ideology

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

i have been reading 'how Marxism works' by Chris Harman.

And it got me thinking.

With so many competing ideologies, scientific arguments, different philosophies and all the multitude of scientists, philosophers, thinkers, all of which have their own nuanced views on these matters.

What exactly is it, that makes some arguments stand out as 'correct'?

Is there a quality to the arguments, theories, that we should look for like, really stringent robust evidence??

because if Marxism has a big flaw (dialectics) then isn't all the evidence given by Marxists and the conclusions drawn from them in serious doubt.

But further, if everyone has an ideology, just that for most people it is not coherent or formal, then is it not the case that all scientific arguments etc, to some degree are in doubt because of the underlying ideology that the person who made the argument , holds.

And, if experience helps people develop their own ideology, then surely the science produced by upper-class people will be 'bent' in favour of how they see the world!

Surely this leaves modern science, ideologies and philosophies under serious doubt in how reliable they are.

so, is it right that, everyone has an ideology and that can skew science?

if so, how do we think without that 'background ideology'?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Don't people believe this is a big problem?

Especially when Marxists base their arguments on data collected and handled by scientists who proclaim they hold no ideology?

Maybe scientists 'filter out' things that do not meet their assumptions. I think i have read that Michael Parenti say something similar.

still, how much of an effect do people think ideology has?

I'm starting to think it could be massive.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is an interesting issue. I'd begin by noting that the term 'Ideology' has a specific meaning, in the terminology of Marxism; it refers to ideas which exist in order to provide a justification for, or to obscure the prevailing contradictions of a capitalist society, in order to maintain the power of the ruling class. Thus, for Marxists, ideology generates a system of false consciousness, and as such we should aim to eliminate ideology so that workers can view the world as it really is.

For example, nationalism can be considered an ideology, as it implies that there is something (common membership of a national community) which can unite the different classes together, and transcend class conflict.

Marxism's integrity as an alleged science rests on it's ability to accurately predict the future development of Capitalism. As a science which deals with the human world, it is not possible to construct experiments in order to test our hypotheses (as one could do in order to prove the theory of gravity, in a laboratory) and so we must rely on real-world experience.

As for whether Science can be ideological, I don't know how true this is of the natural sciences, which allegedly rely on an objective method, based on controlled experiments and observation, but it's certainly true that economics (which is often described as a science, even though it deals with transactions between humans) can be ideological. In Classical economics, the wage-labour transaction is portrayed as occurring between two equal participants, in a market that is divorced from the real world and the material needs of workers. This, clearly, is ideological, because it obscures the exploitation that occurs through wage-labour.

I look forward to seeing other responses.

[mikelepore]

It seems to me, it's not a theory or ideology, but a particular sentence, one proposition at a time, that can be right or wrong, scientific or unscientific, testable or untestable. A writer of an ideology usually says many things, and I may agree with some claims and disagree with others. If anyone asks me what I think of [author's name]-ism, I have to respond: Precisely which assertion are you referring to?

[Ol' Dirty]

What exactly is it, that makes some arguments stand out as 'correct'?

There are multiple reasons certain ideas are considered 'correct:' paradigm shifts can be viewed from the Marxist perspective- the accepted ideology is the ideology of the state (the ruling class). In that respect, changes in ideology can be ways of interpereting class conflict. Ideas that are correct during one period become increasingly obselete over time. The 'corectness' of an argument waxes as wanes over time as class society changes. Corectness is a fuzzy concept.



Surely this leaves modern science, ideologies and philosophies under serious doubt in how reliable they are.


Very few things are absolutely reliable. From time to time, scientific findings are proven to be untrue. If the discovery is relatively minor -tomatoes really are vegetables,- paradigm shifts will be minor. If they are major, however (like the discovery of the last digit in pi, or that spontatneous generation is a valid theory, or something crasy like that), the paradigm shifts will be equally huge.

Things change pretty consistently. The method by which sientifc "fact" is found, though, stays remarkably similar over time. The philosophy of science is, as a result, a pretty important one.

[Vanguard1917]

Marxism's integrity as an alleged science rests on it's ability to accurately predict the future development of Capitalism. As a science which deals with the human world, it is not possible to construct experiments in order to test our hypotheses (as one could do in order to prove the theory of gravity, in a laboratory) and so we must rely on real-world experience.

Yes, but Marxists do need to test their hypotheses, by intervening in society.

Marxists are scientists of a sort. But, crucially, Marxists are engaged in a society made up of conscious subjects; we don't deal with non-conscious particles, like an astronomer or a physicistdoes.

As a result, Marxists can't be detached observers. Instead, Marxists are, by definition, engaged with their object of study - society - practically.

Because people are conscious beings, they act according to their level of conciousness, which is shaped and influenced by subjective as well as objective forces. Key among these 'subjective forces' is the set of ideologies of bourgeois society - i.e. the ideas of the ruling class. The goal of Marxists is to fight these ideas, with our own ideas. Hence the necessity of the ideological struggle.

Of course, the 'ideology' which comes out on top depends on the real life struggle taking place in society between real social forces - a struggle into which Marxists need to intervene if the ideas of the working class (i.e. communist ideas, which we see as being in the objective interests of the working class) are to prevail.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'False consciousnes', was not a term Marx ever used, and Engels only ever employed it once, in a letter toward the end of his life.

It is a meaningless term (false money is not money, false memory is not memory -- so is 'false consciousness' not consciousness?), and certainly not one upon which we should try to build a theory of ideology.

More details here:

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

[mikelepore]

'False consciousness', was not a term Marx ever used

Interesting, what you pointed out. Thanks. But he said some things that could arguably mean such as idea. He constrasted "illusory happiness" with "real happiness" [in Critique of Hegel's ...] Also, "The reform of consciousness consists entirely in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in arousing it from its dream of itself, in explaining its own actions to it." [Letter to Ruge 9/43]

[Hit The North]

Ideology is the result of living in an upside down world. If I fetishize commodities as if they rule over me that is because, in the real world of capitalism, they do. Therefore, ideology is a true consciousness of how the world is, not a false one. Ideology, like its most pure sibling, religion, can only be abolished by abolishing the material conditions which foster it.

As Marx argues, the point isn't to interpret the world (that is, choose one ideology over another), the point is to change it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You should read some Gramsci if you're interested in "ideology".

I believe ideology is important; it's a theory and what makes one ideology "correct" or "incorrect" is how this theory holds up against the material world. Of course it is also important to be far-sighted and not take holding-up against reality to mean how popular a theory is at one time or another.

At a time like this when worker struggles are low it's hard to "proove" what ideologies are correct or incorrect because everyone can claim evidence for their theories in the abstract. But when there is struggle, open questions quickly become answered while un-thought-of questions arise. I think this is what people like Lenin meant when they said things like a few weeks of revolutionary struggle taught the socialist movement more than decades of study and debate.

[Clarksist]

Here is one thing I have learned: anything a human thinks is probably flawed. Even that statement (what a mindfuck, huh?).

The idea with communist revolutionary ideology, at least to me, is not that it is necessarily any more or less correct, but that it is in the class interest of the workers (the majority of humanity at present). Therefore, as a proletarian, I should follow my class interest and not the class interest of people who benefit from my exploitation.

To add to it, my ideology doesn't hurt anyone, the bourgeoisie is not implicitly hurt if it accepts economic fairness for proletarians. The only way the bourgeoisie is hurt is if it denies fair treatment to the proletariat. In this way, I feel a communist mindset is fully justified for myself.

[Vanguard1917]

'False consciousnes', was not a term Marx ever used, and Engels only ever employed it once, in a letter toward the end of his life.

It is a meaningless term (false money is not money, false memory is not memory -- so is 'false consciousness' not consciousness?), and certainly not one upon which we should try to build a theory of ideology.

Would you agree that, in times of class conflict, there are varying levels of consciousness within the working class - with some more advanced and, also, more correct than others?

For example, the worker who believes that his salvation lies with the Church. Isn't this a false type of consciousness when compared to the consciousness of the worker who, under the same material conditions, is a member of a revolutionary party?

Citizen Zero:


Ideology is the result of living in an upside down world. If I fetishize commodities as if they rule over me that is because, in the real world of capitalism, they do. Therefore, ideology is a true consciousness of how the world is, not a false one. Ideology, like its most pure sibling, religion, can only be abolished by abolishing the material conditions which foster it.



But did Marx really believe that consciousness is a correct reflection of the real world? What about the mediation of subjective forces involved in forming the consciousness of people? For instance, the example of the religious worker and the communist worker that i gave above. They both exist under the same material conditions, but their consciousness is at dissimilar levels. Doesn't this suggest that their consciousness is not a simple reflection of the real world - that there are subjective influences at work, which are in many ways key in forming people's consciousness?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

There are multiple reasons certain ideas are considered 'correct:' paradigm shifts can be viewed from the Marxist perspective- the accepted ideology is the ideology of the state (the ruling class). In that respect, changes in ideology can be ways of interpereting class conflict. Ideas that are correct during one period become increasingly obselete over time. The 'corectness' of an argument waxes as wanes over time as class society changes. Corectness is a fuzzy concept.



Very few things are absolutely reliable. From time to time, scientific findings are proven to be untrue. If the discovery is relatively minor -tomatoes really are vegetables,- paradigm shifts will be minor. If they are major, however (like the discovery of the last digit in pi, or that spontatneous generation is a valid theory, or something crasy like that), the paradigm shifts will be equally huge.

Things change pretty consistently. The method by which sientifc "fact" is found, though, stays remarkably similar over time. The philosophy of science is, as a result, a pretty important one.

Well one thing i thought of, was that scientists often say, whilst usually directed at religion, they wished ideology stayed out of science.

The implication being that, 'good' scientists don't hold ideological opinions, or don't involve them in science.

For Marxism, experience accumulated, helps people develop ideology, most of the time an ideology that has no real name and is inconsistent.

For scientists, this is alarming because they deny they hold an ideology and deny it influences their science.

But, if Marxism is right, and these scientists do have a 'background' ideology, then they may well be imparting it to their science.

It seems like it would be a good reason to explain why different scientific hypotheses occur over time and between individuals, despite similar evidence.

Also, scientists hold a great amount of influence inside the public, political and business establishment, especially these days in areas like environmentalism, energy and carbon emissions.

Meaning scientists will, because of their ideology, choose some arguments over others, like, because they might live in a food abundant country, they might argue for bio-fuels, because they like to run a car cheaply, wheras a scientist who lives in a country with food shortages might develop a different argument accordingly.

Thus, all of the factors in life, will influence each scientists thinking on their own specific field, giving us a multitude of 'wrong' arguments, and few 'correct' ones.

i dont know, maybe i mean 'application of science' or something.

[Hit The North]

But did Marx really believe that consciousness is a correct reflection of the real world?

It tends to correspond (more or less) to how society appears. The point is that how society appears to us is not necessarily how it is. It's the job of science to penetrate the surface appearance of things which is reflected in ideological discourse and reveal the actual.

Bourgeois thinking is ideological because it begins from how things appear and mistakes this procession of transient, historically emergent relations for ahistorical, unchanging truths.

Nevertheless bourgeois ideology would sound like fairy tales, unless it corresponded to some level of reality.

Marx claimed his method was scientific, however, because it proceeds from the opposite assumptions: that appearance and reality, form and content, are not necessarily identical and that human beings and their societies are dynamic and emergent.


What about the mediation of subjective forces involved in forming the consciousness of people?

First consciousness isn't necessarily the same as ideology. Consciousness, by definition, can only be experienced subjectively. Ideology is experienced inter-subjectively.


For instance, the example of the religious worker and the communist worker that i gave above. They both exist under the same material conditions, but their consciousness is at dissimilar levels.

Well, as Gramsci points out, consciousness - even within a single individual - can be uneven and contradictory. The religious worker may have more class consciousness than many of his atheist workmates, for instance. The communist worker may be a driven, self-aggrandizing, authoritarian ego-maniac who's main motivation for being a communist is that it makes him feel powerful and important. You never know - we've all met 'em.;)


Doesn't this suggest that their consciousness is not a simple reflection of the real world - that there are subjective influences at work, which are in many ways key in forming people's consciousness?

Yeah, I'd never suggest that consciousness is a simple reflection of the real world. Sorry if you thought I did.

[Vanguard1917]

It tends to correspond (more or less) to how society appears. The point is that how society appears to us is not necessarily how it is. It's the job of science to penetrate the surface appearance of things which is reflected in ideological discourse and reveal the actual.

I agree. Then it is possible to possess incorrect consciousness, just as it is possible, for the working class, to possess correct consciousness?

[Vanguard1917]

Well, as Gramsci points out, consciousness - even within a single individual - can be uneven and contradictory. The religious worker may have more class consciousness than many of his atheist workmates, for instance. The communist worker may be a driven, self-aggrandizing, authoritarian ego-maniac who's main motivation for being a communist is that it makes him feel powerful and important. You never know - we've all met 'em.;)


Absolutely. My point was that workers under the same material conditions can possess different levels of consciousness - due to different subjective influences.

[Dros]

I'm not going to get into this in this thread, but I don't see dialectics as a problem with Marxism and so I would question the premise of this converstation.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

drosera99

you didn't need to even post that.

Especially as that is not what this thread about.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



Ideology is the result of living in an upside down world. If I fetishize commodities as if they rule over me that is because, in the real world of capitalism, they do. Therefore, ideology is a true consciousness of how the world is, not a false one. Ideology, like its most pure sibling, religion, can only be abolished by abolishing the material conditions which foster it.



You clearly wrote that without reading the article I linked to, which shows that this is not so (and that Marx did not believe it to be so).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mikelepore:


Interesting, what you pointed out. Thanks. But he said some things that could arguably mean such as idea. He constrasted "illusory happiness" with "real happiness" [in Critique of Hegel's ...] Also, "The reform of consciousness consists entirely in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in arousing it from its dream of itself, in explaining its own actions to it." [Letter to Ruge 9/43]

Thanks for that Mike, but these passages are far from clear, nor do they relate to 'false consciousness'.

Moreover, 'false' and 'illusory' are not the same. A false friend exists, but an illusory one does not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG 1917:



Would you agree that, in times of class conflict, there are varying levels of consciousness within the working class - with some more advanced and, also, more correct than others?



I would not use the word 'consciousness', since it is hopelessly confused (despite the fact that Marx used it, and despite the fashion among Marxists to ape that usage).

But, certainly there are false beliefs held by workers.


For example, the worker who believes that his salvation lies with the Church. Isn't this a false type of consciousness when compared to the consciousness of the worker who, under the same material conditions, is a member of a revolutionary party?


Now, you see, you yourself had to use the word 'belief' here to make yourself understood; hence, I see no reason to employ the word 'consciousness' ('false' or otherwise).

Except, of course, as a nod to 'tradition' -- but, if Marxism is a science, we should abandon useless concepts, as they do in other sciences.

[black magick hustla]

to be honest rosa, i think sometimes you restrict your language too much in hope of not sounding philosophical.

"false consciousness", whether lingustically makes sense or not, it doesnt matter, it matters most how people use it. "false consciousness" used by marxists only means workers being dominated by ideas that are clearly against its interests.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Not so.

Your argument would suggest that it does not matter what, say, "round square" means, all that matters is how it is used!

This term is not only foreign to Marx (as that article shows), it is alien to his way of seeing things.

And I did not understand this:


to be honest rosa, i think sometimes you restrict your language too much in hope of not sounding philosophical.

[black magick hustla]

Not so.

Your argument would suggest that it does not matter what, say, "round square" means, all that matters is how it is used!

This term is not only foreign to Marx (as that article shows), it is alien to his way of seeing things.

And I did not understand this:

pretty much, although i dont think "round square" sounds pretty nor i can figure out a way of using it. i know the term was alien to marx, it was popularized by marcuse.

also what i meant about you limiting yourself is that you sometimes refuse terms like "free will" or "consciousness" because you think they are too "philosophical", "confused", or whatever, while clearly they are part of our everyday language and are not only confined to the margins of philosophical academia anymore.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


also what i meant about you limiting yourself is that you sometimes refuse terms like "free will" or "consciousness" because you think they are too "philosophical", "confused", or whatever, while clearly they are part of our everyday language and are not only confined to the margins of philosophical academia anymore.

Well, I am OK with the use of "free will" in ordinary language, but in philosophical contexts, like those found here, I refuse to use it (since it has no meaning, although I might mention it), and my use of it would only serve to confuse others as to my intentions.


pretty much, although i dont think "round square" sounds pretty nor i can figure out a way of using it. i know the term was alien to marx, it was popularized by marcuse.

Well, the point is that the mere use of a word or phrase does not imply that it means anything, otherwise we should have to accept that "Bu Bu Bu" meant something because I have just used it to make this point.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Okay,

So i realise that i made this thread to early.

I not only don't understand if ideology has a big impact on science, but i don't even understand what is science and how do we know something is a science.

I read that evidence can support theories that are not scientific, and that scientific theories can be accepted as scientific even with no evidence.

So, because i can't understand the 'philosophy of science', can anyone break down what is a science?

then i can try to understand the effect of ideology.

cheers!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

There is no such thing as science, just so many sciences. Now, whether they have anything in common is a moot point. Hence, it is not helpful having a definition. The best we can do is make a detailed examination of what scientists actually do, and work from there.

But, if Marx is right, and the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class, the sciences cannot fail to have been ideologically compromised.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Is science is so difficult to define because it is pointless to differentiate between 'science' and 'non-science'?

For example, saying "is Marxism a science?" is pointless, we should just be saying "how useful is Marxism and how well does it provide the correct analysis"

Just like with say Astrology. Should be we say, it doesn't matter if it is or is not a science, what matters is if it give us the correct answers or information?

what do you mean there are many science's?

What i am thinking, is that *some* theories are 'science' because they match with ruling class ideology, and others theories are rejected as 'science' because they conflict with ruling class thought.

and 'science' is just a meaningless word, other than it being attributed too some theories so that are to be taken seriously.

which would explain why Marxism is often rejected as not being scientific because those who have the 'monopoly' on telling us what is and is not scientific are too influenced by ruling class ideology to not be biased.

:laugh: i think that makes sense.

[black magick hustla]

Well, the point is that the mere use of a word or phrase does not imply that it means anything, otherwise we should have to accept that "Bu Bu Bu" meant something because I have just used it to make this point.

It is a shame Bu Bu Bu doesn't means anything lol, but if enough people used it in a certain way it would have a meaning. Or in fact, if you give it a very specific meaning, you actually create a new word! Just see the countless of words stupid postmodernists are churning out.

Besides "false consciousness" is not sematically "nonsensical" if you consider consciousness to be "conscious about politics, what is happening in the world, etc"--which is a valid way of inteprreting it, after all that is how a lot of people use it. "false conciousnesS" would simply mnean that consciousness wouldnt exist at all.

[Hit The North]

Besides "false consciousness" is not sematically "nonsensical" if you consider consciousness to be "conscious about politics, what is happening in the world, etc"--which is a valid way of inteprreting it, after all that is how a lot of people use it. "false conciousnesS" would simply mnean that consciousness wouldnt exist at all.

Wouldn't that just be politically unconscious?

False consciousness obviously refers to a form of cognitive dissonance - a misreading of reality.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


False consciousness obviously refers to a form of cognitive dissonance - a misreading of reality.

Yes, Engels was so prescient, wasn't he?

Of course, Marx knew nothing at all of this.

And, a state of cognitive dissonance afflicts you dialectical mystics when you look at the long-term lack of success our movement has experienced, and see the world through rose-coloured glasses, believing that things will improve because of that mystical force (the sacred 'dailectic') working in history.

No wonder you cling to it as a form of consolation

And, as Festinger noted in the original (and in 'When Prophecy Fails'), those so afflicted cling to their misbegotten beliefs more tenaciously the more they are refuted by events.

Sounds like you my sad friend...

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/10/how-and-why-we-lie-to-ourselves.php

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCS:



Is science is so difficult to define because it is pointless to differentiate between 'science' and 'non-science'?



Well, once more: it is impossible to 'define' since there is no such thing as science, just a variety of social practices interlinked by various methodologies.

When we say Marxism is a science, we connect it with this linguistic tradition. And we do not do so arbitrarily

[Hit The North]

Z:

And, a state of cognitive dissonance afflicts you dialectical mystics when you look at the long-term lack of success our movement has experienced, and see the world through rose-coloured glasses, believing that things will improve because of that mystical force (the sacred 'dailectic') working in history.

No wonder you cling to it as a form of consolation

And, as Festinger noted in the original (and in 'When Prophecy Fails'), those so afflicted cling to their misbegotten beliefs more tenaciously the more they are refuted by events.

Sounds like you my sad friend...

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/10/how-and-why-we-lie-to-ourselves.php

A) Just because I acknowledge that the concept of false consciousness refers to a form of cognitive dissonance doesn't mean I agree with it.

B) There's no consolation in the dialectic because it highlights the importance of the subjective factors in revolutionary change - unlike the dull fatalism of your brand of mechanical materialism which allows you to spend your time pontificating like a bourgeois philosopher rather than doing any real political work. Now, that's cognitive dissonance.

When's your presentation in front of the Oxford academics coming up, anyway? There's nothing those guys like more than another attempt to castrate Marx's theory. You'll do well, madam. :glare:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



Just because I acknowledge that the concept of false consciousness refers to a form of cognitive dissonance doesn't mean I agree with it.



You need to learn to be a little clearer then, don't you?


There's no consolation in the dialectic because it highlights the importance of the subjective factors in revolutionary change

You admitted as much last year.


unlike the dull fatalism of your brand of mechanical materialism which allows you to spend your time pontificating like a bourgeois philosopher rather than doing any real political work. Now, that's cognitive dissonance.

And how big is the 'party' after 40 years of 'building', eh?

So for all your headless chicken impressions, imagining you are actually getting somewhere, material reality continues to mock you and you mystical 'theory'.



When's your presentation in front of the Oxford academics coming up, anyway? There's nothing those guys like more than another attempt to castrate Marx's theory. You'll do well, madam.


Alex Callinicos and a bus load of SWP-ers are going.

Want to e-mail Alex and say the same to him?

No -- thought not; you are only 'brave' when attacking/bad-mouthing women...:scared:

[Hit The North]

No -- thought not; you are only 'brave' when attacking/bad-mouthing women...http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/scared.gif

So when Rosa gets desperate she falls back on accussations of sexism. But there's no more evidence that you're a woman than there is that you're just an anti-dialectic spambot... or a Marxist, come to that. :laugh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



So when Rosa gets desperate she falls back on accussations of sexism. But there's no more evidence that you're a woman than there is that you're just an anti-dialectic spambot... or a Marxist, come to that.


I take it this confirms that you have not, nor will you be, contacting Alex to ask him:



When's your presentation in front of the Oxford academics coming up, anyway? There's nothing those guys like more than another attempt to castrate Marx's theory.


But, it is OK to ask it of me, because I am a woman -- and, perhaps, because I can't have you expelled from the SWP?

So, you are not just a mystic, you are a cowardly mystic, too.