Raghu said:
>>> Your [Carrol's] ideology may lead you to believe that the "working class"
>>> desires "the power to abolish itself as a working class and thereby abolish
>>> capitalism and capitalists". I'd argue that history and psychology shows
>>> that real, breathing human
beings desire no such thing.<<<
There are two different levels here. First, raghu is referring to the
consciousness of individual workers in the real (empirical) world. On
the other hand, when Carrol writes of the working class desiring "the
power to abolish itself as a working class and thereby abolish
capitalism and capitalists" the only way it makes sense to me is as a
reference to the objective and collective goals of the working class
as a whole.
It's sort of like the debate between E.P. Thompson and the
Althusserians: Thompson wrote of the British working class' actual
viewpoints[*] and ideologies in the real world of the 19th century,
while Althusserians wrote of the working class as a structural class
position in the capitalist mode of production. The actually-existing
working class has a set of interests at any point in time that differs
from the collective (class) interest of the working class implied by
its position in society.
This distinction goes way back, to Rousseau's distinction between the
(empirical) "will of all" and the (possible) "general will." Others
write of individual interests (particularism) vs. the public
interest.[**] In Marx's terms, it's between the working class "in
itself" and the (theoretical possibility) of self-organized expression
of the class position, i.e., the class "for itself."
Ken Hanly writes:
>> History and psychology show that the capitalist system is adept at creating
>> false consciousness and modern technology and psychology has given the
>> system the tools to continue to do so.<<
raghu:
> I agree with this, but with a quibble over your choice of words. The term
> "false consciousness" implies that there exists a "true consciousness", and
> that we know what it looks like. ... <
I agree that we should reject the term "false consciousness." Among
other things, it encourages paternalism toward workers ("we know
better about what's good for you"). Also, it doesn't fit with Marx's
mature theory of ideology, as represented by the fetishism of
commodities: it's not the people are "fooled" and believe in
"falsities" as much as that they see the world in a partial,
incomplete way, seeing the trees but not the forest. It's not that the
trees don't exist (and are thus "false") but rather that we also need
to see the forest.
But one way to think of "false consciousness" is as being the same as
(some interpretations of) "economism," i.e., the case where a worker
(or a working-class organization) is only looking out for number one,
having totally absorbed and embraced the narrow-minded individualism
that prevails under unfettered capitalism. (Craft unions fit this bill
well.) On the other hand, "true consciousness" would involve
consciousness of inter-dependencies and the existence of collective
working-class interests and the need for solidarity.
--
Jim Devine / "An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of
support." -- John Buchan
[*] Thompson, if I remember correctly, didn't see the "working class"
as existing unless it was collectively organized (so that it had to be
"made"). However, it's clear that he distinguished between different
class categories so as to distinguish working-class people from other
people.
[**] Even economists distinguish between free-riding and the
production of a public or collective good (even though such ideas as
the "social welfare function" or the "public interest" seem rejected).
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
