AUT: Fw: ideology, councilists

["cwright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_02BA_01C2417D.8787B310
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Peter Rachleff:  Very friendly guy, but has almost nothing to do with =
council comunism these days.  Is actually tied up through his academic =
position with the AFL-CIO bureaucracy and trade unionism.  Spoke with =
him about some of this a year ago, around an article written by =
Staughton Lynd (with his help) about the state of the unions and =
organizing.  For all its radical appearance, Staughton attacks anyone =
who wants to break with the AFL-CIO or reject it as an anti-working =
class organization (even though, for example, the CIO was formed as a =
complete rejection of the AFL and a kind of dual unionism.)

Jeremy Brecher:  Indeed, he is working for Bernie Sanders and has no =
politics worth discussing anymore.  He is a shameless hack for a =
congressman who represents the last gasp of the right wing of the =
Socialist Party of the united States (which lost its last real =
stronghold in Milwaukee some years ago, where the mayor for almost 50 =
years was in the SP.)



On ideology. =20

Neither Neil nor Ilan seem terribly convincing on this.  Then again, who =
does?   The problem is not simply to understand consciousness, but to =
see that the world of thinking/theory/etc. is a part of our social =
practice, not something opposed to a materialist analysis.  The =
Engelsian tradition was not materialist so much as 'matterist'.  Marx =
sought to transcend the materialism/idealism separation (his use of the =
term materialism, I suspect, was largely a political choice), and as =
such the separation of thought and consciousnes from social practice.

That Marxism does not seem convincing to Ilan on psychology is not =
really the issue.  "Marxism" has no unified notions and mostly abandoned =
Marx's insights for 19th and 20th century scientism (usually Empiricism, =
Neo-Kantianism, or Spinozism) posing as 'recent developments in =
psychology.'  Marx did not pose social transformation or development =
from the point of view of consciousness/psychology, and certainly not =
the indidvidual consciousness or some imagined 'human psychology', as if =
that existed in some unmediated fashion in a capitalist society.  =
Rather, we might talk about an 'inhuman psychology', but a very specific =
one.  The problem Marx addressed involved the grasping of thought/ideas =
as part of social practice, as part of the material (ie social) =
constitution of human beings.  In the process, Marx posits that we will =
have an alienated, fetishistic consciousness, a consciousness which is =
antagonistic, conflicted and contradictory because our social existence =
is that way.  Marx sought to undermine any separation of consciousness =
and social constitution, but he also sought to do away with the =
privileging of consciousness.

Ilan has elsewhere disparaged the idea of negation, and yet without =
negation revolution is non-existent.  The idea of negation in Marx is =
grounded in the simple idea that human labor in the generic sense is =
already the first act of negation (and subsumption), by negating what =
was (a branch) and transforming it (a club or fishing pole or whatever). =
 Applying this idea to consciousness, to psychology, means grappling =
with matters which modern psychology seems to have little place for, and =
not accidentally.  The development of our consciousness moves through =
negation, through the antagonistic struggle of social practice in a =
class society.  A psychology of human beings in this society which is =
not grounded in the capital-labor relation is poppy-cock.  As such, =
biological discoveries about the brain and brain functions does not =
necessarily offer us shit in the way of grappling with consciousness and =
psychology, except as a weapon of critique to attack the idea that our =
problems are psychological, that some people's brains are superior to =
others and this breeds necessary social classes, etc. =20

The idea of negation, in the end, means that the struggle for positive =
solutions involves social practice by masses of people, while =
intellectuals can offer negative critiques; destructive, polemical, =
historicizing, negating critiques of capital's social production and =
self-understanding of itself and its consciousness.  Hence, Marx wrote a =
critique of political economy to show what its real content was, to =
explode it as ideology, to clear the path of some key ideological rubble =
for the workers' movement.  Conceived in that sense, ideology is =
certainly more than just some bad ideas, but the very process of capital =
thinking itself, often through us.  Hence, ideology is not merely =
produced outside us, but within and through us, through labor, in so far =
as labor is also a moment of capital, as labor-for-capital.  That's why =
the white working class could help to produce white supremacy, rather =
than simply be the object of racist capitalist propaganda.

My take is that psychology stripped of the relation to social =
constitution is itself ideological in the sense of mystifying.  Marx's =
concern with consciousness involves how our social antagonism gives =
rise, in the specific material conditions of capitalist society, to a =
possible social practice that is revlutionary, and that social practice =
involves our consciousness, our psychology.  Separating practice from =
consciousness is very un-Marx and privileging material practice over =
non-material practice is largely incorrect.  Beyond that, Marx is not =
trying to grapple with individual psychology, in so far as it does not =
seem to be a politically meaningful category.  But on that I am only =
toying with an idea.

Maybe after this is grappled with we can go farther, but if anyone =
attempts to stick with the Engelsian photocopy theory of consciousness =
or scientistic notions of consciousness, with the attendant notion that =
we have a "communist ideology" in some positive sense, they are already =
lost.

Ilan, would you like to put forward some content?  Whil I really =
appreciate your occaissional refusal to make anything you say easy for =
anyone, it might help to start slower, rather than going in circles.  It =
might help move the discussion.

Cheers,

Chris







-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs

------=_NextPart_000_02BA_01C2417D.8787B310
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<P>Peter Rachleff:&nbsp; Very friendly guy, but has almost nothing to do =
with=20
council comunism these days.&nbsp; Is actually tied up through his =
academic=20
position with the AFL-CIO bureaucracy and trade unionism.&nbsp; Spoke =
with him=20
about some of this a year ago, around an article written by Staughton =
Lynd (with=20
his help) about the state of the unions and organizing.&nbsp; For all =
its=20
radical appearance, Staughton attacks anyone who wants to break with the =

AFL-CIO&nbsp;or reject it as an anti-working class organization (even =
though,=20
for example,&nbsp;the CIO was formed as a complete rejection of the AFL =
and a=20
kind of dual unionism.)</P>
<P>Jeremy Brecher:&nbsp; Indeed, he is working for Bernie Sanders and =
has no=20
politics worth discussing anymore.&nbsp; He is a shameless hack for a=20
congressman who&nbsp;represents the last gasp of the right wing of the =
Socialist=20
Party of the united States (which lost its last real stronghold in =
Milwaukee=20
some years ago, where the mayor for almost 50 years was in the SP.)</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>On ideology.&nbsp; </P>
<P>Neither Neil nor Ilan seem terribly convincing on this.&nbsp; Then =
again, who=20
does?&nbsp;&nbsp; The problem is not simply to understand consciousness, =
but to=20
see that the world of thinking/theory/etc. is a part of our social =
practice, not=20
something opposed to a materialist analysis.&nbsp; The Engelsian =
tradition was=20
not materialist so much as 'matterist'.&nbsp; Marx sought to =
transcend&nbsp;the=20
materialism/idealism separation (his use of the term materialism, I =
suspect, was=20
largely a political choice), and as such the separation of thought and=20
consciousnes from social practice.</P>
<P>That Marxism does not seem convincing to Ilan on&nbsp;psychology is =
not=20
really the issue.&nbsp; "Marxism" has no unified notions and mostly =
abandoned=20
Marx's insights for 19th and 20th century scientism (usually Empiricism, =

Neo-Kantianism, or Spinozism) posing as 'recent developments in=20
psychology.'&nbsp;&nbsp;Marx did not pose social transformation or =
development=20
from the point of view of consciousness/psychology, and certainly not =
the=20
indidvidual consciousness or some imagined 'human psychology', as if =
that=20
existed in some unmediated fashion in a capitalist society.&nbsp; =
Rather, we=20
might talk about an 'inhuman psychology', but a very specific one.&nbsp; =
The=20
problem Marx addressed involved the grasping of thought/ideas as part of =
social=20
practice, as part of the material (ie social) constitution of human=20
beings.&nbsp; In the process, Marx posits that we will have an =
alienated,=20
fetishistic consciousness, a consciousness which is antagonistic, =
conflicted and=20
contradictory because our social existence is that way.&nbsp; Marx =
sought to=20
undermine any separation of consciousness and social constitution, but =
he also=20
sought to do away with the privileging of consciousness.</P>
<P>Ilan has elsewhere disparaged the idea of negation, and yet without =
negation=20
revolution is non-existent.&nbsp; The idea of negation in Marx is =
grounded in=20
the simple idea that human labor in the generic sense is already the =
first act=20
of negation (and subsumption), by negating what was (a branch) and =
transforming=20
it (a club or fishing pole or whatever).&nbsp; Applying this idea to=20
consciousness, to psychology, means grappling with matters which modern=20
psychology seems to have little place for, and not accidentally.&nbsp; =
The=20
development of our consciousness moves through negation, through the=20
antagonistic struggle of social practice in a class society.&nbsp; A =
psychology=20
of human beings in this society which is not grounded in the =
capital-labor=20
relation is poppy-cock.&nbsp; As such, biological discoveries about the =
brain=20
and brain functions does not necessarily offer us shit in the way of =
grappling=20
with consciousness and psychology, except as a weapon of critique to =
attack the=20
idea that our problems are psychological, that some people's brains are =
superior=20
to others and this breeds necessary social classes, etc.&nbsp; </P>
<P>The idea of negation, in the end, means that the struggle for =
positive=20
solutions involves social practice by masses of people, while =
intellectuals can=20
offer negative critiques; destructive, polemical, historicizing, =
negating=20
critiques of capital's social production and self-understanding of =
itself and=20
its consciousness.&nbsp; Hence, Marx wrote a critique of political =
economy to=20
show what its real content was, to explode it as ideology, to clear the =
path of=20
some key ideological rubble for the workers' movement.&nbsp; Conceived =
in that=20
sense, ideology is certainly more than just some bad ideas, but the=20
very&nbsp;process of capital thinking itself, often through us.&nbsp; =
Hence,=20
ideology is not merely&nbsp;produced outside us, but within and through =
us,=20
through labor, in so far as labor is also a moment of capital, as=20
labor-for-capital.&nbsp; That's why the white working class could help =
to=20
produce white supremacy, rather than simply be the object of racist =
capitalist=20
propaganda.</P>
<P>My take is that psychology stripped of the relation to social =
constitution is=20
itself ideological in the sense of mystifying.&nbsp; Marx's concern with =

consciousness&nbsp;involves how our social antagonism gives rise, in the =

specific material conditions of capitalist society, to a possible social =

practice that is revlutionary, and that social practice involves our=20
consciousness, our psychology.&nbsp; Separating practice from =
consciousness is=20
very un-Marx&nbsp;and privileging material practice =
over&nbsp;non-material=20
practice is largely incorrect.&nbsp; Beyond that, Marx is not trying to =
grapple=20
with individual psychology, in so far as it&nbsp;does not seem to be a=20
politically meaningful category.&nbsp; But on that&nbsp;I am only toying =
with an=20
idea.</P>
<P>Maybe after this is grappled with we can go farther, but if anyone =
attempts=20
to stick with the Engelsian photocopy theory of consciousness or =
scientistic=20
notions of consciousness, with the attendant notion that we have a =
"communist=20
ideology" in some positive sense, they are already lost.</P>
<P>Ilan, would you like to put forward some&nbsp;content?&nbsp; Whil I =
really=20
appreciate your occaissional refusal to make anything you say easy for =
anyone,=20
it might help to start slower, rather than going in circles.&nbsp; =
It&nbsp;might=20
help move the discussion.</P>
<P>Cheers,</P>
<P>Chris</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P><BR>
<HR SIZE=3D1>
<B>Do You Yahoo!?</B><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://rd.yahoo.com/careers/mailsig/new/*http://www.hotjobs.com";>=
HotJobs,=20
a Yahoo! service</A> - Search Thousands of New Jobs</BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_02BA_01C2417D.8787B310--




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---