Ideology just means dominant ideas?

True, I said capitalism. I should have said all class society.

What I don't  get is that, if false consciousness means false ideas, what could
be more false than distorted thinking from a distorted society? I'm pretty sure
that the latter definition of ideology given so far is the same as what Marx
called false consciousness.

I thought dogma is akin to religious 'i think so because im told so' thinking.
That's the connotation it has.

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Marcos <UPRalmamater@...> wrote:
>
> Is the proletarian class a ruling class ? Does the proletarian class has a
> super-structure  ? Does the proletarian class has  prevailing ideas ?  Was
> there a true conscience under the classical slaves and feudal society ?
> Probably, false consciousness( distorted ideas ) is not only related to
> capitalism, I have heard something by the name of proletarian ideology cited
> thousands of times by Vladimir Lenin, and a doctrine named socialism, even
> Engels used the same expression on his so called definition of communism,
> and doctrine means dogmas. Is socialism a dogmatic idea ? It looks like the
> so called unity of ideas between Marx and Engels is not real, they had their
> own differences

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "wsm_mod" <wsm_mod@...> wrote:
> To say that something is distorted does not mean that it is false, and Marx
does say or imply that it does. In any case, Marx's point was that it was not
merely in the realm of ideas that distortion occurred but in the material world
as well. Distorted ideas were the result of a distorted reality (i.e.
capitalism).
>
> --
> Lew
>

Marx never used the phrase, but what it is used to mean is the naturalized
ideology of capitalism. But this is all about interpretations and semantics...
perhaps that's all the disagreement is about.

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "tha_hizouse" <tha_hizouse@...> wrote:
>Marx called false consciousness.

Totally wrong. He actually never called anything it.

Power of myths etc...

Every sociological, political, historical, anthropological, and economical
aspect of this society is distorted, even natural sciences many times are
also distorted when we have sciences being mixed with religions. False or
distorted they have the same meaning. The term was always used by Frederich
Engels, as well, Engels was the person that indicated that dialectic takes
place in nature, and he took an heterosexual stand on this book about the
family, and he adopted blindly several ideas of Lewis Morgan,, and he was
the person that created the concept of Marxism, and he called communism a
doctrine

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

2009/11/19 wsm_mod <wsm_mod@...>

>
>
>
>
> <tha_hizouse@...> wrote:
>
> > > That is Engels' gloss on the subject and is not endorsed by the
> > > WSM. The WSM tends to favour Marx's approach in which the concept
> > > of ideology refers to (a) general claims about the nature of a
> > > society's superstructure, or (b) a distortion of thought that
> > > stems from, and conceals contradictions within, capitalist
> > > society. In neither case does it equate the concept of ideology
> > > with false consciousness.
>
> > In the second case, that is exactly what false consciousness as
> > ideology means.
>
> To say that something is distorted does not mean that it is false, and Marx
> does say or imply that it does. In any case, Marx's point was that it was
> not merely in the realm of ideas that distortion occurred but in the
> material world as well. Distorted ideas were the result of a distorted
> reality (i.e. capitalism).
>
> --
> Lew
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Folks,

Sorry to stop you in full flow, but could someone please explain what this
discussion is all about in simple terms?

Yours for socialism (and hoping I'll then be able to understand what's going
on),

JimN

Hi Michael

> You can't superimpose a hunter-gather monoculture of a few thousand
individuals on a global multi-culture of 6.5 billion.  No credible scholar
would give you any hope of success or take you seriously.

No-one in their right mind would suggest that you can take a hunter-getherer and
use it as a model for a global society with a very different level of
technological achievement and with a very different form of social organisation.
Go back and read my post!

> The key ingredient missing is leadership.  Without leadership  >there is no
coordination amongst the people, ergo no surplus.

This is a fine dogmatic assertion! And do you understand the difference between
leadership and influence?

> all people will prefer liesure to working.

Again, do you have evidence for this?  In fact, all the evidence is to the
contrary.  In simple hunter gatherer societies where there are no leaders,
people generally work without much fuss. In capitalism, loads of people do
unpaid voluntary work. Many do more hours and work harder than they are actually
required to by their contracts, largely because they understand that they are
part of and are committed to a collective effort.   Unpaid working is so
extensive in the  UK that the economy would collapse without it.

>It's unsustainable and there is no evidence that human behavior will >change to
produce unnecessary surpluses for anyone other than their >immediate family and
community.

I don't know where you think this evidence is, Michael; you seem to dredge it up
out of thin air.    There are many examples of working people working and
producing together on a very large scale, for wide distribution.  This included
the production of surpluses.  Instances of this kind usually takes place  inside
capitalism at a time of social and economic dislocation.  Consider the Spanish
civil war, for example where complex and large-scale production was carried on
by working people alone.


> This notion that everyone is going to become noble and willing to >work for no
reward is just that.

The idea of people becoming noble is an idea of yours not of ours.  And again it
is based on assumption and hot air - but no evidence. Once again, a very large
number of people in capitalism work for the pleasure of co-operating socially on
worthwhile projects with no financial remuneration.

You are confusing work as such with the conditions of work within capitalism. 
Work (as opposed to employment) can be wholly enjoyable.  People like engaging
in projects together. When they go home they have hobbies, they join clubs and
engage in joint ventures.

  The people I work with are a fairly bolshy lot and tend to say what they think.
In a recent exercise to determine what their views were of the company, they
were asked how they would like to be rewarded for their good work.  "More money"
actually came pretty low down on their lists. Recognition came right at the top.
When asked why they worked they mostly said things like, "the satisfaction of
being able to help others."    Once people have a relative amount of material
security (even the low level of security of a job in capitalism) the pleasure
they get out of work is mostly social.  At my place of work people regularly
object to being forced to retire at 60 or 65.  They sometimes state financial
issues as a reason, but mostly they say they would miss the collective working
environment.

Of course, not everyone feels like that about work, but generally, those that
dislike their work are those who are employed or self-employed in highly
competitive trades where they are constantly having to fight, to duck and dive,
and to fiddle to stay on top.  This isn't in any way 'natural' it is a result of
what capitalism imposes upon them.  You constantly confuse the two.


> Your expectation that a global multi-cultural society with >different levels
of resources is going to steam merrily along in >peace and tranquility without
leadership, rules of trade/exchange or >mechanisms to organize is fanciful at
best.

Yet another dogmatic assertion, Michael.

>There is no evidence that this will work and I refuse to take it on >faith. 
All of the evolutionary changes in culture have come >about because of outside
influences.

Really?  Better get reading up on some of your history.  Check out the French
revolutions, just for example.  This was a revolution wholly from within and
reflected, at a social and political level, the change from an agrarian
land-owning form of society to one based on the ownership of capital and the
exploitation of the working class through wage labour. This example could be
multiplied many times over.  The UK which has not been invaded for nearly 1,000
years has gone through a long process of economic evolution and revolution -
entirely internal.

But you are right in that you must certainly not take the idea on faith.

>What will be the outside influence causing everyone to
>abandon what they know, take a leap of faith on a system which is >undefined
and has no leadership?

I've already disputed the perjorative and unrealistic terms of your statement,
but that aside, try collective self-interest?

Richard




  ________________________________
> From: Robert <zerobertinho1@...>
> To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 7:00:41 AM
> Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: Take a step back
>
>  
>
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogrou ps.com, "Richard" <hud955@> wrote:
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > You have got your reasoning in a bit of a twist here. As to the evidence you
claim, it doesn't exist.
> >
> > Human beings, to a unique an extraordinary degree, have developed a capacity
to learn from their environment and to react creatively to it. They are
therefore subject to cultural evolution as well as natural selection. Whereas
natural selection is a process that works without intelligence and takes
millennia to effect small changes to the shape and behaviour of organisms, human
cultural evolution can and does work extremely rapidly. You only have to watch
what happens to hunter gatherer groups when they come into contact with
capitalism to see this. People - whole societies - can change rapidly in
response to changes in their social environment.
> >
> > Even under conventional genetic models and according to evolutionary
psychologists, human beings have a range of possible behaviours depending on the
influences brought to bear upon them. State societies over the last 10,000 years
have all been competitive, and capitalism most of all. These societies are
competitive in the very way they are structured. Their economic arrangements pit
people against one another and force them to behave competitively, simply in
order to survive. The fact that people have behaved competitively over the last
10,000 years under these conditions is therefore no evidence whatsoever that we
are essentially violent or competitive as a species.
> >
> > It is certain that human beings are capable of competition. If they were not
then capitalism could never have arisen. But it is equally certain that human
beings are capable of - uniquely capable of - high levels of co-operative and
non-competitive behaviour. We know this because there is abundant evidence of
this too.
> >
> > >Given there is no written record, this sort of behavior could have >been
existing for millions of years. Your ideas are based on >academic speculation
with no empirical proof. Mine is based on the >
> > >written history of our species and a sad tale it is.
> >
> > This is just nonsense, Michael. It is very fashionable in academic circles
to claim that humanity is inherently violent. Here's an typical quote from
'Demonic Males' by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson: Humans are "the dazed
survivors of a continuous, 5-million year habit of lethal aggression." Yikes!
They claim also that "neither in history nor around the globe today is there
evidence of a truly peaceful society." If you read through their book you will
find, though, that they provide not one piece of reliable evidence to support
either assertion. And this is typical of academic writing of this kind. There
has been a long tradition of it.
> >
> > You are completely misinformed. There is an abundant, even overwhelming body
of evidence that shows that human beings have the capacity to live
non-competitively and non-violently. Many existing hunter-gatherer groups still
live this way. The literature on them is very extensive. The anthroplogical
record shows unambiguously that simple hunter gatherer societies are nomadic and
egalitarian and that many are wholly peaceful, absolutely avoiding agressive
behaviour both within their own communities and in their relations with those
outside.
> >
> > Again, the earliest secure evidence of human warfare is less than 10,000
years old (that's just about the time when farming and sedentism began to emerge
- together with the competitive state societies that develped with them. And
that is the oldest evidence. In many communities, there are no signs of warfare
at all until much more recently, despite the increasing quantity of evidence as
you come closer to the present. Moreover, the highly organised warfare of state
societies today, could not posibly have evolved genetically - there just hasn't
been time for that. Which means that it is entirely the product of the kinds of
social organisation which produce it.
> >
> > In a society like socialism which does not pit one person, or one group, or
one class against another in its very structure, then there is no reason to
think that our co-operative natures will not predominate.
> >
> > We have never been in a better position to control the environment. We can
plan ahead as never before and stockpile for times of occasional shortage. And
even then, since in socialism the world will be our breadbasket, and since
shortages are always local not universal, what one part of the world lacks
another can make up for it.
> >
> > And even if socialism did get into difficult here, it has a far greater
capacity than capitalism to deal with food shortages. A regular feature of
capitalist society - a very regular feature - is people starving in the midst of
plenty. In a society based on human need not sectional interest that is
inconceivable. We really have nothing to lose.
> >
> > Ges you are right it would be impossible for a capitalist and socialist
society to co-exist. Capitalism is now global, there is no reason why socialism
would not be global too.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Richard
> >
> Agree with Richard--again! In reading the various posts on what seems to be
the dominant topic of the week, I am inspired to say geneticists should, "GET A
LIFE!" Seriously, how many millions(billions) of dollars have been dumped into
the science of genetics to date and what, really, of practical value has been
derived from the endeavor? Yea, now what know what DNA looks like, and the basic
functioning of genes, we can hybrid plants(though we don't need to),
animals(though we don't need to), and people(also, we don't need to), I guess,
now, though the results are not fully in on the latter. But regarding human
behavior and the genetic studies thereof seems to me like it's been by and large
a waste of time and resources. Sketchy, fuzzy hypotheses.
>
> What I'm 'hearing' here is that there are evidently genes that predispose
certain behavioral characteristics that need 'triggering' by the environment,
and then they just take over and enslave the person to the genetic agenda,
genetic 'will'. The logical outcome of all this 'insight' is that it is only
thru genetic intervention that mal genetic behavior can be corrected. All of
that suggests, and I know it is what many scientists of all sorts believe now,
is that humans are just one big chemical 'soup', thoughts, emotions, behavior,
dreams, yada yada...
>
> And this means that we are not free, we never have been, never will be: there
is no 'free will', there is just 'genetic will'. I don't buy that for one second
and again I recommend that geneticists get a life, get a real job, lol! And
'evolutionary psychologists' ? Really, there is such a 'job'. Geez, I can
speculate on that kind of stuff in my spare time, my off hours from carpentry.
>
> IF humans were genetically competitively based, the world/social scene would
be far worse than it already is under capitalism. Violence would be rampant in
everyone's daily life, we would wake up in the morning, strap on our AK47's and
go out a 'greet the new day'--and take no prisoners. And we would have no
control over that. Instead, because of innate human cooperation( working class),
we go out into the material world and everything is running, with great
efficiency, at least in countries where the society is functioning in that
regard and not totally eroded by war and ruthless scarcity.. People create art,
music, entertainment, buildings, sewer systems, all of it, inspite of the
competitive conditioning, not because of it.
>
> So, I don't buy this watered down discussion that genes 'sort of control
people', under the 'right circumstances. ' It's either all or not at all, right,
in terms of behavior? Genes either determine it all or don't determine any or
most of it(excepting the most basic biological motives.)
>
> z3
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

At 09:05 PM 11/20/2009 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>Sorry to stop you in full flow, but could someone please explain what this
>discussion is all about in simple terms?
>
>Yours for socialism (and hoping I'll then be able to understand what's
>going on),
>
>JimN

I think it is about "baffling them with bullshit, although that may be a
falsely conscious ideology.

Smile icon.

Trevor

P.S.  Don't expect ME to understand. Ask Einstein.

_______________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

1879 - 1955 			 - Albert Einstein

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "JAMES" <jamesnorth279@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Sorry to stop you in full flow, but could someone please explain what this
discussion is all about in simple terms?
>
> Yours for socialism (and hoping I'll then be able to understand what's going
on),
>
> JimN
>
I, for one, am baffled by this thread, but guess I'm not smart enough to 'get
it'.  Probably a good thing, ;).

z3

A member of the forum asked a question, and the question was answered in
different ways, in the same manner that anybody on the street, or on a
literature table might ask the same question. That is reason  why sometimes
peoples are saying that communist or socialist are absolutists. We must
listen to people when they ask, it does not make any difference if the
question looks stupids for some gurus. When we had Jenny in this forum he
used the word ideology several times, and most of the times he used in an
inappropriate manner, and I think that we explained to him what the real
meaning is

2009/11/20 Robert <zerobertinho1@...>

>
>
>
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "JAMES"
> <jamesnorth279@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > Sorry to stop you in full flow, but could someone please explain what
> this discussion is all about in simple terms?
> >
> > Yours for socialism (and hoping I'll then be able to understand what's
> going on),
> >
> > JimN
> >
> I, for one, am baffled by this thread, but guess I'm not smart enough to
> 'get it'. Probably a good thing, ;).
>
> z3
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

OK it baffled me too, so I did some reading around and discovered a huge
semantic puddle of .....

When you remove all the spooky verbiage, the question being batted around the
site seems to be this: When Marx used the term 'ideology' was he just referring
to our consciousness of social reality, or to a specifically 'false
consciousness' of it - in other words, to a *distored* view of reality.

I found a couple of articles on the web by writers who had taken the trouble to
get down and do a textual analysis of what he wrote.  Their conclusion is that
no, he didn't specifically mean a "false consciousness" (a term derived from
Engels and never used by Marx).  He spoke of "ideology" as though it was
sometimes a distorted view of reality and sometimes not.

Apart from a number of references that do suggest a distortion in consicousness,
there are also comments like these:

from Preface to A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:

"In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between
the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can
be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political,
religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men
become conscious of this conflict and fight it out."

from The Communist Manifesto:

"Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over
to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the
proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have
raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical
movement as a whole."

The conclusion arrived at by several writers from textual analysis in simple
terms is that Marx used "ideology" in a neutral way.

The best article I found on this is at:

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

It's a bit heavy going and academic but is just 6 pages long so it not too much
of a swamp to wade through.

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <zerobertinho1@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "JAMES" <jamesnorth279@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > Sorry to stop you in full flow, but could someone please explain what this
discussion is all about in simple terms?
> >
> > Yours for socialism (and hoping I'll then be able to understand what's going
on),
> >
> > JimN
> >
> I, for one, am baffled by this thread, but guess I'm not smart enough to 'get
it'.  Probably a good thing, ;).
>
> z3
>

That is what we have said before

2009/11/20 Richard <hud955@...>

>
>
> OK it baffled me too, so I did some reading around and discovered a huge
> semantic puddle of .....
>
> When you remove all the spooky verbiage, the question being batted around
> the site seems to be this: When Marx used the term 'ideology' was he just
> referring to our consciousness of social reality, or to a specifically
> 'false consciousness' of it - in other words, to a *distored* view of
> reality.
>
> I found a couple of articles on the web by writers who had taken the
> trouble to get down and do a textual analysis of what he wrote. Their
> conclusion is that no, he didn't specifically mean a "false consciousness"
> (a term derived from Engels and never used by Marx). He spoke of "ideology"
> as though it was sometimes a distorted view of reality and sometimes not.
>
> Apart from a number of references that do suggest a distortion in
> consicousness, there are also comments like these:
>
> from Preface to A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:
>
> "In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish
> between the material transformation of the economic conditions of
> production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science,
> and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short,
> ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight
> it out."
>
> from The Communist Manifesto:
>
> "Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went
> over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to
> the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists,
> who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the
> historical movement as a whole."
>
> The conclusion arrived at by several writers from textual analysis in
> simple terms is that Marx used "ideology" in a neutral way.
>
> The best article I found on this is at:
>
>
> http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htm
>
> It's a bit heavy going and academic but is just 6 pages long so it not too
> much of a swamp to wade through.
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "Robert"
> <zerobertinho1@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "JAMES"
> <jamesnorth279@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > Sorry to stop you in full flow, but could someone please explain what
> this discussion is all about in simple terms?
> > >
> > > Yours for socialism (and hoping I'll then be able to understand what's
> going on),
> > >
> > > JimN
> > >
> > I, for one, am baffled by this thread, but guess I'm not smart enough to
> 'get it'. Probably a good thing, ;).
> >
> > z3
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If that is so, Marcos, it is not at all clear.

Lew has made the clearest statement so far and he says something somewhat
different which I am still struggling to get my head round.



>That is Engels' gloss on the subject and is not endorsed by the WSM. >The
>WSM tends to favour Marx's approach in which the concept of ideology
>refers to (a) general claims about the nature of a society's
>superstructure, or (b) a distortion of thought that stems from, and
>conceals contradictions within, capitalist society. In neither case >does it
equate the concept of ideology with false consciousness.


--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Marcos <UPRalmamater@...> wrote:
>
> That is what we have said before
>
> 2009/11/20 Richard <hud955@...>
>
> >
> >
> > OK it baffled me too, so I did some reading around and discovered a huge
> > semantic puddle of .....
> >
> > When you remove all the spooky verbiage, the question being batted around
> > the site seems to be this: When Marx used the term 'ideology' was he just
> > referring to our consciousness of social reality, or to a specifically
> > 'false consciousness' of it - in other words, to a *distored* view of
> > reality.
> >
> > I found a couple of articles on the web by writers who had taken the
> > trouble to get down and do a textual analysis of what he wrote. Their
> > conclusion is that no, he didn't specifically mean a "false consciousness"
> > (a term derived from Engels and never used by Marx). He spoke of "ideology"
> > as though it was sometimes a distorted view of reality and sometimes not.
> >
> > Apart from a number of references that do suggest a distortion in
> > consicousness, there are also comments like these:
> >
> > from Preface to A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:
> >
> > "In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish
> > between the material transformation of the economic conditions of
> > production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science,
> > and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short,
> > ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight
> > it out."
> >
> > from The Communist Manifesto:
> >
> > "Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went
> > over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to
> > the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists,
> > who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the
> > historical movement as a whole."
> >
> > The conclusion arrived at by several writers from textual analysis in
> > simple terms is that Marx used "ideology" in a neutral way.
> >
> > The best article I found on this is at:
> >
> >
> > http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htm
> >
> > It's a bit heavy going and academic but is just 6 pages long so it not too
> > much of a swamp to wade through.
> >
> > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "Robert"
> > <zerobertinho1@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "JAMES"
> > <jamesnorth279@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to stop you in full flow, but could someone please explain what
> > this discussion is all about in simple terms?
> > > >
> > > > Yours for socialism (and hoping I'll then be able to understand what's
> > going on),
> > > >
> > > > JimN
> > > >
> > > I, for one, am baffled by this thread, but guess I'm not smart enough to
> > 'get it'. Probably a good thing, ;).
> > >
> > > z3
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "JAMES" <jamesnorth279@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Sorry to stop you in full flow, but could someone please explain what this
discussion is all about in simple terms?
>
> Yours for socialism (and hoping I'll then be able to understand what's going
on),
>
> JimN
>

OK.

There are two ideas involved - Ideology and 'false consciousness'. All you need
to do to understand this discussion is how they're both deployed:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/althusser/index.htm#ideology

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/a.htm#false-consciousness

You know about commodity fetishism, right? Yet, when you purchase anything in a
market setting then you immediately engage in the phenomenon you thought you had
deconstructed. But buying commodities seems ever so natural... Right? This is
the nature of what we are dealing with.

Or there is even science. Scientific method is instrumental yet, even without
realising that fact, it is in the service of ideology by naturalizing social
behaviour like violence or competition of so-on.

Hi Marcos,

Unfortunately, I didn't understand what was said before. Now, thanks to some
simple explanations and links offered by Richard and tha_hizouse, I might have a
chance.

Yours for socialism,

JimN

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Marcos <UPRalmamater@...> wrote:
>
> That is what we have said before
>

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "JAMES" <jamesnorth279@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marcos,
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't understand what was said before. Now, thanks to some
simple explanations and links offered by Richard and tha_hizouse, I might have a
chance.
>
> Yours for socialism,
>
> JimN
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Marcos <UPRalmamater@> wrote:
> >
> > That is what we have said before
> >
>

I should have used this link
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology

But the one I originally gave is useful too.

Ideology is about the prevalent ideas, but ideologies are sets of ideas and I
suppose, false consciousness is about how we're socialised into capitalist
society and we take it for granted etc.. An 'individual' in a city say might be
apt to think everything is happening chaotically, that people are just atoms
etc. but taking it as face value is a form of false consciousness which arises
from their experience because they're alienated.

Lew

I'm still trying to get my head around what you are saying here.

Here's my best shot so far.

Are you saying that our distorted perceptions are not strictly 'false
consciousness' because, in a sense, they accurately reflect the distorted nature
of our society itself?

A further comment would be appreciated.

Cheers

Richard

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "wsm_mod" <wsm_mod@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> <tha_hizouse@> wrote:
>
> > > That is Engels' gloss on the subject and is not endorsed by the
> > > WSM. The WSM tends to favour Marx's approach in which the concept
> > > of ideology refers to (a) general claims about the nature of a
> > > society's superstructure, or (b) a distortion of thought that
> > > stems from, and conceals contradictions within, capitalist
> > > society. In neither case does it equate the concept of ideology
> > > with false consciousness.
>
> > In the second case, that is exactly what false consciousness as
> > ideology means.
>
> To say that something is distorted does not mean that it is false, and Marx
does say or imply that it does. In any case, Marx's point was that it was not
merely in the realm of ideas that distortion occurred but in the material world
as well. Distorted ideas were the result of a distorted reality (i.e.
capitalism).
>
> --
> Lew
>

Thanks for the references HH.

What I take away from them is the understanding that 'false consciousness' is a
complex, ill-defined and slippery concept.  It seems to be no more than a jargon
term of very limited scope and one that adds nothing to our understanding or
knowledge of Marxist theory, which could not have been arrived at or expressed
in other, much clearer and concrete ways.

As Marx never used the term and Engels used it only once in a letter it doesn't
seem to have much bearing on the rest of their writings.

Yay! I'm all for simplification.  And for chucking out unnecessary lumber.  This
is clearly one for the conceptual scrap heap.

Cheers

Richard





--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "tha_hizouse" <tha_hizouse@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "JAMES" <jamesnorth279@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marcos,
> >
> > Unfortunately, I didn't understand what was said before. Now, thanks to some
simple explanations and links offered by Richard and tha_hizouse, I might have a
chance.
> >
> > Yours for socialism,
> >
> > JimN
> >
> > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Marcos <UPRalmamater@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That is what we have said before
> > >
> >
>
> I should have used this link
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology
>
> But the one I originally gave is useful too.
>
> Ideology is about the prevalent ideas, but ideologies are sets of ideas and I
suppose, false consciousness is about how we're socialised into capitalist
society and we take it for granted etc.. An 'individual' in a city say might be
apt to think everything is happening chaotically, that people are just atoms
etc. but taking it as face value is a form of false consciousness which arises
from their experience because they're alienated.
>

It's not jargon. It's a meaningful thing. I think there is false consciousness.
I see it everywhere. I see it in myself. But it's not a specific term which is
well defined.

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <hud955@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the references HH.
>
> What I take away from them is the understanding that 'false consciousness' is
a complex, ill-defined and slippery concept.  It seems to be no more than a
jargon term of very limited scope and one that adds nothing to our understanding
or knowledge of Marxist theory, which could not have been arrived at or
expressed in other, much clearer and concrete ways.
>
> As Marx never used the term and Engels used it only once in a letter it
doesn't seem to have much bearing on the rest of their writings.
>
> Yay! I'm all for simplification.  And for chucking out unnecessary lumber. 
This is clearly one for the conceptual scrap heap.
>
> Cheers
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "tha_hizouse" <tha_hizouse@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "JAMES" <jamesnorth279@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marcos,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I didn't understand what was said before. Now, thanks to
some simple explanations and links offered by Richard and tha_hizouse, I might
have a chance.
> > >
> > > Yours for socialism,
> > >
> > > JimN
> > >
> > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Marcos <UPRalmamater@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That is what we have said before
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > I should have used this link
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology
> >
> > But the one I originally gave is useful too.
> >
> > Ideology is about the prevalent ideas, but ideologies are sets of ideas and
I suppose, false consciousness is about how we're socialised into capitalist
society and we take it for granted etc.. An 'individual' in a city say might be
apt to think everything is happening chaotically, that people are just atoms
etc. but taking it as face value is a form of false consciousness which arises
from their experience because they're alienated.
> >
>

Hi all

It is true that Marx  never actually used the term "false consciousness" in
speaking of ideology, but it was used by Engels in his letter to Mehring in 1893
where he says:  "Ideology is a process accomplished by a thinker
consciously...but with a false consciousness.  The real motive forces impelling
him remain unknown to him; otherwise it would not be an ideological process. 
Hence he imagines false motive forces".  This explication of ideology by Engels
is virtually identical to what is given in Marx and Engels' "German Ideology"
(1846) and therefore it can reasonably be assumed that the notion of "false
consciousness", though not a term specifically used by Marx, is thoroughly
consistent  with Marx's concept of ideology.   I think  tha-hizhouse and Marcos
are right to say  Ideology=False Consciousness.

The sense in which consciousness is "false" is the key thing.  It is "false"
because propagators of ideology - so-called thinkers, historians, philosophers,
priests (a list from taken from GI) see ideas, beliefs, thoughts etc (the
contents of consciousness) as the real motive force behind social phenomena,
whereas of course M&E say that it is these very social phenomena - social
conditions including class structures etc - which are the source of these ideas,
and of which the holders or propagators are unaware.   It is their basic
historical materialist position.  So what is "false" in false consciousness  is
the belief that ideas are somehow autonomous - independent of the social
conditions and the collective life of the society in which they are propagated. 
A false consciousness is not false in the way that a flat earth theory is false.
Nor must all ideological thought be so false as to be without merit   Eg.  Marx
believed that classical political economy had made gigantic strides in the
scientific study of capitalism, but he nonetheless considered the work of the
best of them (Petty, Smith, Ricardo) to be ideological. This example illustrates
how consciousness can still be "false" (according to Marx) even if it correctly
expresses the historical situation in which it arises.

There is obviously a  close similarity between Marx's concept of ideology as
false consciousness and  his concept of commodity fetishism. The "false" aspect
of commodity fetishism lies in the way in which, in commodity exchange, a social
relationship between people is perceived as a relationship between things - as
if the basis for exchange lies in the material objects being exchanged rather
than in the social labour involved in producing  them.  The common element with
ideology is that the social and historical ground is removed from view -  a
reality set apart from people and thus from human intervention.   What in fact
are historical and social phenomena are seen as part of an unchanging reality
justified by ideologues who see it all as a product of  abstract notions like
reason, justice, God or whatever.  Ideology thus serves the interests of a
dominant class.

It's interesting to ask what Marx would have regarded as "true consciousness"
given what he thought about "false consciousness".  I think a "true
consciousness" could only be the consciousness appropriate to a communist
society, as he describes it in GI - division of labour, property, exchange and
alienation all gone. Communism/socialism would dispel the illusions of ideology
because there would be no social function or class interest that would warrant
ideology.  And without commodity exchange, all economic relationships would be
transparent and intelligible.  A "true consciousness" would be the mark of a
"truly human" society as Marx conceived it  -  a society where man's
species-being could be realised through non-alienated labour.  Of course,
whether such a society could be seen as a practical possibility (feasible in the
contemporary world)  is another question.

Peter (in Oz)


--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "tha_hizouse" <tha_hizouse@...> wrote:
>
> It's not jargon. It's a meaningful thing. I think there is false
consciousness. I see it everywhere. I see it in myself. But it's not a specific
term which is well defined.
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <hud955@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the references HH.
> >
> > What I take away from them is the understanding that 'false consciousness'
is a complex, ill-defined and slippery concept.  It seems to be no more than a
jargon term of very limited scope and one that adds nothing to our understanding
or knowledge of Marxist theory, which could not have been arrived at or
expressed in other, much clearer and concrete ways.
> >
> > As Marx never used the term and Engels used it only once in a letter it
doesn't seem to have much bearing on the rest of their writings.
> >
> > Yay! I'm all for simplification.  And for chucking out unnecessary lumber. 
This is clearly one for the conceptual scrap heap.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "tha_hizouse" <tha_hizouse@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "JAMES" <jamesnorth279@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Marcos,
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I didn't understand what was said before. Now, thanks to
some simple explanations and links offered by Richard and tha_hizouse, I might
have a chance.
> > > >
> > > > Yours for socialism,
> > > >
> > > > JimN
> > > >
> > > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Marcos <UPRalmamater@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That is what we have said before
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I should have used this link
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology
> > >
> > > But the one I originally gave is useful too.
> > >
> > > Ideology is about the prevalent ideas, but ideologies are sets of ideas
and I suppose, false consciousness is about how we're socialised into capitalist
society and we take it for granted etc.. An 'individual' in a city say might be
apt to think everything is happening chaotically, that people are just atoms
etc. but taking it as face value is a form of false consciousness which arises
from their experience because they're alienated.
> > >
> >
>

Hi Michael

Thanks for your previous comments.  I've been reflecting on a couple of them -
on the sustainability of socialism and on whether accepting socialist theory is
an act of faith.

As regards sustainability, it occurs to me to wonder what this actually means
and to compare the potential sustainability of socialism with that of
capitalism. Clearly capitalism is showing no signs of being unsustainable,
despite the current massive downturn in the economy in some parts of the world. 
That's because economic downturns are very much an ordinary and regular features
of the system.  It follows from this that being sustainable is not the same as
successfully meeting human need.

Capitalism is anarchic and chaotic.  It lurches from crisis to crisis:
businesses go bust; huge amounts of capital are destroyed, machinery is broken
up; all the labour and materials that went into their creation are wasted;
working people are thrown out of employment to survive suddenly on a much lower
level of income where they fall into debt and have to scrabble around to meet
their most basic of needs – if at all.  In these conditions, elderly people die
of hypothermia, children and adults descend into poverty, antisocial and
criminal activity rises, people become depressed, healthcare services get cut
back and so on and on.

Despite all the mayhem this causes, capitalism will of course recover, but when
it does, increased competition for markets will lead to the increased danger of
massive mechanised conflict.  The thousands and millions that are slaughtered in
capitalism's persistent wars suddenly seem like a drop in the ocean compared to
the sudden super-conflagrations that punctuate its economic cycles from time to
time.

Even in the best of years, poverty persists among huge displays of wealth and
conspicuous consumption; even more horrifying, starvation occurs in places from
which food is being exported to find more lucrative markets elsewhere. 
Thousands die.  Huge numbers live in degrading circumstances.  Everywhere there
is enormous waste; pointless and meaningless labour; conflict and drudgery.

To be honest with you, I wish capitalism was a lot less sustainable than it
appears to be.

People are fearful of change and, lacking a wider appreciation of where their
interests lie, act to hold the system together as best they can.   It's amazing
how resourceful and resilient people actually are.   Despite all this chaos and
the misery that goes with it, they make the best of a bad job.   It seems to me
that if capitalism, with all its flaws can support this degree of internal
anarchy and conflict and yet hold itself together, then the chances for a
society based on mutual co-operation are pretty good.

Of course, you are right, we cannot absolutely know that with the kind of
certainty that we know that the sun will rise tomorrow.  Socialists don't have a
crystal ball.  But neither does anyone else.  I don't know about you, but there
is very little that I would claim to know with certainty about what the future
will hold for me, my family, my class or for the human race. In one sense our
lives are nothing less than a long and persistent act of faith.  In a society of
conflict, ruthless competition and insecurity such as capitalism where things
can change suddenly and unexpectedly from moment to moment we never know what is
going to hit us next.

People have always demanded that socialists provide them with a blueprint for a
new society as though we had some kind of special power to know in detail how
people would organise themselves years from now in a world not yet in existence.
They ask this when they themselves have no idea what changes will come about in
the next six months - even in the much more familiar and known world of
capitalism.

Yet even though people cannot predict the movements of capitalism in the very
short term, they are not paralysed from fear to act.  They still push on
regardless - at all levels of society.  They do this because they have to and
because it is their nature to plan and to act, rather than to sit on a rock and
die.  If we needed some kind of certain knowledge before we made decisions about
the future, or insisted on risk-free judgements, then we would never do anything
and life would become impossible.  It is perhaps understandable, and yet quite
irrational that people will plan confidently for a very uncertain future under
capitalism but shy away from making a fundamental change to what is a
destructive and exploitative system and moving on to something new.

The fact is, though, socialists are not proposing anything exceptionally risky. 
Within capitalism people identify what they perceive to be their individual,
sectional and collective interests.  They then plan and act as best they can to
secure them, even though they do it blindly, not knowing what tomorrow will
bring - and our blindness is particularly acute within capitalism because it is
such an anarchic and unpredictable form of society, not to say a destructive
one.  Having acted, we then wait and see what happens.  When it does happen,
whatever it is, we take stock of the new circumstances; we plan and act again,
all the while identifying our needs and interests, ready to make the best of
what capitalist society gives us on the next throw of the dice.

What socialists are suggesting is that working people need to look around them
and review whether their  interests are being best served by a system that
exploits them, uses them, slaughters them in its wars, starves and degrades them
in its depressions (and at other times too), and generally treats them as
`resources'.   They don't say all will be hunky dory.  They don't offer to
predict the unpredictable.  They don't claim that a promised land of milk and
honey awaits the working class once they choose to act collectively and dispose
of capitalism in their own interest.  Maintaining any society will require work
and good judgement; it will require planning and discussion; it will need to
respond to difficulties and crises; and it will need to adapt and change.   I
think we can manage that.

What socialists do say is that the social relationships that will exist once
private property is eliminated will provide the basis for a new way of
organising human affairs.  What the human race will do with those new conditions
is no different to what they have always done: take stock, plan and act to
secure their individual and collective needs and interests.  Human beings, as I
said, are very resourceful and adaptable.  If they can hold capitalism together
despite its huge flaws then they can do the same for socialism.  Resourcefulness
is what human beings have been selected for by the evolutionary process.  They
have also been selected for uniquely high levels of social living, where they
solve their problems collectively.

What socialists also say is that once the nature of capitalism is understood and
acknowledged, the idea that socialism would be a riskier society to live in is
clearly absurd.

Hi Hiz, Hi Peter

Clearly, it is jargon, Hiz, since only another Marxist would understand it.  The
point is, though, is it very useful? I get the feeling it isn't, since you can
say the same thing in other words without causing confusion, as Peter has just
done. If you need to explain a word or phrase every time you use it because it
so poorly or variously understood, I am not sure that it is actually worth much.

But on Peter's definition: a failure to understand that ideas arise from the
material conditions of society, then I agree with you. It is everywhere.

Thanks for that Peter. That was very clear. Appreciated.

Cheers

Richard

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "tha_hizouse" <tha_hizouse@...> wrote:
>
> It's not jargon. It's a meaningful thing. I think there is false
consciousness. I see it everywhere. I see it in myself. But it's not a specific
term which is well defined.
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <hud955@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the references HH.
> >
> > What I take away from them is the understanding that 'false consciousness'
is a complex, ill-defined and slippery concept.  It seems to be no more than a
jargon term of very limited scope and one that adds nothing to our understanding
or knowledge of Marxist theory, which could not have been arrived at or
expressed in other, much clearer and concrete ways.
> >
> > As Marx never used the term and Engels used it only once in a letter it
doesn't seem to have much bearing on the rest of their writings.
> >
> > Yay! I'm all for simplification.  And for chucking out unnecessary lumber. 
This is clearly one for the conceptual scrap heap.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "tha_hizouse" <tha_hizouse@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "JAMES" <jamesnorth279@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Marcos,
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I didn't understand what was said before. Now, thanks to
some simple explanations and links offered by Richard and tha_hizouse, I might
have a chance.
> > > >
> > > > Yours for socialism,
> > > >
> > > > JimN
> > > >
> > > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Marcos <UPRalmamater@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That is what we have said before
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I should have used this link
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology
> > >
> > > But the one I originally gave is useful too.
> > >
> > > Ideology is about the prevalent ideas, but ideologies are sets of ideas
and I suppose, false consciousness is about how we're socialised into capitalist
society and we take it for granted etc.. An 'individual' in a city say might be
apt to think everything is happening chaotically, that people are just atoms
etc. but taking it as face value is a form of false consciousness which arises
from their experience because they're alienated.
> > >
> >
>

Hi Richard,

One word, inertia.  Most people really don't want change.  The present health
care debate in the US, case in point.

Michael




________________________________
From: Richard <hud955@...>
To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 10:58:43 PM
Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: Take a step back


Hi Michael

Thanks for your previous comments.  I've been reflecting on a couple of them -
on the sustainability of socialism and on whether accepting socialist theory is
an act of faith.

As regards sustainability, it occurs to me to wonder what this actually means
and to compare the potential sustainability of socialism with that of
capitalism. Clearly capitalism is showing no signs of being unsustainable,
despite the current massive downturn in the economy in some parts of the world. 
That's because economic downturns are very much an ordinary and regular features
of the system.  It follows from this that being sustainable is not the same as
successfully meeting human need.

Capitalism is anarchic and chaotic.  It lurches from crisis to crisis:
businesses go bust; huge amounts of capital are destroyed, machinery is broken
up; all the labour and materials that went into their creation are wasted;
working people are thrown out of employment to survive suddenly on a much lower
level of income where they fall into debt and have to scrabble around to meet
their most basic of needs – if at all.  In these conditions, elderly people
die of hypothermia, children and adults descend into poverty, antisocial and
criminal activity rises, people become depressed, healthcare services get cut
back and so on and on.

Despite all the mayhem this causes, capitalism will of course recover, but when
it does, increased competition for markets will lead to the increased danger of
massive mechanised conflict.  The thousands and millions that are slaughtered in
capitalism's persistent wars suddenly seem like a drop in the ocean compared to
the sudden super-conflagration s that punctuate its economic cycles from time to
time.

Even in the best of years, poverty persists among huge displays of wealth and
conspicuous consumption; even more horrifying, starvation occurs in places from
which food is being exported to find more lucrative markets elsewhere. 
Thousands die.  Huge numbers live in degrading circumstances.  Everywhere there
is enormous waste; pointless and meaningless labour; conflict and drudgery.

To be honest with you, I wish capitalism was a lot less sustainable than it
appears to be.

People are fearful of change and, lacking a wider appreciation of where their
interests lie, act to hold the system together as best they can.   It's amazing
how resourceful and resilient people actually are.   Despite all this chaos and
the misery that goes with it, they make the best of a bad job.   It seems to me
that if capitalism, with all its flaws can support this degree of internal
anarchy and conflict and yet hold itself together, then the chances for a
society based on mutual co-operation are pretty good.

Of course, you are right, we cannot absolutely know that with the kind of
certainty that we know that the sun will rise tomorrow.  Socialists don't have a
crystal ball.  But neither does anyone else.  I don't know about you, but there
is very little that I would claim to know with certainty about what the future
will hold for me, my family, my class or for the human race. In one sense our
lives are nothing less than a long and persistent act of faith.  In a society of
conflict, ruthless competition and insecurity such as capitalism where things
can change suddenly and unexpectedly from moment to moment we never know what is
going to hit us next.

People have always demanded that socialists provide them with a blueprint for a
new society as though we had some kind of special power to know in detail how
people would organise themselves years from now in a world not yet in existence.
They ask this when they themselves have no idea what changes will come about in
the next six months - even in the much more familiar and known world of
capitalism.

Yet even though people cannot predict the movements of capitalism in the very
short term, they are not paralysed from fear to act.  They still push on
regardless - at all levels of society.  They do this because they have to and
because it is their nature to plan and to act, rather than to sit on a rock and
die.  If we needed some kind of certain knowledge before we made decisions about
the future, or insisted on risk-free judgements, then we would never do anything
and life would become impossible.  It is perhaps understandable, and yet quite
irrational that people will plan confidently for a very uncertain future under
capitalism but shy away from making a fundamental change to what is a
destructive and exploitative system and moving on to something new.

The fact is, though, socialists are not proposing anything exceptionally risky. 
Within capitalism people identify what they perceive to be their individual,
sectional and collective interests.  They then plan and act as best they can to
secure them, even though they do it blindly, not knowing what tomorrow will
bring - and our blindness is particularly acute within capitalism because it is
such an anarchic and unpredictable form of society, not to say a destructive
one.  Having acted, we then wait and see what happens.  When it does happen,
whatever it is, we take stock of the new circumstances; we plan and act again,
all the while identifying our needs and interests, ready to make the best of
what capitalist society gives us on the next throw of the dice.

What socialists are suggesting is that working people need to look around them
and review whether their  interests are being best served by a system that
exploits them, uses them, slaughters them in its wars, starves and degrades them
in its depressions (and at other times too), and generally treats them as
`resources'.   They don't say all will be hunky dory.  They don't offer to
predict the unpredictable.  They don't claim that a promised land of milk and
honey awaits the working class once they choose to act collectively and dispose
of capitalism in their own interest.  Maintaining any society will require work
and good judgement; it will require planning and discussion; it will need to
respond to difficulties and crises; and it will need to adapt and change.   I
think we can manage that.

What socialists do say is that the social relationships that will exist once
private property is eliminated will provide the basis for a new way of
organising human affairs.  What the human race will do with those new conditions
is no different to what they have always done: take stock, plan and act to
secure their individual and collective needs and interests.  Human beings, as I
said, are very resourceful and adaptable.  If they can hold capitalism together
despite its huge flaws then they can do the same for socialism.  Resourcefulness
is what human beings have been selected for by the evolutionary process.  They
have also been selected for uniquely high levels of social living, where they
solve their problems collectively.

What socialists also say is that once the nature of capitalism is understood and
acknowledged, the idea that socialism would be a riskier society to live in is
clearly absurd.








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The term has been wrongly used by many groups, it was even wrongly used by
the Leninist and the  Stalinist, in the same manner that the term Marxism,
and dialectic have been distorted by many leftist groups. I have seen a bank
robber calling himself/herself  a Marxist, and that his/her group is
fighting for the liberation of the working class, and the term was created
by Engels . The capitalist ideology is false and it produces false ideas and
false  social reality. Let's take for example the Christmas season, which
departs from a commercial reality and it creates wrong illusions and ideas
in the minds of the peoples, it  creates wrong happiness, and brotherhood,
since the term is a little vague it can be used i. The term doctrine was
used in one occasion by Engels, and Lenin, and the Maoists used it several
times, in order to indicate that Marx ideas can not be revised, and then,
the detractors  of Marx were saying that "Marxism" was a "dogmatic
ideology", and I have heard some socialist talking about the Marx's church.

2009/11/21 tha_hizouse <tha_hizouse@...>

>
>
> It's not jargon. It's a meaningful thing. I think there is false
> consciousness. I see it everywhere. I see it in myself. But it's not a
> specific term which is well defined.
>
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "Richard"
> <hud955@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the references HH.
> >
> > What I take away from them is the understanding that 'false
> consciousness' is a complex, ill-defined and slippery concept. It seems to
> be no more than a jargon term of very limited scope and one that adds
> nothing to our understanding or knowledge of Marxist theory, which could not
> have been arrived at or expressed in other, much clearer and concrete ways.
> >
> > As Marx never used the term and Engels used it only once in a letter it
> doesn't seem to have much bearing on the rest of their writings.
> >
> > Yay! I'm all for simplification. And for chucking out unnecessary lumber.
> This is clearly one for the conceptual scrap heap.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "tha_hizouse" <tha_hizouse@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "JAMES" <jamesnorth279@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Marcos,
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I didn't understand what was said before. Now, thanks
> to some simple explanations and links offered by Richard and tha_hizouse, I
> might have a chance.
> > > >
> > > > Yours for socialism,
> > > >
> > > > JimN
> > > >
> > > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Marcos <UPRalmamater@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That is what we have said before
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I should have used this link
> http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#ideology
> > >
> > > But the one I originally gave is useful too.
> > >
> > > Ideology is about the prevalent ideas, but ideologies are sets of ideas
> and I suppose, false consciousness is about how we're socialised into
> capitalist society and we take it for granted etc.. An 'individual' in a
> city say might be apt to think everything is happening chaotically, that
> people are just atoms etc. but taking it as face value is a form of false
> consciousness which arises from their experience because they're alienated.
> > >
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Richard wrote:

> Are you saying that our distorted perceptions are not strictly 'false
  > consciousness' because, in a sense, they accurately reflect the
  > distorted nature of our society itself?

That's a fair summary, Richard. Engels' comment about ideology being
"false consciousness" is widely accepted, but it's an inaccurate and
misleading understanding of Marx's position. Engels' comment was made
after Marx's death in a private correspondence and is not consistent
with his published writings.

It's one thing to say that someone has said something false, but it's
something entirely different to say that someone's consciousness is
false because they are unaware of the motives for their own thinking.
Strictly speaking, this is a meaningless claim but it does have sinister
overtones. It can become an excuse for attacking the person not the
idea. The claim can never be substantiated or refuted because it is
merely a philosophical notion.

Marx did analyse the classical political economists (Smith, Ricardo, et
al) in terms of their hidebound social circumstances and class position
giving rise to inadequate or class biased theories and hence
ideological, but he did not question their state of mind. If Marxism is
to have any claim to scientific status then it cannot be reduced to
psychology.

For more on this see:

Ideology and False Consciousness by Joseph McCarney:
<http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htm>

--
Lew

I have rejected some claims made by members of the WSM that psychology might
bring conscience to the working class. Psychology has been used in order to
justify tortures in Iraq, and it has been used by many secret services at
the disposition of the ruling class.  Because religions and the ruling class
used psychology in order to influence the minds of the workers, it does not
means that socialists might use the same method, the main reason is that
both have many resources at their disposition

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lew <wsm_mod@...>
Date: 2009/11/21
Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: 'Ideology is false consciousness' is a fallacy
To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com




Richard wrote:

> Are you saying that our distorted perceptions are not strictly 'false
> consciousness' because, in a sense, they accurately reflect the
> distorted nature of our society itself?

That's a fair summary, Richard. Engels' comment about ideology being
"false consciousness" is widely accepted, but it's an inaccurate and
misleading understanding of Marx's position. Engels' comment was made
after Marx's death in a private correspondence and is not consistent
with his published writings.

It's one thing to say that someone has said something false, but it's
something entirely different to say that someone's consciousness is
false because they are unaware of the motives for their own thinking.
Strictly speaking, this is a meaningless claim but it does have sinister
overtones. It can become an excuse for attacking the person not the
idea. The claim can never be substantiated or refuted because it is
merely a philosophical notion.

Marx did analyse the classical political economists (Smith, Ricardo, et
al) in terms of their hidebound social circumstances and class position
giving rise to inadequate or class biased theories and hence
ideological, but he did not question their state of mind. If Marxism is
to have any claim to scientific status then it cannot be reduced to
psychology.

For more on this see:

Ideology and False Consciousness by Joseph McCarney:

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

--
Lew




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Michael

At this present point in time in the US, this is more or less correct.  But to
assert it as a permanent condition of humankind shows a complete lack of
historical awareness. Large movements have often arisen very suddenly and
apparently out of nowhere.

Once an idea takes hold it can spread with extraordinry rapidity and dramatic
changes can follow.

For a few months in 1917 before the Leninist coup, Russia became briefly the
most democratic nation on earth.  Previously it had been one of the most
authoritarian.  The French revolution emerged suddenly when absolutely no-one
expected it. Labourism and anarchism were once very strong in the US; now they
are nowhere.  How many people predicted the fall of the Berlin wall? The history
of the UK (and the US come to that) is notable for sudden swings of opinion and
popular uprisings.  Change is the one permanent thing in life - one of the very
few certainties.

You are dozing complacently if you think otherwise.



--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Michael Ballantine <hanoienglish@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> One word, inertia.  Most people really don't want change.  The present health
care debate in the US, case in point.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard <hud955@...>
> To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 10:58:43 PM
> Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: Take a step back
>
>
> Hi Michael
>
> Thanks for your previous comments.  I've been reflecting on a couple of them -
on the sustainability of socialism and on whether accepting socialist theory is
an act of faith.
>
> As regards sustainability, it occurs to me to wonder what this actually means
and to compare the potential sustainability of socialism with that of
capitalism. Clearly capitalism is showing no signs of being unsustainable,
despite the current massive downturn in the economy in some parts of the world. 
That's because economic downturns are very much an ordinary and regular features
of the system.  It follows from this that being sustainable is not the same as
successfully meeting human need.
>
> Capitalism is anarchic and chaotic.  It lurches from crisis to crisis:
businesses go bust; huge amounts of capital are destroyed, machinery is broken
up; all the labour and materials that went into their creation are wasted;
working people are thrown out of employment to survive suddenly on a much lower
level of income where they fall into debt and have to scrabble around to meet
their most basic of needs â€" if at all.  In these conditions, elderly people
die of hypothermia, children and adults descend into poverty, antisocial and
criminal activity rises, people become depressed, healthcare services get cut
back and so on and on.
>
> Despite all the mayhem this causes, capitalism will of course recover, but
when it does, increased competition for markets will lead to the increased
danger of massive mechanised conflict.  The thousands and millions that are
slaughtered in capitalism's persistent wars suddenly seem like a drop in the
ocean compared to the sudden super-conflagration s that punctuate its economic
cycles from time to time.
>
> Even in the best of years, poverty persists among huge displays of wealth and
conspicuous consumption; even more horrifying, starvation occurs in places from
which food is being exported to find more lucrative markets elsewhere. 
Thousands die.  Huge numbers live in degrading circumstances.  Everywhere there
is enormous waste; pointless and meaningless labour; conflict and drudgery.
>
> To be honest with you, I wish capitalism was a lot less sustainable than it
appears to be.
>
> People are fearful of change and, lacking a wider appreciation of where their
interests lie, act to hold the system together as best they can.   It's amazing
how resourceful and resilient people actually are.   Despite all this chaos and
the misery that goes with it, they make the best of a bad job.   It seems to me
that if capitalism, with all its flaws can support this degree of internal
anarchy and conflict and yet hold itself together, then the chances for a
society based on mutual co-operation are pretty good.
>
> Of course, you are right, we cannot absolutely know that with the kind of
certainty that we know that the sun will rise tomorrow.  Socialists don't have a
crystal ball.  But neither does anyone else.  I don't know about you, but there
is very little that I would claim to know with certainty about what the future
will hold for me, my family, my class or for the human race. In one sense our
lives are nothing less than a long and persistent act of faith.  In a society of
conflict, ruthless competition and insecurity such as capitalism where things
can change suddenly and unexpectedly from moment to moment we never know what is
going to hit us next.
>
> People have always demanded that socialists provide them with a blueprint for
a new society as though we had some kind of special power to know in detail how
people would organise themselves years from now in a world not yet in existence.
They ask this when they themselves have no idea what changes will come about in
the next six months - even in the much more familiar and known world of
capitalism.
>
> Yet even though people cannot predict the movements of capitalism in the very
short term, they are not paralysed from fear to act.  They still push on
regardless - at all levels of society.  They do this because they have to and
because it is their nature to plan and to act, rather than to sit on a rock and
die.  If we needed some kind of certain knowledge before we made decisions about
the future, or insisted on risk-free judgements, then we would never do anything
and life would become impossible.  It is perhaps understandable, and yet quite
irrational that people will plan confidently for a very uncertain future under
capitalism but shy away from making a fundamental change to what is a
destructive and exploitative system and moving on to something new.
>
> The fact is, though, socialists are not proposing anything exceptionally
risky.  Within capitalism people identify what they perceive to be their
individual, sectional and collective interests.  They then plan and act as best
they can to secure them, even though they do it blindly, not knowing what
tomorrow will bring - and our blindness is particularly acute within capitalism
because it is such an anarchic and unpredictable form of society, not to say a
destructive one.  Having acted, we then wait and see what happens.  When it does
happen, whatever it is, we take stock of the new circumstances; we plan and act
again, all the while identifying our needs and interests, ready to make the best
of what capitalist society gives us on the next throw of the dice.
>
> What socialists are suggesting is that working people need to look around them
and review whether their  interests are being best served by a system that
exploits them, uses them, slaughters them in its wars, starves and degrades them
in its depressions (and at other times too), and generally treats them as
`resources'.   They don't say all will be hunky dory.  They don't offer to
predict the unpredictable.  They don't claim that a promised land of milk and
honey awaits the working class once they choose to act collectively and dispose
of capitalism in their own interest.  Maintaining any society will require work
and good judgement; it will require planning and discussion; it will need to
respond to difficulties and crises; and it will need to adapt and change.   I
think we can manage that.
>
> What socialists do say is that the social relationships that will exist once
private property is eliminated will provide the basis for a new way of
organising human affairs.  What the human race will do with those new conditions
is no different to what they have always done: take stock, plan and act to
secure their individual and collective needs and interests.  Human beings, as I
said, are very resourceful and adaptable.  If they can hold capitalism together
despite its huge flaws then they can do the same for socialism.  Resourcefulness
is what human beings have been selected for by the evolutionary process.  They
have also been selected for uniquely high levels of social living, where they
solve their problems collectively.
>
> What socialists also say is that once the nature of capitalism is understood
and acknowledged, the idea that socialism would be a riskier society to live in
is clearly absurd.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Okay, this is a bit of plugging but I think it's relevant to the
interests of people on this discussion list.

Noted US-based academic Cyrus Bina, author of The Economics of the Oil
Crisis, is undertaking a speaking tour of Britain next week with
events in Manchester, Glasgow and London.

Dr Bina has an analysus of US/UK foreign policy that's quite different
from the usual, simplistic leftwing view that the invasion of Iraq and
threats against Iran are all about securing and controlling oil
supplies.  And it's a perspective that I think is worth hearing.

As well as addressing Hands Off the People of Iran's AGM on Saturday
November 28 (details at http://hopoi.org/?p=639), he will be speaking
at the following meetings:

MANCHESTER: Tuesday November 24, 8pm: ‘Iran, oil and the working
class’, meeting room 4, University of Manchester Student Union, Oxford
Road, Manchester M13. Organised by Hopi.

GLASGOW: Wednesday November 25, 5pm: ‘Post-election Iran: why did the
left turn right?’, room 315, Adam Smith Building, Glasgow University,
Bute Gardens, Great George Street, Glasgow G12. Organised by Critique.

LONDON: Sunday November 29, 4pm: ‘Is it the oil, stupid?’, University
of London Union, Malet Street, London WC1. Organised by CPGB.

All are welcome to attend and contribute to the discussion.

Cyrus Bina's article 'Is it the oil, stupid?' can be read in the
latest edition of the Weekly Worker at
www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/794/isittheoil.php (or download the PDF version
at www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/794/794web.pdf).

--
Steve Cooke
smcooke@...

His opinion is a living evidence that the US ruling class has great
domination over the minds of the working class, ( Is that the  false
conscience, or the  bourgeois ideology ? )  and it has been able to create
conformity among certain members of the working class. I do not think that
65 millions of peoples that existed without medical services and without
medical insurance are going to accept blindly their own personal conditions
and the actual conditions of their family members, in any way, the real
reform will not take place. Is the US goverment willing to give medicare
benefits  to all the members of the working class, and willing to go against
the benefits of all the insurances companies, and powerful medical interests
? I doubt it when even the retiree are receiving cuts in their own benefits.
Human society has moved forwarded due to social changes. A friend of mine
that studied Philosophy in Russia told me that reality is so strong in the
minds of the peoples, that one day we can go to bed and during the night a
coup d'tat takes places, we are forced to changes our minds and behaviors
immediately, and social changes sometimes occur in a very drastic manner. I
remember when I was very young that after leaving  from a party and enjoying
dancing, early in the morning I was in the middle of a social revolution

2009/11/21 Richard <hud955@...>

>
>
> Hi Michael
>
> At this present point in time in the US, this is more or less correct. But
> to assert it as a permanent condition of humankind shows a complete lack of
> historical awareness. Large movements have often arisen very suddenly and
> apparently out of nowhere.
>
> Once an idea takes hold it can spread with extraordinry rapidity and
> dramatic changes can follow.
>
> For a few months in 1917 before the Leninist coup, Russia became briefly
> the most democratic nation on earth. Previously it had been one of the most
> authoritarian. The French revolution emerged suddenly when absolutely no-one
> expected it. Labourism and anarchism were once very strong in the US; now
> they are nowhere. How many people predicted the fall of the Berlin wall? The
> history of the UK (and the US come to that) is notable for sudden swings of
> opinion and popular uprisings. Change is the one permanent thing in life -
> one of the very few certainties.
>
> You are dozing complacently if you think otherwise.
>
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Michael
> Ballantine <hanoienglish@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > One word, inertia. Most people really don't want change. The present
> health care debate in the US, case in point.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Richard <hud955@...>
>
> > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 10:58:43 PM
> > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: Take a step back
> >
> >
> > Hi Michael
> >
> > Thanks for your previous comments. I've been reflecting on a couple of
> them - on the sustainability of socialism and on whether accepting socialist
> theory is an act of faith.
> >
> > As regards sustainability, it occurs to me to wonder what this actually
> means and to compare the potential sustainability of socialism with that of
> capitalism. Clearly capitalism is showing no signs of being unsustainable,
> despite the current massive downturn in the economy in some parts of the
> world. That's because economic downturns are very much an ordinary and
> regular features of the system. It follows from this that being sustainable
> is not the same as successfully meeting human need.
> >
> > Capitalism is anarchic and chaotic. It lurches from crisis to crisis:
> businesses go bust; huge amounts of capital are destroyed, machinery is
> broken up; all the labour and materials that went into their creation are
> wasted; working people are thrown out of employment to survive suddenly on a
> much lower level of income where they fall into debt and have to scrabble
> around to meet their most basic of needs â€" if at all. In these conditions,
> elderly people die of hypothermia, children and adults descend into poverty,
> antisocial and criminal activity rises, people become depressed, healthcare
> services get cut back and so on and on.
>
> >
> > Despite all the mayhem this causes, capitalism will of course recover,
> but when it does, increased competition for markets will lead to the
> increased danger of massive mechanised conflict. The thousands and millions
> that are slaughtered in capitalism's persistent wars suddenly seem like a
> drop in the ocean compared to the sudden super-conflagration s that
> punctuate its economic cycles from time to time.
> >
> > Even in the best of years, poverty persists among huge displays of wealth
> and conspicuous consumption; even more horrifying, starvation occurs in
> places from which food is being exported to find more lucrative markets
> elsewhere. Thousands die. Huge numbers live in degrading circumstances.
> Everywhere there is enormous waste; pointless and meaningless labour;
> conflict and drudgery.
> >
> > To be honest with you, I wish capitalism was a lot less sustainable than
> it appears to be.
> >
> > People are fearful of change and, lacking a wider appreciation of where
> their interests lie, act to hold the system together as best they can. It's
> amazing how resourceful and resilient people actually are. Despite all this
> chaos and the misery that goes with it, they make the best of a bad job. It
> seems to me that if capitalism, with all its flaws can support this degree
> of internal anarchy and conflict and yet hold itself together, then the
> chances for a society based on mutual co-operation are pretty good.
> >
> > Of course, you are right, we cannot absolutely know that with the kind of
> certainty that we know that the sun will rise tomorrow. Socialists don't
> have a crystal ball. But neither does anyone else. I don't know about you,
> but there is very little that I would claim to know with certainty about
> what the future will hold for me, my family, my class or for the human race.
> In one sense our lives are nothing less than a long and persistent act of
> faith. In a society of conflict, ruthless competition and insecurity such as
> capitalism where things can change suddenly and unexpectedly from moment to
> moment we never know what is going to hit us next.
> >
> > People have always demanded that socialists provide them with a blueprint
> for a new society as though we had some kind of special power to know in
> detail how people would organise themselves years from now in a world not
> yet in existence. They ask this when they themselves have no idea what
> changes will come about in the next six months - even in the much more
> familiar and known world of capitalism.
> >
> > Yet even though people cannot predict the movements of capitalism in the
> very short term, they are not paralysed from fear to act. They still push on
> regardless - at all levels of society. They do this because they have to and
> because it is their nature to plan and to act, rather than to sit on a rock
> and die. If we needed some kind of certain knowledge before we made
> decisions about the future, or insisted on risk-free judgements, then we
> would never do anything and life would become impossible. It is perhaps
> understandable, and yet quite irrational that people will plan confidently
> for a very uncertain future under capitalism but shy away from making a
> fundamental change to what is a destructive and exploitative system and
> moving on to something new.
> >
> > The fact is, though, socialists are not proposing anything exceptionally
> risky. Within capitalism people identify what they perceive to be their
> individual, sectional and collective interests. They then plan and act as
> best they can to secure them, even though they do it blindly, not knowing
> what tomorrow will bring - and our blindness is particularly acute within
> capitalism because it is such an anarchic and unpredictable form of society,
> not to say a destructive one. Having acted, we then wait and see what
> happens. When it does happen, whatever it is, we take stock of the new
> circumstances; we plan and act again, all the while identifying our needs
> and interests, ready to make the best of what capitalist society gives us on
> the next throw of the dice.
> >
> > What socialists are suggesting is that working people need to look around
> them and review whether their interests are being best served by a system
> that exploits them, uses them, slaughters them in its wars, starves and
> degrades them in its depressions (and at other times too), and generally
> treats them as `resources'. They don't say all will be hunky dory. They
> don't offer to predict the unpredictable. They don't claim that a promised
> land of milk and honey awaits the working class once they choose to act
> collectively and dispose of capitalism in their own interest. Maintaining
> any society will require work and good judgement; it will require planning
> and discussion; it will need to respond to difficulties and crises; and it
> will need to adapt and change. I think we can manage that.
> >
> > What socialists do say is that the social relationships that will exist
> once private property is eliminated will provide the basis for a new way of
> organising human affairs. What the human race will do with those new
> conditions is no different to what they have always done: take stock, plan
> and act to secure their individual and collective needs and interests. Human
> beings, as I said, are very resourceful and adaptable. If they can hold
> capitalism together despite its huge flaws then they can do the same for
> socialism. Resourcefulness is what human beings have been selected for by
> the evolutionary process. They have also been selected for uniquely high
> levels of social living, where they solve their problems collectively.
> >
> > What socialists also say is that once the nature of capitalism is
> understood and acknowledged, the idea that socialism would be a riskier
> society to live in is clearly absurd.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"They do it but they don't know it."

Alot of the left has a very simplistic take on geopolitics, but Bina isn't
explanatory. At all.

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Steve Cooke <smcooke@...> wrote:
>
> Okay, this is a bit of plugging but I think it's relevant to the
> interests of people on this discussion list.
>
> Noted US-based academic Cyrus Bina, author of The Economics of the Oil
> Crisis, is undertaking a speaking tour of Britain next week with
> events in Manchester, Glasgow and London.
>
> Dr Bina has an analysus of US/UK foreign policy that's quite different
> from the usual, simplistic leftwing view that the invasion of Iraq and
> threats against Iran are all about securing and controlling oil
> supplies.  And it's a perspective that I think is worth hearing.
>
> As well as addressing Hands Off the People of Iran's AGM on Saturday
> November 28 (details at http://hopoi.org/?p=639), he will be speaking
> at the following meetings:
>
> MANCHESTER: Tuesday November 24, 8pm: `Iran, oil and the working
> class', meeting room 4, University of Manchester Student Union, Oxford
> Road, Manchester M13. Organised by Hopi.
>
> GLASGOW: Wednesday November 25, 5pm: `Post-election Iran: why did the
> left turn right?', room 315, Adam Smith Building, Glasgow University,
> Bute Gardens, Great George Street, Glasgow G12. Organised by Critique.
>
> LONDON: Sunday November 29, 4pm: `Is it the oil, stupid?', University
> of London Union, Malet Street, London WC1. Organised by CPGB.
>
> All are welcome to attend and contribute to the discussion.
>
> Cyrus Bina's article 'Is it the oil, stupid?' can be read in the
> latest edition of the Weekly Worker at
> www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/794/isittheoil.php (or download the PDF version
> at www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/794/794web.pdf).
>
> --
> Steve Cooke
> smcooke@...
>