Discussion of Reification

[Revolutionary Souljah]

Originally posted by Lukács [email protected]
Lukács presents the category of reification whereby, due to the commodity nature of capitalist society, social relations become objectified, precluding the ability for a spontaneous emergence of class consciousness. It is in this context that the need for a party in the Leninist sense emerges, the subjective aspect of the re-invigorated Marxian dialectic.

Firstly, can someone please elaborate or clarify how exactly social relations are objectified in that sense?

More importantly, can someone also clarify how the reification of social relations prevents the proletariat from gaining class consciousness?

...Thanks in Advance...

ps- let try to keep the arguing/bickering down and stay on topic

[IronColumn]

Social relations are objectified in that the proletariat thinks that the categories of capitalist society are permanent, eternal, etc. and bases itself and its actions within capitalist society as it cannot conceive of creating a different one. The proletariat doesn't understand that it has the ability to act as the subject of human history.

Reification preventing social revolution I would think is clear? If the proletariat can't leave the ideas of the parliament, bureaucratic trade union, Leninist party, and legality behind them then they will never make any sort of social revolution.

[Revolutionary Souljah]

Thank you for that. It clarified a lot.

One question though:


Social relations are objectified in that the proletariat thinks that the categories of capitalist society are permanent

Can you explain how that is objectification in further detail?

Seems to me that is just false consciousness and doesn't have much to do with
Originally posted by Dictionary
regard[ing] (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing

[IronColumn]

Well the thing is that false consciousness for the proletariat is the consciousness of the bourgeoisie in the minds of the workers that becomes objectified. So the abstract ideas of the bourgeoisie about how society should run become reified into permanent categories of working class thought and immutable "eternal, natural laws" of society. So the abstraction that is the idea of the "free market" becomes reified into the corresponding idea that some "invisible hand" will provide the best outcome for everyone, etc. and that thus the workers should not unionize and simply stop complaining.

Korsch, a one time ally of Lukacs, preferred the term 'objectification' to Lukacs' 'reification'. If that helps at all?

[Revolutionary Souljah]

Gotcha. That makes sense.

So how about the proletariat as the "subject-object" of history. I've always had trouble with that one also...

ps- maybe this should be moved to learning...?

[IronColumn]

The proletariat is the subject in that it can make history as it sees fit. This is what Marx meant when he said that the most productive power is the working class itself (poverty of philosophy), or we should say that the productive power of the working class is in the production of its subjective consciousness.

Humans make their own history, but not as they please. The workers were objectively created by the process of capitalist development and had no say in the matter. But they are the first class in human history, because of the objective material development of society, that has a choice to make (socialism or barbarism).

Thus subject-object. That about covers lukacs.

[Revolutionary Souljah]

So now that that is cleared up, here is some good questions for discussion.


Why is it the proletariat hasn't realized it's power as the subject-object of history?

How do we replace the false consciousness of most workers with revolutionary class consciousness?

Through "People's Schools?"

How would they be funded?

How does reification relate to Gramsci's theories of Cultural Hegemony?

Why aren't many communist/socialist/anarchist/lefitist/etc. groups advocating a "War of Position"?

Would a "War of Position", with massive mobilization, education, and organization of the working-class, be an effective modern day strategy?

[IronColumn]

1)The task is difficult because it is unique in human history. Also the plague of Leninism really has hurt the working class movement for quite some time.

2)The working class can only acquire consciousness through class actions. So "we" don't replace any consciousness with anything else-this is simply the "consciousness from without" position of Kautsky and later Lenin. The workers will provide their own growing consciousness through creating factory councils and soviets, etc.

3)Reification is the idea that because of the economic domination of the bourgeoisie there is a corresponding ideological domination, so essentially the same as cultural hegemony. However you should analyse Gramsci's ideas mainly as an excuse for missing a fantastic opportunity to start a Soviet Republic in Italy in 1920. The Anarchists under Malatesta were the only ones really pushing for expanding the general strike and making a revolution. The workers listened to the PSI, of which Gramsci was a part of at the time, and went back to work. I personally view Gramsci's ideas of a 'long war' as simply a smokescreen for reformism, which is how they've been used historically, by Gramsci as various others. Also keep in mind Gramsci is a centrist who was used by Stalin to replace the more left leadership of the PCI at the time under Bordiga. I don't really put much stock in Gramsci, but that's just me.

[syndicat]

IC:
Reification is the idea that because of the economic domination of the bourgeoisie there is a corresponding ideological domination, so essentially the same as cultural hegemony. However you should analyse Gramsci's ideas mainly as an excuse for missing a fantastic opportunity to start a Soviet Republic in Italy in 1920. The Anarchists under Malatesta were the only ones really pushing for expanding the general strike and making a revolution. The workers listened to the PSI, of which Gramsci was a part of at the time, and went back to work. I personally view Gramsci's ideas of a 'long war' as simply a smokescreen for reformism, which is how they've been used historically, by Gramsci as various others.

"Reification" literally means turning something into a thing that isn't a thing. A more relevant way to understand the cause of false consciousness is by way of Marx's idea that people are "creatures of practice," that their powers, consciousness, abilities at a given time are shaped by our activity, by what we do. If people work day in and day out under the thumb of bosses, if there is a concentration of expertise and education higher up the social ladder, workers are in a situation that tends to lower their self-esteem, by putting others over them, it's an environment where "getting ahead" requires deference, where you're taught that those in charge should be because they're the experts, the people with more education, etc.

changing this consciousness also requires a change in the action of the working class, in particular actions that exhibit their potential collective power to change things, as in a strike where they make gains. again, consciousness is a product of practice. the change in the working class where it acquires more clarity about its situation, develops its self-confidence, its organizational strength etc. is called "class formation", this is the process whereby the working class moves from being a class "in itself" to being a class "for itself."

subordinating workers to another hierarchy, as in a "democratic centralist" party, doesn't help in this process of self-development and self-liberation.

[Revolutionary Souljah]

Let me first start this post out by saying to comrades IronColumn and Syndicat...it seems you have a lot to teach and i am very eager to learn so I would also be very grateful if you took an elementary approach to your responses because I am lacking the background you are. anyways....



anything else...is simply the "consciousness from without" position of Kautsky and later Lenin

I don't know anything about this, but I'd like to.


The working class can only acquire consciousness through class actions.

Can you defend this position for educational purposes?


you should analyse Gramsci's ideas mainly as an excuse for missing a fantastic opportunity to start a Soviet Republic in Italy in 1920. The Anarchists under Malatesta were the only ones really pushing for expanding the general strike and making a revolution

could you put his theories on cultural hegemony in context for me?

I never took his ideas that way. I simply read the wikipedia article on cultural hegemony and in it it states...

"Gramsci therefore argued for a strategic distinction between a "war of position" and a "war of movement". The war of position is a culture war in which anti-capitalist elements seek to gain a dominant voice in mass media, mass organizations, and educational institutions to heighten class consciousness, teach revolutionary analysis and theory, and inspire revolutionary organization. Following the success of the war of position, communist leaders would be empowered to begin the war of movement, the actual insurrection against capitalism, with mass support."

^^^ that always made sense to me. just seemed like a really good idea, i never really put it into the any context except my own, and that was that it seemed like a really good idea.

[IronColumn]

Kautsky's position and later Lenin's (who revered Kautsky until 1914) was that the workers need to have revolutionary consciousness brought from without, from intellectuals and humanitarian bourgeois individuals. This is in contrast to what Marx said, which is that only the workers can free themselves.

As for class actions, see syndicat's post: the strikes and resistance in the factory or in society at large will later become the mass strikes that establish councils and assemblies which are the organs for administering the new society. The point here being that the working class terrain is not in the political realm of voting, and that the gaining of consciousness is a process of class struggle, not some dramatic coup. This is the difference between the proletarian and bourgeois revolutions.

With Gramsci, that is simply my opinion, as his theorizing is mainly done in the jail of Mussolini's Italy. If you read the history of the Italian factory occupations on libcom or elsewhere, the "Red Years" of 1919-1920, you can see that just like in May 1968 it's the socialist and communist parties running around trying to end the strike, only the Anarchists are trying to turn the situation from revolutionary into insurrectionary. Essentially his musings seem to me an apologia which blames the uneducated masses, who will have to be tutored for several decades by the CP before they can ever do anything. This is a recipe for reformism, as can be seen by the history of these ideas, as well as avoiding any critical look at the nature of Leninism.

[Revolutionary Souljah]

IronColumn...

I agree with Gramsci on this...

"anti-capitalist elements [need] to gain a dominant voice in mass media, mass organizations, and educational institutions to heighten class consciousness, teach revolutionary analysis and theory, and inspire revolutionary organization"

but not with this....

"following the success of the war of position, communist leaders would be empowered to begin the war of movement, the actual insurrection against capitalism, with mass support"

The first excerpt highlights the need for popular institutions and social organization among working class people. Would you agree with that point?