/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6865179]

Jesus christ, /lit/.
I was just in the Marxism thread and while searching on the internet for something related i found this shit.
>The concept of ideology as formulated by Marx and Engels has been critiqued and expanded to adapt to the changes our societies underwent since 19th century. The most obvious and fundamental critique would be that we have moved in most Western societies from an industrial economy to a service economy and thus the assumption of a social division into a ruling class that controls the means of production and a working class that is forced to sell its labor in order to survive no longer applies. Cultural critics have suggested alternative categories other than social class in which hierarchical power structures are also at work. The more obvious of those are gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality. In those contexts, ideology would work analogous to Marx’ and Engels’ model to maintain the existing power relations of, for example, a patriarchal society.
https://faculty.washington.edu/mlg/courses/definitions/Ideology.html
the fuck, is this actually something widely accepted in the academic realm? Theres writings on this?

[Anonymous No.6865660]

>>6865179
Bump

[Anonymous No.6865678]

>>6865179
Yes?

[Anonymous No.6865684]

>>6865179

No it cannot work becuase Foucault clearly abandoned Ideology as a concept of enforcing power and moved towards bio-power.

Feminists can scream about "patriarchal" ideology all they want, but every Marxist worth his salt knows thatt this is a reductionism of more complex cultural hegemonies which interact with the base structure as in Althusser theories.

Furthermore even if you articulate partiatchal ideology as an idea you would still face the problem of Capitalist production/exploitation, it's not women in general as a category which are exploited but working proletarian women who produce.

[Anonymous No.6865743]

>>6865179
Obvious bullshit is obvious bullshit. Bump. I want to see who came up with this.

[Anonymous No.6865903]

>>6865684
This is actually one of the best posts I've seen in a while.

[Anonymous No.6865913]

>tfw you realize /pol/ was right all along

[Anonymous No.6865939]

>this triggers the average Marxist

[Anonymous No.6865940]

>>6865913
This.
I'm not even 5 minutes in here.

[Anonymous No.6865947]

Its a less common in academia but very popular in the normie population and especially among feminists.

The reason for this is simple capitalist AstroTurf divisiveness. Women are tricked into thinking everyone is against them and that the cast of the new starwars movie actually matters.

the movie still makes money with its new lgbt cast and the real power and oppressive force is still in charge.

"patriarchy" is just a disposable tool of capitalism. when somen grow tired of throwing their lives away trying to "solve it" something new and just as pointless will be devised to keep artificial progress going.

[Anonymous No.6865950]

>>6865939
>implying that isn't ugly as shit

[Anonymous No.6865991]

>>6865939
wrong pic m8

[Anonymous No.6866024]

>>6865903
Why? It's just like every other Foucault post. Is it because of the word biopower?

[Anonymous No.6866050]

>>6865991
End game of Marxism

[Anonymous No.6866055]

i had marxist professors and they felt, like althusser or Woolf, the economic base, or class, is in the final instance still the most important.

Neo-Weberians might skew some more ideas about power related to other things than class/economy, but even they are very far left.

When they have to talk about feminism, generally liberal feminism is considered bourgeois and serves the capitalist class. Only socialist/radical feminism that critiques capitalism is acceptable at all.

People liek EO Wright redrew class into more categories the best imo.

But of course if you make too many categories the idea of class becomes meaningless.

It is all about striking a balance between 'vulgar marxism' and economic determinism, and not over-exaggerating race when capitalism is so ingrained.

[Anonymous No.6866110]

>>6865179
The obvious solution is to abandon Marxism and become an Anarchist. Kropotkin had the superior beard and every single one of you knows it.

[Anonymous No.6866132]

>>6866024
My kink tbh

[Anonymous No.6866162]

>>6866110
I would rather live in a scaled down community-oriented Anarchist Collectivist society, but I think we must embrace a degree of pluralism, in that we should tolerate those who are willing to coexist with us peaceably, and join the fight against Capitalist hegemony.

We all want off the same ride in the end.

[Anonymous No.6866166]

>>6865179
>washington.edu

That Seattle area is the most liberal place in the entire country, their views and opinions should be regarded as radical.

The entire concept falls apart under examination because these categories they define are divisive, and would turn different workers against each other. The original idea was that all the workers would be on the same side, this bullshit just pits them against each other as each group panders to be more "oppressed" than the other.

Ontop of that the entire notion of oppression doesn't truly exist today because even a person living in poverty is enjoy amenities that 1800's workers could only dream of.

[Anonymous No.6866176]

>>6865939
Not a marxist, but sometimes i feel tired that nowdays you even have to pay for social interactions.
wanna meet a girl or go out with friends? coffe at starbucks, dinner , movies or the "go shoping" plan.

[Anonymous No.6866180]

>>6866176
go to the park or out into nature you idiot

[Anonymous No.6866189]

>>6866176

I guess those activities show that the potential suitor is socially adept and has spare money.

[Anonymous No.6866202]

>>6866189
commodity fetishism.

[Anonymous No.6866210]

>>6866162
Agreed

[Anonymous No.6866214]

Yes it is. Look up conflict theories, it's a big part of sociology.

[Anonymous No.6866216]

>>6866110
>implying anarchist groups aren't just as mired in identity politics
>implying identity politics aren't the inevitable end of left wing ideologies
>still being left wing

[Anonymous No.6866230]

I'm not a straight white male (not that there's anything wrong with that) but this identity claptrap is just boring.

[Anonymous No.6866400]

>>6866180
Nature/park is only for if you already have friends. No one actually meets people that way, unless it's central park and you're starring in a romantic comedy.

[Anonymous No.6866434]

>>6866176
No you don't you dumb fag

[Anonymous No.6866467]

>>6865179

You're just now realizing that mainstream academia has been fellating Focault for the past thirty-odd years?

[Anonymous No.6866469]

>>6866202
that is not what commodity fetishism means. this is simply basic consumer materialism. commodity fetishism is a specific term within marxism about how social labor relations are embodied within the value we give material objects

[Anonymous No.6866568]

>>6866467
How did Foucault's influence reach into being centered on identity? I notice him being very popular in queer theory yet one of his major ideas was the repressive hypothesis and he didn't write very much about being gay.

[Anonymous No.6866639]

>>6866110
You can be a marxist and be a libertarian (anarchist)

[Anonymous No.6866642]

>>6866176
Thats a pretty lame complaint. Similar to OPs quote, tbh.

[Anonymous No.6866662]

>>6865179
> is this actually something widely accepted in the academic realm?

Two problems:

1) Being an academic has very little to do with intellectual competence. You can introduce someone to the literature, and teach them how to communicate about it, but you can't give them anything worth communicating.

2.) The intellectually competent have learned to write in a way that excludes the incompetent regardless of education level. In other words, what is widely accepted by academia is largely an accumulation of error, and does not necessarily approach understanding.

[Anonymous No.6866663]

>>6865179
sup, capitalist here
this greentext you have here doesnt seem to understand that services still function within the marxist idea of production, in fact this whole idea is built upon a false supposition

how did nobody else spot this?

[Anonymous No.6866665]

Can anon even tell me what Ideology is? Why is it a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.6866666]

[Anonymous No.6866669]

>>6866666
so close to a get, sweet quints though

[Anonymous No.6866670]

>>6866666

[Anonymous No.6866679]

>>6866665
The term originates from Althusser and he explains it pretty well in his essays I'd suggest reading. It is easiest described as "taking perspective as truth" It isn't inherently bad but recognizing it and calling into question the foundations of it can allow for a wider range of views. If I missed anything I'm sure someone will help more than I did.

[Anonymous No.6866683]

>>6866663
Because the false supposition is ideological.

As >>6866662 said, most people are not thinking.

[Anonymous No.6866684]

>>6866469
I see, you are right.

[Anonymous No.6866690]

>>6865179
Yes. Do people post here without any knowledge of modern academia?

[Anonymous No.6866696]

>>6866683
i get that its a flawed idea, but it isnt even worth debating when you realize that there is little distinction between value produced in a factory or a law firm from an economists point of view

[Anonymous No.6866705]

>>6866679
The point of the question was actually to demonstrate that most people don't know what Ideology is.

Also,and this will demonstrate my greater point nicely, Althusser and Marx have the same concept of ideology, this goes unnoticed precisely because they take different perspectives. If they didn't, then Ideology would be an ideological construct.

[Anonymous No.6866944]

>>6866666

[Anonymous No.6866956]

>>6866666
Checked

[Anonymous No.6867351]

>>6866666
Woah..

[Anonymous No.6867367]

[Anonymous No.6867371]

Question for you guys who know more about communism than myself
I have friends who are nurses in public hospitals, their employer is the state.
And yet they still need unions to negotiate their rights with their employer.
How does the state owning the means of production differ to private ownership in this regard?
Not baiting, just curious.

[Anonymous No.6867375]

>>6867367
I don't understand this image. Surely a picture of a conservative would be a better fit?

[Anonymous No.6867376]

>>6866662
>The intellectually competent have learned to write in a way that excludes the incompetent regardless of education level

What do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.6867379]

>>6867375
Hello marxist

[Anonymous No.6867388]

>>6866162
And what of the anarchists who are not of your school of thought?

[Anonymous No.6867389]

>>6867379
But liberals (not the American use of the term) believe in individual choice, and therefore blame the unfortunate for causing their own problems.
Marx would just say "this fly landed on this trap because the bourgeoisie must feed"

[Anonymous No.6867391]

>>6866639
If your on the left then you are incompatible with anarchism.

[Anonymous No.6867397]

>>6867391
You are using an antiquated conception of left and right. Left does not equate to state intervention.
For example, I'm left wing, but in the case of the internet I am strongly opposed to any government interfering because I see it as one of the few places of true equality (besides the means of accessing the internet).
Hell, it's why I like 4chan.

[Anonymous No.6867398]

>>6867371
A business is voluntary, the state isn't.

[Anonymous No.6867403]

>>6867389
Marxism is a simple trap for gullible morons, hence like those other traps.

[Anonymous No.6867410]

>>6867397
But a leftist anarchist, will still support the state in order to create and maintain their society. In order to absolve private property and trade, you will be using the state.

[Anonymous No.6867416]

>>6867398
So, compulsory exploitation as enforced by the state would replace effectively compulsory exploitation as enforced by private enterprise which is propped up by the state?

[Anonymous No.6867427]

>>6865947
this

feminists are capitalist shills

[Anonymous No.6867432]

>>6865684

great post

[Anonymous No.6867436]

>>6867376
Could you be more specific in your question?
I give an example here >>6866705
>Althusser and Marx have the same concept of ideology, this goes unnoticed precisely because they take different perspectives. If they didn't, then Ideology would be an ideological construct.

It is an experiential thing, once you have the experience and the distance from a text to think critically, you notice it. Philosophy is 50% giving the rabble something shiny to play with that they think is profound, 20% jokes and word play , and 30% a slightly unique reiteration of the experience of competence that has been constantly repeated across time.

[Anonymous No.6867443]

>>6865684
>Feminists can scream about "patriarchal" ideology all they want
Because feminists "scream", because they are emotional and out of control, because they are women.

check your privilege m8

[Anonymous No.6867446]

>>6867436
So what is your point overall in relation to the OP?

[Anonymous No.6867453]

>>6866176
I don't remember where and in what context I saw it, but one time I saw this guy saying for you to pay attention how many times you get out of your house that is neither to get money or to spend money. Either you go to work or you have fun paying for stuff. It's very rare to use the street space to anything else. I think the man was an artist and used to get out of his house just to sketch things he saw and then come back.

[Anonymous No.6867457]

>>6867403
>>6867379

>doesnt even understand what the anon is saying
>RECOGNISE MY ME ME!!

embarrassing.jpeg

[Anonymous No.6867459]

>>6867375
it's shopped, the last panel can be whatever you want

the original was a computer, I think

[Anonymous No.6867462]

>>6867457
I just explained the joke you cringey faggot

[Anonymous No.6867567]

>>6867416
What exploitation exactly is happening with a business? You both agreed to a wage, based upon market prices. Also no one forces you to work for a business. However, with the state and its taxation you either work for them, or they kill you or imprison you.

[Anonymous No.6867608]

>>6867567
he asked for someone with knowledge of communism, not a liberal

[Anonymous No.6867632]

>>6867608
What makes you think I'm liberal?

[Anonymous No.6867712]

>>6867391
Bad b8, man.

[Anonymous No.6867734]

>>6867410
Stop

[Anonymous No.6868346]

>>6867371
(I assume some kind of "welfare state" is in place.)

I will divide this into two parts: One part on their struggle over wages and another part on their right to direct the hospital.

1: Struggle over wages
Your state-employed nurse friends provide a service that keeps our society going (i.e. they keep workers alive and nurse them back to health so that they can return to work). In return for this service (labour) they receive surplus value produced by other workers in society. The surplus value is appropriated by the state through taxes. Every member of society pays these taxes. The appropriated surplus value is redistributed by the state. (Note that the nurses themselves do not (necessarily) produce surplus value.)

What this comes down to is really a struggle over the distribution of surplus value. Everyone who is not a nurse is motivated to keep the amount of surplus value flowing to hospital nurses low, since they want to keep the surplus value to themselves and spend it on nice things. Hospital nurses are motivated to keep the amount of surplus value that they receive high because they want high wages, so that they can buy nice things.

There's not much to this. Doing this through meetings between state-employer organisations and state-employee organisations (unions) is a pretty good way of doing it, since they represent the two opposing sides of the struggle.

2: Right to direct the hospital
About their right to direct the hospital and influence how much they work and decide on how they perform their tasks I refer you to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfaFriFAz1k

Basically, the point is that it does not matter who owns the means of production. It matters who has the right to direct the enterprise (which has historically been the owners of the means of production). But if we give up on the idea that the right to direct an enterprise is intrinsically linked to ownership, then we can start to imagine other ways of directing enterprises. We can imagine a sort of "hospital council" where nurses are invited to sit and be able to direct the hospital together with other people connected to the hospital. We can also imagine that patients might have a representative on such a board, since they are very much affected by the direction of the hospital. Perhaps we also allow the owner (state) to have some seats on such a council. The number of seats that each group gets could be in proportional to how much the direction and policies of the hospital affects each group.

[Anonymous No.6868848]

This is pretty cool, anybody heard of him?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm

>For Marx, socialism (or communism) is not flight or abstraction from, or loss of the objective world which men have created by the objectification of their faculties. It is not an impoverished return to unnatural, primitive simplicity. It is rather the first real emergence, the genuine actualization of man's nature as something real. Socialism, for Marx, is a society which permits the actualization of man's essence, by overcoming his alienation. It is nothing less than creating the conditions for the truly free, rational, active and independent man; it is the fulfillment of the prophetic aim: the destruction of the idols.

> Marx expected that by this new form of an unalienated society man would become independent, stand on his own feet, and would no longer be crippled by the alienated mode of production and consumption; that he would truly be the master and the creator of his life, and hence that he could begin to make living his main business, rather than producing the means for living. Socialism, for Marx, was never as such the fulfillment of life, but the condition for such fulfillment.

[Anonymous No.6869754]

>>6867567
>no one forces you to work for a business

this is why libertarians are a joke. they arbitrarily bracket off coercion as only the threat of physical force while ignoring every other dynamic of human interaction that can be just as coercive.

just google "wage slavery"

[Anonymous No.6870318]

>>6867443
shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.6870383]

>>6868848
Not to sound petulant, but this is pretty obvious if you know anything about Marxism. I'd suggest you read the Grundrisse

[Anonymous No.6870621]

>>6870383
Yeah, the book is centered around clearing up misunderstandings, though. I tink it just does it pretty nicely.

[Anonymous No.6870649]

>>6868848
Is that the same guy who wrote "Escape from Freedom"?

[Anonymous No.6870798]

>>6866055
>liberal feminism is considered bourgeois and serves the capitalist class.

what the fuck man

[Anonymous No.6870967]

>>6867453
is true, under capitalism most people just produce and consume.

[Anonymous No.6870991]

>>6870967
guess what shit head: under agriculture most people just produce and consume. under subsistence conditions most people just produce and consume, you make it sound like man isn't meant to produce and consume. get the fuck out of here with your life denying asceticism.

[Anonymous No.6871004]

>>6870991
wow, it was easy to trigger your anger.

[Anonymous No.6871010]

>>6867453
>I think the man was an artist and used to get out of his house just to sketch things he saw and then come back.
>used to get out of his house to sketch things
>to sketch things

so he was producing sketches. the guy is a hypocrite and should kill himself.

[Anonymous No.6871013]

>>6871004
yup. stupidity pisses me off. kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.6871145]

>>6870967
you are one of the most stupidest people alive, i hope you know that, fucking scum

[Anonymous No.6871606]

>>6871010
'Creation' is not necessarily 'production'. Marx captured some of these differences in what he called 'alienation of labour'. Here's something that a young Karl Marx wrote about alienation of labour:
>What, then, constitutes the alienation of labor?
>First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Lastly, the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

[Anonymous No.6871617]

>>6866176
>having friends
get out