movement to be of the intelligentsia. What I mean to say is that in cases whereby small portions of the proletariat become class conscious in the absence of a workers movement and communist politics, they do so as members of the intelligentsia. Class consciousness is simply the active participation in a collective struggle to conquer the state, or abolish the present state of things - the movement itself embodies this collective wide array of ideas, thereby leading to a political language independent of ruling ideas (making everyone becoming intelligentsia unnecessary, as the revolutionary intelligentsia exists as a result of the in existence of revolutionary language). Primarily, this outlines why I do not adhere to the notion of a spontaneous development of working class consciousness.

As condescending as it may sound, the intelligentsia consciously codifies this class interest and merges it actively with the workers movement (without doing so, completely revokes it of any proletarian character because of the active changes of capitalism - a problem we see today with the Left). Once a strict theoretical discipline is applied to the actual struggle itself, the real movement, only then can true class consciousness exist independent of the intelligentsia to guide the working people like a Shepard guides the flock. Theoretical sophistication, and whole-consciousness can then sprawl from the ranks of the mass movement itself.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th October 2014, 23:02

The reason why doesn't change the relation to the means of production. I could easily scrape by living under a bridge somewhere and dumpster diving, but I don't because I have a certain, if low, standard of living that I prefer to maintain for myself if I am able. Does it make me bad to have standards such as these? Maybe. I don't think so, though. I don't really see myself as fundamentally different from anyone else in that I want to maximize my enjoyment out of life, which means selling my labor value even beyond what is necessary for my basic survival. So how could I blame academics for just being more spoiled than me, or for having access to a better way to sell their labor within capitalism?

I do see where you are coming from, and perhaps my point strays from a traditional Marxist analysis, which is certainly pretty rigid in this sort of context.

An academic essentially produces ideas that somebody else sells. I think what I find so galling about what some (and not all) academics do, is that they manufacture ideas about subjects and people that are intentionally false and damaging (as somebody with an Economics degree, I have been exposed to a more than fair share of these shoddy ideas) to said subjects and people. I do think that the proletarian/bourgeois divide is quite restrictive in this case, when it is clear that certain academics do very well from the trade of propagating rubbish that is then bought for extortionate prices by students, in the form of books, journals, subscriptions, conferences etc.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th October 2014, 23:07

Rafiq

19th October 2014, 00:02

By better educational methods, I would definitely include the move away from the inaccessible, overly technical language often used by academics that restricts practical access to ideas. Academics, if they really want to be read by a diverse range of people, really need to make the language they use more accessible, the presentation of their work more interactive/interesting, and the distribution of their work wider, and less solely through the traditional academic channels of expensive textbooks, lengthly tomes, and boring journal articles.

This is very true, but this is not something that can be directly consciously achieved. What I'm trying to say is that through the course of the struggle, these intellectual ideas will become more widely propagated because they will no longer be dependent on ruling ideas (leading to less technical language, as you call it). An affirmative political language would be developed that would no longer have to answer to the mystifications of ruling ideology. In the process of struggling against the ruling order, the working people will actively be creating Communism as an ideology.

Lord Hargreaves

19th October 2014, 00:13

The prevalence of Althusser's work among disconnected academics is not necessarily reflective of the nature of his work. It is simply that Althusser provided a radically strengthened and different understanding of society through Marxism, i.e. a radical application of Marxism in post-68 capitalism - this as led to, as you yourself have said, the opening of more questions than answers. But is this a weakness? On the contrary, the opening of questions is precisely the point of philosophy - the opening of the right questions.

Because the theoretical vitality and prowess of Althusser's works still prevailed despite the international collapse of the Left and the destruction of the worker's movement, they are still popular and widely circulated, analyzed, and discussed by academics - hence the alleged 'Althusserian elitism'. The problem isn't that there is too much theory, or that Althusser's works are inherently elitist - but that there simply isn't a worker's movement, and revolutionary politics is non-existent. This is our reality, and Althusser had nothing to do with it.

My understanding of the OP was that he was saying that Althusser's philosophy engenders a pessimism about the independent revolutionary potential of working class, rather than it being a reflection of its current political malaise. The latter may have some truth but, if the former is closer to what was intended, then it becomes a question of why we (as revolutionaries) should accept Althusser's ideas in the first place?

That was my only point: I'm asking D-A-C if he can tell us more about why he thinks Althusser's ideas are good ones. He goes on to say (if I understand) that Althusser provides support for the hyper-Leninist idea that revolutionary ideas need to be imported into the working class from outside by intellectuals, and I don't accept those politics.

Hit The North

19th October 2014, 02:39

Marx and Engels were not members of the working-class ... Marxism was not inherently bound to the worker's movement - it was Kautsky who introduced this merger.

Missing the point entirely. Marx and Engels, let us not forget, were signatories to the first International of Working Men's Associations and were in contact with the Chartists and other associations of radical workers, so I rather think that they were orientated, in their political practice, to the worker's movement. Their very revolutionary theory had already, in The German Ideology, dispensed with the imagined revolutionary role of philosophers and pointed to the special and essential role of the workers as the revolutionary class. So to argue that there was no inevitable link between Marxism and the movement of workers is astonishing. Kautsky merely achieved this merger in an organisational and somewhat doctrinaire manner which substituted revolutionary politics for a doctrine of evolution. Hence, when the time came to wage revolution against bourgeois civilisation, the great canons of social democracy went off like a pop gun.

So if you're asking, from which point of view? From the point of view of the intelligentsia, of course - who can only decipher, recognize and codify the interests of the proletarian class as they exist in capitalist society.Do you seriously think this is what the intelligentsia, as a social group, do? What is the point of view of the Harvard Law School? What is the point of view of the Oxford University politics department? Or the sociology department at the LSE? What is the point of view of the professional economists? What is the point of view of the media in a capitalist society? Of course, we can find honourable exceptions among their ranks but as a strata in society, the institutions, (or, as Althusser would have it, the ideological state institutions) which are the real social power of the intelligentsia, are firmly in the capitalist camp - perhaps more so now, in the age of the neo-liberal university, than ever before.

This is why Zizek, one of these intellectuals, said that the first step in achieving any form of revolutionary consciousness is to "beat the shit out of yourself" - the slave does not win his freedom by celebrating his condition of being a slave, he wins his freedom by recognizing that he is nothing more than a slave and that he will continue to be one unless he fights for his freedom. Exactly, it is the slave who must liberate herself. But the slaves recognition of her own conditions does not depend, I would suggest, on reading the reasoned pamphlets of William Wilberforce. Neither, when the time comes, will the workers need to read Althusser or Zizek, or whoever the celebrity intellectual is at the time.

The critique of ideology and alienation does not abolish it - only the abolition of the conditions will do that. As you know.

Hit The North

19th October 2014, 02:55

Hit The North

19th October 2014, 03:43

With regard to the emancipation of the workers being an act they must themselves engage in, can it be said that any of the great Revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba, Vientnam etc followed that idea?

The further these revolutions depart from this principle, the further removed they are from being workers revolutions. Take Russia. The truly revolutionary force was the soviets of workers and soldiers. It was the genius of Lenin and Trotsky to recognise this.

I'm not necessarily saying they didn't nor do I oppose the sentiment, but there are degrees with that statement as to how you weight the actual involvement of the mass of workers. If the mass of workers are led, guided and compelled by a tiny group of professional revolutionaries with an intricate theoretical understanding of the social situation of their time does that alter the statement or conform to it?
If the mass of workers are led by a tiny group of professional revolutionaries who are in possession of this God-like knowledge you describe then they are probably doomed to not be the masters of the post-revolutionary society. But, anyway, such beings who have "an intricate theoretical understanding of the social situation" usually don't exist, except in their own imaginations.

Is this how you view Althusser? If so, how do you think his theory could sit at the head of a workers revolution?

I wouldn't argue that ideas are the driving force of history, but increasingly I have come to understand the role which ideas play in guiding and controlling the direction that society and the subjects that inhabit it take in their lives. I certainly agree, and my experiences have convinced me of this, that philosophers on their own cannot change the world, but I would also say that they can play a leading role none the less. It depends what you mean by a leading role. Which such philosophers in history would you ascribe such a role to?

It might not always be immediately noticeable, but where would any of those of us on this forum be if Marx had not furnished us with the revolution concepts we use to struggle against exploitation?A better question would be, where do we find ourselves anyway, armed as we are with Marx's "revolutionary concepts"?

But, anyway, the question isn't the value of Marx's contribution but the contribution of Althusser and your own sympathy with the notion of "involving a minority of truly knowledgeable individuals struggling for the benefit of the masses" and whether this is a position in accordance with Marxism, or more broadly, perhaps, whether it allows us to formulate a convincing strategy for overcoming capitalism. I'd suggest not. In fact, I'd go further and argue that the idea of such an elite existing is a conceit of intellectuals.

There is a great joke Zizek tells that kind of mirrors my argument:
[....]
If you lack the language and theoretical concepts to give voice to your own opression and exploitation how can see, identify and combat it? That would be the point I would take from that joke.I like the joke and get the point but, in your opinion, exactly what is the language and theory necessary for workers to challenge their exploitation and oppression? Do we find it in Althusser and better expressed there than elsewhere?

Things then aren't always as black and white as they can appear in terms of ideas and intellectuals and their ability to materially change social existence. I'm certainly no idealist though :)
Originally written by Karl Marx
Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence.This is Marx's satirical take on those who think their superior ideas will change society. It is probably worth mentioning, too, that even an individual with the most complete understanding of gravity will not be able to save himself from drowning if he lacks the practical skill to swim.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

19th October 2014, 04:32

What I'm trying to say is that through the course of the struggle, these intellectual ideas will become more widely propagated because they will no longer be dependent on ruling ideas (leading to less technical language, as you call it). An affirmative political language would be developed .

I think this is the crucial point you make. I was reading bell hooks over the summer, and obviously she takes the idea of accessible writing to extremes by consciously not following formal written conventions (as evident in the pseudonym 'bell hooks') of academia.

What I took from this is that intellectual arenas - not just academia's ivory towers but all manner of spaces in schools, universities and any designated space for learning - can be sites of struggle. I think it is important to strike a balance between recognising the conservative nature of academia on the one hand, but also recognising the danger of dismissing intellectualism and ideas on the other hand.

I, for example, would never have developed my understanding of the world and my position in it if I hadn't had access to others' ideas and writings (the communist manifesto; value, price and profit etc.) on how the world works, in addition to my own basic thoughts that 'this shit isn't fair'. We can create our own theory and ideology through praxis, but invariably our theory is still partially located in the praxis of old struggles and the theory that resulted from those, at least the good portions of that theory.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

21st October 2014, 17:02

With that in mind, I detect a little Maoism in your post, I could be wrong of course, but if that is the case, the Maoist idea of sending the privileged students and academics to learn an honest days labour and the way of life of those they represent had often tragic repercussions when it was tried by French Students in the 1960's as told from this book (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9127.html) . So I won't be abandoning my PhD in favour of work at a factory or call centre as is increasingly the case in the Western World so that I can gain a mythical appreciation of a noble worker spirit. As a side note, I actually hold certain tenants of Maoism and like Althusser Mao himself in high regard for what he thought and attempted. That said, that theory is not one of them. Maybe that in itself is also 'quite convenient' for me?

I don't know whether or not it's convenient (I found school less convenient than shit jobs, so whatever), but I think it's safe to say that coming to grand conclusions about class consciousness without actually doing the requisite field work represents some pretty shoddy methods of research.

It also points to other questions, like, who are you doing this work for and why? How does your activity relate to your expressed project (the communist party)? Who is going to read your PhD? How will it be useful to them?

blake 3:17

22nd October 2014, 02:16

It also points to other questions, like, who are you doing this work for and why? How does your activity relate to your expressed project (the communist party)? Who is going to read your PhD? How will it be useful to them?

I wish most left wing academics didn't try to write useful doctoral papers -- those are often the most bossy.

I don't think it even fair to ask the question of whose one's audience is. That implies knowing some "popular" audience that already exists.

Specialized or unusual texts are fine and may have uses or interpretations the author cannot anticipate.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

22nd October 2014, 03:11

I wish most left wing academics didn't try to write useful doctoral papers -- those are often the most bossy.

I don't think it even fair to ask the question of whose one's audience is. That implies knowing some "popular" audience that already exists.

Specialized or unusual texts are fine and may have uses or interpretations the author cannot anticipate.

Fair point. There's still the question of distribution though - ie Are you going to publish in an accessible format (cheap book / 'zine)? Make it available on the web?

But, yeah, totes legit on that - trying to speak to/for an "audience" of which one isn't oneself a part is often at best futile (which isn't to say that such audiences can't be reached - just that, like you said, it's often not by confused attempts to cater to them).

Rafiq

24th October 2014, 01:27

My understanding of the OP was that he was saying that Althusser's philosophy engenders a pessimism about the independent revolutionary potential of working class, rather than it being a reflection of its current political malaise. The latter may have some truth but, if the former is closer to what was intended, then it becomes a question of why we (as revolutionaries) should accept Althusser's ideas in the first place?

Because it is true, for one? If reality itself does not suffice as far as utility goes - then your aims themselves are most likely nonsense to begin with. If truth, or reality - or any understanding of the world by design had some kind of strategic or tactical utility to revolutionaries, we would be living in a very, very different world. The point is that our positions are derived from present circumstances, they are derived from reality. Althusser provides us with an understanding of the nature of power in capitalism - and the prevalence of capitalism. In a a sea of degenerate "Marxist" muck, Althusser essentially fulfills the duty that every truly revolutionary Marxist has - namely, repeating Marxism in our present circumstances, repeating a Marxist understanding of our present circumstances (capitalism does - after all, change). The point of Marxism is not to rigidly and constantly re-apply previous analysis of capitalism to our own, but to provide us with new understandings in coincidence wit the changes in capitalism.

Really, who cares about convincing you that "Althusser's ideas are good ones". Althusser was not some kind of revolutionary strategist, it is not as though his ideas will directly lead us to the revolution or the emancipation of the proletariat. People tend to forget what class conciseness actually means: You cannot be conscious about your condition as a proletarian if you do not understand where the proletarian class fits in the capitalist totality, or the nature of the mode of production from which it was derived. With this kind of philistine, anti-intellectual crypto-utilitarian attitude, there would be no Marxism to begin with. After all, what use was Marx's criticism of political economy to revolutionaries, directly? "Oh look, this guy's so smart and he's saying capitalism sucks"?

Without a revolution in the sciences, or our understanding of reality, whether it is touted by intellectuals in ivory towers or not - there can be no revotution at all. Certainly it would be problematic if one argued that we want to nominate Althusser for supreme people's Emperor of the world - no one argues that intellectuals in their "ivory towers" must be the ones to lead the working class - but that because they are privileged, because they did not have to live their lives in exploitation and all of the distractions that sustain it - they are the ones that can be of use. I remember Zizek was talking about how when an academic came to a factory to give a talk to some workers - he opened his talk with "I want to know about YOU, I want you to educate ME because I'm a stupid academic who has no experience in being a proletarian, the subject of many of my works" - and he was met with overwhelming hostility. He was lucky enough to be privileged, he was lucky enough to have access to the ivory tower to begin with - so he can shut the fuck up and share its fruits if he truly wants to be of any use.

Missing the point entirely. Marx and Engels, let us not forget, were signatories to the first International of Working Men's Associations and were in contact with the Chartists and other associations of radical workers, so I rather think that they were orientated, in their political practice, to the worker's movement. Their very revolutionary theory had already, in The German Ideology, dispensed with the imagined revolutionary role of philosophers and pointed to the special and essential role of the workers as the revolutionary class. So to argue that there was no inevitable link between Marxism and the movement of workers is astonishing. Kautsky merely achieved this merger in an organisational and somewhat doctrinaire manner which substituted revolutionary politics for a doctrine of evolution. Hence, when the time came to wage revolution against bourgeois civilisation, the great canons of social democracy went off like a pop gun.

There was no inevitable link between Marxism and the worker's movement. As a matter of fact, the worker's movement was tied primarily to non-Marxist strands of socialism before Kautsky and social democracy, Marxism was reserved for "ivory tower intellectuals" and academics. To suggest that there is some kind of identifiable link with the "organisational" merger of Marxism and the worker's movement, with the "doctrine of evolution" is blatantly wrong. Bernstein, who founded the "doctrine of evolution" was attacked by Kautsky. You are right that the merger of Marxism and the worker's movement gave birth to bourgeois-social democracy, but it also gave birth to the Bolsheviks. Please, tell me how the Bolshevik model was not absolutely and completely modeled off of the German SPD, tell me how the revolutionary strategy of Kautsky had nothing to do with that of the Bolsheviks, - it unarguably contributed ot their success. Kautsky, again, is opposed because he went back on the same principles which gave us the october revolution. The problem with Kautsky wasn't that he theoretically was predisposed to "evolutionary socialism" but that he was gutless - he could not walk the walk, he was horrified by the idea of the actualization of his own politics on an ideologically violent level.

The difference of course, also - is that Althusser was never significant at all on any political level. He was not a high ranking party member, he certainly did not profess himself to be a leader of the working class. To suggest that this alone invalidates his ideas, or makes them "predisposed" to elitism is ridiculous. This kind of "elitism" exists with or without althusser, the problem, again, is the absence of revolutionary politics, not "inherently elitist ideas". Though there can be no doubt that the reproduction of these ideas by academics, as well as the nature of its circulation might be elitist, or snobbish at best - but that doesn't mean the essence of the ideas themselves, or the theory itself is. Althusser simply gave us an understanding of the nature of capitalism as well as a radically re-application of Marx's materialism to our society in a way that was consistent even in the face of capitalism's changes. When did Althusser ever bother with telling worker's what to do? He was a philosopher.

And please, Marx's criticsim of philosophy was not that philosophers were disconnected with the movement of the working class - which leads me to another point. What led Marx to break with Hegel, or to adhere to materialism? What led Marx to become the man we now know him to be? Experience in engaging workers had nothing to do with Marx's criticism of Feurbach - for example. It certainly had a minimal influence on his criticism of political economy - experience with the working class is only relevant politically, and theoretically only in the domain of politics or in pertinence to the nature of the struggle itself. So of course Marx referring to Communism as a movement, or his writings about Communism coincided with his experience with the Communist movement - but Althusser wasn't the reincarnation of Marx, and Althusser never attempted to give us a new Communist manifesto. Again, he was a philosopher. It would be just as inappropriate to attack Darwin for being disconnected from the working class.

Do you seriously think this is what the intelligentsia, as a social group, do? What is the point of view of the Harvard Law School? What is the point of view of the Oxford University politics department? Or the sociology department at the LSE? What is the point of view of the professional economists? What is the point of view of the media in a capitalist society? Of course, we can find honourable exceptions among their ranks but as a strata in society, the institutions, (or, as Althusser would have it, the ideological state institutions) which are the real social power of the intelligentsia, are firmly in the capitalist camp - perhaps more so now, in the age of the neo-liberal university, than ever before.

Let's not get carried away hear - let's not jump to conclusions when there is room for misinterpretation, or the accusation of deliberate misconstruing could be warranted. The intelligentsia are not inherently bourgeois, and "naturally" tend to gravitate toward the highest bidder. That being said, the conscious intelligentsia exist, and can derive from the ranks of the working class itself too. Proletarian interests can only be deciphered, codified and organized in a disciplined way by the revolutionary intelligentsia - "organic" proletarian politics tends to gravitate into the domain of the petty bourgeoisie. It is not solely by merit of their condition (which distracts them from consciousness) that they are able to become conscious. Bebel was a proletarian - but it was by merit of becoming part of the intelligentsia too that he was able to become the Marxist that he was. Workers can become part of the intelligentsia - but simply by being workers, they will not get anywhere. Don't tell me you type this simply "as a worker" - there is nothing about the process of exploitation and wage-labor that compels people to spontaneously conceptualize a detailed, scientific understanding of capitalist relations.

So the point isn't that the revolution is about the "intelligentsia". The intelligentsia, or academics, are not part of an independent social class. They can embody the interest of different classes, but ultimetley there is no such thing as the "political interest of the intelligentsia" and a revolution by hte intelligentsia is impossible. I repeat, and let me repeat it again - they are not an independent class - let me quote Paul Robeson: In confronting the fight between freedom and slavery, the artist must make a choice. I have chosen mine. This applies to intellectuals and philosophers, too. While intellectuals might be more predisposed to certain views, or let me rephrase that - more likely to have certain views - that does not make those views inevitably a reflection of their own independent interests, and it doesn't say anything about the actual class nature of the intelligentsia as a rule.

Exactly, it is the slave who must liberate herself. But the slaves recognition of her own conditions does not depend, I would suggest, on reading the reasoned pamphlets of William Wilberforce. Neither, when the time comes, will the workers need to read Althusser or Zizek, or whoever the celebrity intellectual is at the time.

The critique of ideology and alienation does not abolish it - only the abolition of the conditions will do that. As you know.

This is infinitely more condescending and elitist than anything ever written by Althusser. No coarser insult, no baser defamation, can be thrown against the workers than the remark ‘Theoretical controversies are only for intellectuals (Luxemburg). The point is the merger of Marxist discipline with the movement of the working class, which can be done. When the time comes? Sorry, if this kind of theory isn't adopted, understood or incorporated in any kind of movement - there will be no "time" to come. You phrase yourself as though the revolution is inevitable, that "when the time comes" none of this will matter - well nothing will come at all without a conscious understanding of their current condition and the global capitalist totality. If they do not understand, if they cannot properly conceptualize the nature of their oppression, workers will never be free. Zizek and Althusser are infinitely a greater service to the class-consciousness of workers, even in their ivory towers, than this kind of blatant philistinism of "the average joe".

The critique of ideology and alienation alone does not abolish it. That does not make it unnecessary. No one argues Zizek and Althusser are glorious leaders of the working class, or that they are all knowing gods. No one argues that they are directly engaging in revolutionary activity, they themselves never claimed this.

But to everyone, I must yet again ask: What exactly is the problem here, in essence? Do you even know what the content of Althusser's work is? It's not revolutionary strategy, or a series of different political polemics.

blake 3:17

24th October 2014, 04:09

Maybe I am reading your posts incorrectly but it certainly reads to me that you both have a resentment of intellectuals and I can't really do much about that if that is the case. I've no problem with intellectuals, I only take issue with academics who mistake the university for the world.

Edited to add: I may suffer some leftover resentment of a certain type of Left Academic (there's probably the same kind on the Right) -- I was in a small socialist group for many years dominated by Marxist academics, and since leaving it have many encounters with Marxist graduate students. Toronto is host to York University which does have the most number of left wing faculty and grad students, many of whom are absolutely fine, but their soap operas and their left wing bubble can be absolutely exhausting. The folks in the unions there try to teach the rest of us how to organize - they sometimes do have good ideas - but it is an entirely different question of workplace organizing when you go to a union meeting and you know, in advance, that 30 or 40 members self identify as socialists or anti-capitalists and then expect people to somehow generalize from that. Hahaha. My best pals at work are an elderly anti-Communist (her family were targets of the FARC-EP) and a Catholic who doesn't believe in vaccines. The grad students I know and hang out think "social democrat" is the worst insult that can be hurled at a union meeting, and I say this quite literally. It's la la land. What most of would give to have some honest to god social democrats in our unions...

blake 3:17

24th October 2014, 04:20

Fair point. There's still the question of distribution though - ie Are you going to publish in an accessible format (cheap book / 'zine)? Make it available on the web?

But, yeah, totes legit on that - trying to speak to/for an "audience" of which one isn't oneself a part is often at best futile (which isn't to say that such audiences can't be reached - just that, like you said, it's often not by confused attempts to cater to them).

One of my BFFs pretty much publishes all of his academic stuff on his wordpress site which is awesome. You'd probably be into some of it -- he wrote a very excellent book on hardcore punk record labels attempting to apply a Pierre Bordieu type methodology. Aside from being a good friend, I've time and respect for his work because he works at it, going and talking to people, real stuff, as opposed to the other wankers who just analyze "policy", aka sitting at home spouting opinions.

Pdf here: http://alanoconnor.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/punk-record-labels-proofs.pdf

blake 3:17

26th October 2014, 00:59

Apologies for the multiple posts. I've been thinking about this stuff a lot.

@ The DAC -- just do your doctorate and do it well. You're obviously smart and thinking in some interesting ways and if you can do it, DO IT!!! Perhaps the issues with Ranciere could be dealt with an another paper? You don't need to solve it all in one go. I have known people who've spent too too long on their doctoral theses and it's made them a bit a crazy and/or disappointed.

The doubts you're expressing seem to be healthy ones -- don't let them paralyze you.

It is very easy to fixate on the problems of the institutions and systems that we're a part of. If you can find a way to do something interesting and creative in it, then go for it!

Edited to add: BTW this discussion got me to finally register for JSTOR -- it's available for free via the public library here. Was trying to look up something on Alexander Kluge I thought might fit as part of the discussion but saw it wouldn't. Still pretty interesting.

Decolonize The Left

28th October 2014, 16:56

Class consciousness is simply the active participation in a collective struggle to conquer the state, or abolish the present state of things - the movement itself embodies this collective wide array of ideas, thereby leading to a political language independent of ruling ideas (making everyone becoming intelligentsia unnecessary, as the revolutionary intelligentsia exists as a result of the in existence of revolutionary language). Primarily, this outlines why I do not adhere to the notion of a spontaneous development of working class consciousness.

I, too, am not a fan of spontaneity as a revolutionary movement, however I bolded a portion of your post in order to highlight an important issue: political language independent of ruling ideas. If the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class, and the ruling class has a hegemony on the social production of ideas, where do we find space that is not colonized?

As condescending as it may sound, the intelligentsia consciously codifies this class interest and merges it actively with the workers movement (without doing so, completely revokes it of any proletarian character because of the active changes of capitalism - a problem we see today with the Left). Once a strict theoretical discipline is applied to the actual struggle itself, the real movement, only then can true class consciousness exist independent of the intelligentsia to guide the working people like a Shepard guides the flock. Theoretical sophistication, and whole-consciousness can then sprawl from the ranks of the mass movement itself.

It would seem to me that this feeling could be encapsulated by saying simply that when theory is divorced from practice (as it is in the intelligentsia), it cannot have real results. Only through practice does theory earn its wings, so to speak, as without it it is not off the ground. It would seem as though we have an abundance of theory these days and a splintered and weak hodgepodge of practice. As a result of this, our theory continues to spiral further and further away from class based politics, further and further into the realm of ruling class ideas.

Decolonize The Left

28th October 2014, 21:22

Just to keep things in proportion and to be clear: the intelligentsia is that diverse group of people who make their living from the trade in ideas. For the most class conscious workers to split off and join these ranks would be a great boon for capital, a nice way of neutralising them. In fact, it is a strategy that is well proven.

Workers can achieve an intelligent understanding of their position without having to join the the university salariat.

Also, see my reply to Rafiq above. It is not even the case that the intelligentsia can be defined as those who "recognise and codify their (the workers) interests within the context of capital". Quite the opposite in most cases.

Indeed, yet in my original reply to which you are responding here I was referring to intelligentsia according to this very definition. If we want to speak of intelligentsia as you have above, regarding the production and trade of ideas, we are really talking about intellectual products, ideas as commodities. The intelligentsia could be reformed in a revolutionary scenario to be something quite different. As to what this would be I don't know.

Rafiq

30th October 2014, 00:08

I, too, am not a fan of spontaneity as a revolutionary movement, however I bolded a portion of your post in order to highlight an important issue: political language independent of ruling ideas. If the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class, and the ruling class has a hegemony on the social production of ideas, where do we find space that is not colonized?

The ruling ideas are always controlled by the ruling class - but the ruling classes's existence and hegemony necessarily depends on the inexistence of class consciousness. Whether we are to accept the notion of dialectics in general - one thing is certain, capitalism is composed of a vast array of contradictions, both on a social and ideological level. That is to say, even in the process of the production of ruling ideas - there necessarily exists a contradiction in their expression, which is why the context for proletarian politics exists only within capitalism.

The question thus is not about ideas being tainted, but that even in the process of tainting them, the seed of revolutionary consciousness is present. Proletarian ideology holds the achievements of bourgeois ideology as the pre-supposition of its own liberation. For example, the notion of democracy, even to an extent human rights exists in contradiction. It can easily be turned on its head and appropriated.

But apart from all of that, one thing is most certain: We must recognize that while the ruling class exists, class struggle is an active process. Meaning, that in the existence of the movement to abolish the present state of things, the power of the ruling class is contested and challenge. Likewise, ruling ideas are too contested. When Marx spoke of ruling ideas being of the ruling classes - he meant it as far as what Gramsci would later call the hegemony of the ruling class. Even in possession of the state-apparatus, their power can be challenged. In the active process of their rule being contested, therein resides, or can reside a political language independent of ruling ideas. In the very process of struggling against the ruling order, the political, social and ideological space is opened up for a new world, a new language and world is constituted. The new world, Communism - resides in the real existing movement itself (as Marx was keen on emphasizing).

It would seem to me that this feeling could be encapsulated by saying simply that when theory is divorced from practice (as it is in the intelligentsia), it cannot have real results. Only through practice does theory earn its wings, so to speak, as without it it is not off the ground. It would seem as though we have an abundance of theory these days and a splintered and weak hodgepodge of practice. As a result of this, our theory continues to spiral further and further away from class based politics, further and further into the realm of ruling class ideas.

The problem is not that we have too much theory, but that prevailing theory is devoid of any active participation with a revolutionary movement. The problem is that this has become cyclic - in the absence of a real movement, we tend not to have proper theory, and in the absence of proper theory, there exists no real movement. Ultimately, what must be aimed at is the merger of theory and practice, creating an active process wherein the two actively influence each other. Theory will always be important, but it must actively derive from the circumstances it seeks to conceptualize if it is to be one with the revolutionary class.

Generally, I think theory is all the more necessary today, which is why I so adamantly defend Zizek. We all want practice, but ultimately we are lost - we don't have any idea of what we're supposed to do here. As the old man himself would say, it's because we aren't even asking the right questions. There have obviously been some incredible changes in the constitution of capitalism since the past fifty or so years, especially the last twenty. We lack a singular, cohesive understanding of the failure of 20th century Communism - and its implications today. Though evidently, it is not as though class struggle is a product of the minds of intellectuals. There are clear signs of dissatisfaction and discontent with the existing order, known by the emergence of alternative ideological and political mutations (the rise of the Far Right, Islamism etc.). Ruling ideas are controlled by the ruling classes - but even the disattsifaction with the ruling order is controlled by capital. Even the nature of expressing your opposition is controlled - because people don't know what's wrong in the first place.

But again - at the end of the day, we must always remember not to be in complete despair. Communism derives from the presmises of capitalism. The more advanced and refined the rule of the bourgeoisie - the greater potential energy of the revival of a Communist movement (likelihood, depending on the intelligentsia). The rule and the ideas of the ruling class will be their own demise.

If we want to speak of intelligentsia as you have above, regarding the production and trade of ideas, we are really talking about intellectual products, ideas as commodities.

But we should also remember that the criterium for the intelligentsia as being synonymous with academia is alien to Marxism. The common worker is capable of becoming a member of the intelligentsia, like Bebel. What I'm trying to say is that the production and trade of ideas is not a process confined to academics.

Dodo

30th October 2014, 00:51

*sigh*
attacking OP with Marxism as a "religion" and established "ideology" lacking the critical thought that is at heart of it.

In any case, even though I must say I have not read Althusser, I have gathered that he is more of a representation of the science-obsessed, positivist-ic tradition that flows through Engels which I despise.
I do however think that saying "ideas can move social dynamics" has nothing to do with idealism.
Ideas ARE MATERIAL FORCES, no matter how they are formed, once they become an established ideology embraced by masses. Thats a major theme in dialectics which pretty much takes materialism for granted at this point.
Having said that, I do believe dealing with this sort of stuff, especially Marxism and philosophy in general IS AN ELITIST TASK. That does not mean it cannot be handled by un-educated proleteriat,put it simply, an academic has the luxury to deal with this. In fact, it is his job, it is more a luxury the bourgeoisie has due to time-means they get on their hands.
I believe academics are VERY important in the post-modern world, maybe not so much a few decades ago in the modern period when Marxism-infused ideologies fitted well. But today, academics are one of the key actors along with academic debates...especially in the developed world.

ps: saying proletariat has lost what it was supposed to be in the modern-period(not saying that here, don't jump on it), the pessimism op mentions does not excommunicate him from the "religion" of Marxism. At its best, it excommunicates him from one(or few) of "already established socialist doctrines", with the beliefs and sets of values that come to be taken for granted.

blake 3:17

31st October 2014, 04:26

^^Also I would like to add to the conversation between MDMR and Rafiq, which I think is more interesting.

Rather than the working class 'becoming the intelligentsia', which I think is quite an ambitious goal, it would be simpler if, through better educational methods and more progressive ways of utilising technology (i.e. subverting intellectual property rights), intellectual ideas were more widely propagated.

By better educational methods, I would definitely include the move away from the inaccessible, overly technical language often used by academics that restricts practical access to ideas. Academics, if they really want to be read by a diverse range of people, really need to make the language they use more accessible, the presentation of their work more interactive/interesting, and the distribution of their work wider, and less solely through the traditional academic channels of expensive textbooks, lengthly tomes, and boring journal articles.

We would wish that education was accessible to all. I'd need to query my dear friend, but I recall him saying that Pierre Bordieu had a formulation of "Universal access to the universal." Maybe a little cryptic, or maybe it's fucking dead simple.

I dunno. This discussion was really getting me going and I was trying not to spam it, so held off on responses. A few years back there was a big fight back about a plant closure and the labour central here and a couple of the key unions and the labour solidarity group I was involved with did a big ass demo. At a debrief discussion of the solidarity a few people spoke about how leaflets they'd handed out. One of the left intellectuals I really respect -- a retired educator from the Canadian Auto Workers who'd been part of the civil rights movement -- mentioned that he'd been much more interested in listening to people at the demonstration. Sure he wanted to push an agenda, but he knew from practice you needed to know where people were at.

It's one thing to get up one at microphone, at a demo or a lecture hall, and preach socialism and revolution, it's another to have a conversation or a series of conversations where you might just connect on a different level.

An absolutely wonderful book is the Nettl biography of Rosa Luxemburg. Highly recommended. The reason I bring it up here is that Luxemburg was by far the most popular speaker of the German SPD and a terrifically popular teacher in SPD schools. The most conservative unionist would be an apocalyptic revolutionist in her classes and leave her classes and go back to fairly conservative unionism. Who's to say that they weren't making wise choices? The conditions varied enormously and life's complicated. You just gotta be careful mistaking what somebody says at a rally or in a term paper or on a left wing discussion board for what they really think.

Decolonize The Left

1st November 2014, 21:11

The question thus is not about ideas being tainted, but that even in the process of tainting them, the seed of revolutionary consciousness is present. Proletarian ideology holds the achievements of bourgeois ideology as the pre-supposition of its own liberation. For example, the notion of democracy, even to an extent human rights exists in contradiction. It can easily be turned on its head and appropriated.

Indeed. In the same way that the proletariat can take possession of the means of production on the grounds that it is we who made the means and the products produced thereby, so too can we lay claim to the ideals of bourgeois liberalism as it is we who created these ideals as well: 'human rights' weren't born in a bourgeois mind, they were born out of multiple wars. They were then appropriated by the bourgeois for the purposes of the reification of the dominance of capital. They became ruling class ideas only insofar as they are used by the ruling class against us.

Whether or not the proletariat would have a use for them under the scenario of communism is a different question entirely.

In the active process of their rule being contested, therein resides, or can reside a political language independent of ruling ideas. In the very process of struggling against the ruling order, the political, social and ideological space is opened up for a new world, a new language and world is constituted. The new world, Communism - resides in the real existing movement itself (as Marx was keen on emphasizing).

This is interesting as it claims, as I see it, that language takes its meaning only in the context of its use (something I agree with on a philosophical level). Hence a 'proletarian language' or 'non-ruling class language' has no real meaning outside of its very use and action against capital. It exists, and by this I mean it means something, only insofar as it is employed and contextualized by two things: 1) the existence of capital and the ruling class ideas which are counter to it, and 2) the existence of class conscious proletariat who employ this language in direct opposition to 1.

The problem is not that we have too much theory, but that prevailing theory is devoid of any active participation with a revolutionary movement. The problem is that this has become cyclic - in the absence of a real movement, we tend not to have proper theory, and in the absence of proper theory, there exists no real movement. Ultimately, what must be aimed at is the merger of theory and practice, creating an active process wherein the two actively influence each other. Theory will always be important, but it must actively derive from the circumstances it seeks to conceptualize if it is to be one with the revolutionary class.

Very much so. It would seem as though the scale is lopsided in the favor of theory. Should an active practice emerge, the opportunity would appear for the merger of the two. The question is then, in regards to this specific issue, how does one create an active practice? Are we speaking of political parties here, a Vanguard of practicing revolutionaries who set the stage for praxis? Is this a syndicalist-esque union movement? Personally, this is something I think about often and am working on resolving, as best as one can resolve such a thing.

Generally, I think theory is all the more necessary today, which is why I so adamantly defend Zizek. We all want practice, but ultimately we are lost - we don't have any idea of what we're supposed to do here. As the old man himself would say, it's because we aren't even asking the right questions. There have obviously been some incredible changes in the constitution of capitalism since the past fifty or so years, especially the last twenty. We lack a singular, cohesive understanding of the failure of 20th century Communism - and its implications today.

Do we though? Many would say that 20th century Communism failed precisely because of big-C communism and the idea of communism in one state (or even in a state period).

Furthermore, Zizek, for all his intelligence, is very much a Western thinker. His ideas are useful as tools in certain projects but the overall character of his thought (in my limited knowledge thereof) does not strike me as one deserving of defense. Perhaps the contrary is the case: we may need to critique Zizek (a self-professed Hegelian!) more than ever now.

Though evidently, it is not as though class struggle is a product of the minds of intellectuals. There are clear signs of dissatisfaction and discontent with the existing order, known by the emergence of alternative ideological and political mutations (the rise of the Far Right, Islamism etc.). Ruling ideas are controlled by the ruling classes - but even the disattsifaction with the ruling order is controlled by capital. Even the nature of expressing your opposition is controlled - because people don't know what's wrong in the first place.

Absolutely. And it would seem as though "knowing what is wrong in the first place" is synonymous with class consciousness and hence a reframing of the debate it needed, but even this is still within the realm of theory and so we are back to the question I posed above.

Rafiq

3rd November 2014, 15:54

I think that first, I made a mistake as far as phrasing is concerned. Communism does derive from the pre-suppositions of the achievements of liberalism and bourgeois ideology in retrospect to previous social epochs (Communism is not reactionary) but I think that the point is not as simple as turning logic on its head, or using the logic of the bourgeoisie against them. I think this is simply a likely consequence of proletarian ideology, rather than a definitive character it takes. The point I'm trying to say, as far as breaking out of capitalism is concerned - is that ruling class ideology does not necessarily exist because of any conscious mechanisms of spreading ideology, i.e. the bourgeois itself, to an extent is not a class conscious group. While media does utilizing psychological manipulation to further their ends - they are not as diabolical as we would think - they are completely ignorant of their condition in retrospect to their relationship to production, and in the bare bones pursuit of their ends (maintaining rule, profit - whatever) they are not concerned with history as such. Likewise, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class not simply because the ruling class is in power and assumes the form of a dominant master - indeed, this was present in feudalism, but not distinctly characteristic of capitalism. The point is that ruling ideas are hegemonic simply because they represent, and reflect a real existing condition. When we say Communism derives from present circumstances, we meant that Communism derives from the movement of the proletarian class - a real existing class which constitutes a real existing relationship to production. Communist ideology, therefore, becomes just as real as ruling ideology and just as impactful - because it is socially contextual. As I said, the course of the struggle itself legitimizes the new ideological universe. But in all, you have it quite right - proletarian language cannot exist outside of the struggle against the present state of things.

Very much so. It would seem as though the scale is lopsided in the favor of theory. Should an active practice emerge, the opportunity would appear for the merger of the two. The question is then, in regards to this specific issue, how does one create an active practice? Are we speaking of political parties here, a Vanguard of practicing revolutionaries who set the stage for praxis? Is this a syndicalist-esque union movement? Personally, this is something I think about often and am working on resolving, as best as one can resolve such a thing.

I think this is why I controversially identify with revivalism and revolutionary strategy - these are the bare bones questions it is concerned with. I think expressions of proletarian interests cannot exist outside the domain of politics - revolutionary struggle is impossible if it is not political struggle. The social foundations for communism do not exist within capitalism, or should I say - the proletarian seeks to abolish itself, rather than exalt itself (as the bourgeoisie did in feudalism). The social abolition (interesting, something I learned is that as far as Marx's phraseology is concerned - abolition was a rather erroneous translation. Marx often used the word Aufheben or supersede, rather than abolish) of their condition is necessarily a political act.

Do we though? Many would say that 20th century Communism failed precisely because of big-C communism and the idea of communism in one state (or even in a state period).

Furthermore, Zizek, for all his intelligence, is very much a Western thinker. His ideas are useful as tools in certain projects but the overall character of his thought (in my limited knowledge thereof) does not strike me as one deserving of defense. Perhaps the contrary is the case: we may need to critique Zizek (a self-professed Hegelian!) more than ever now.

Well certainly, we do have a general idea of why the global revolution was unable to happen. When I say we lack a cohesive understanding of Communism's failure - I mean it on a much deeper level. We lack an ideological understanding of the specificalities surrounding its failure - it is easy to simply dismiss these societies when they were doomed to failure. But the process of their failure and the nature of their failure is shrouded in in mystery. What we lack is not only an understanding of the failure of 20th century Communist states, but the overall failure of 20th century Communism as a movement. We have yet to conceptualize the specific character of even the nature of Communist societies themselves, their ideological constitution, and the lessons we can draw from their mistakes - as far as centralized state level planning is concerned, these were incredibly inefficient societies who in the long term were unable to revolutionize the means of production in a way even remotely comparable to capitalist economies.

I also don't think that the problem was necessarily one of centralized planning itself. In other words, I don't think de-centralized worker's councils, especially in this day and age, could ever be a solution to it. On the contrary, I think a lack of disciplined organization and strong centralization was the real problem. But this is all speculation. Again, what we need is an official, cohesive understanding of our failure in a way that can translate on a street-wide level.

I do agree that a criticism of Zizek is necessary. Certainly, Zizek displays qualities of intellectual masturbation - not that he's too theoretical, but that he seems too content with being a cultural critique and an oppositional theoretician. But I think even he's aware of this - I think Zizek wants to be criticized. We can only criticize Zizek in a manner similar to how Marx criticized Hegel though, from Zizek.

Absolutely. And it would seem as though "knowing what is wrong in the first place" is synonymous with class consciousness and hence a reframing of the debate it needed, but even this is still within the realm of theory and so we are back to the question I posed above.

I think it is definitely a step, or a pre-requisite. Petty trade-union conscious in the early 20th century (which was not explicitly political - unlike other radical trade unions like the iww) may have known on a certain level what was wrong - but they didn't take it to the end. I think that while intellectuals can get us to understand the problem, or question in the first place, it is ultimately the proletariat that can bring this to a higher level.

blake 3:17

12th December 2014, 04:26

In any case, even though I must say I have not read Althusser, I have gathered that he is more of a representation of the science-obsessed, positivist-ic tradition that flows through Engels which I despise.
I do however think that saying "ideas can move social dynamics" has nothing to do with idealism.
Ideas ARE MATERIAL FORCES, no matter how they are formed, once they become an established ideology embraced by masses. Thats a major theme in dialectics which pretty much takes materialism for granted at this point.

What do people really mean by ideas being material?

Never been able to figure that out.

Althusser is worth reading, though I have to admit 20 years later I'm never sure what the hell he's talking about.