/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain't driving 20 minutes to riot."

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join the Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org Visit the Booru: https://lefty.booru.org/

Althusser being destroyed Anonymous 11/21/2020 (Sat) 14:52:52 No. 1157560
Since it is held in this way, Marxism cannot avoid fluctuating between representing the superstructure as the mere reflection of the base, and representing the superstructure as the very determinant of social organization. He makes this fluctuation a single piece, stating that the base determines the superstructure but, in turn, the superstructure determines the base, but the base determines the superstructure ultimately, but the superstructure has a relative autonomy with an instance dominant, until this string of stated determinations comes to an end with the name "overdetermination." But what is really determining, whatever the instance? What is a relative autonomy? Perhaps the autonomy that a dog has on a chain? (This is not a joke, but a statement actually posted once). Marxism has no answer to these questions, beyond calling a "dialectical relationship" by jumping from the base to the superstructure, and from the superstructure to the base. And not a single step is taken towards the unfolding of the very development of the real need by representing it as a matter of the base "producing" the superstructure and the superstructure "helping" the base; or the mutual "assembly" of the structure "conditioning or limiting" the action, and the action or strategy "recursively reproducing or transforming" the structure or society; 60o that the material productive forces of society have "primacy" on the relations of production and that action is "functional" to the structure "through human rationality", or of social being and social consciousness mediated by "experience." Thus, it is not surprising that all this ends up producing the conception that, since everything determines everything and is determined by everything, conscious revolutionary action must give way to action based on ideology, that is, to its own negation.
(64.91 KB 640x476 1565174043376.jpg)
tfw not smart enough to understand any of this
>>1157560 it is true that the idea that the thought of being able to be outside of this motion and influence the motion itself it Idealism good post
>>1157675 Instead of seeing this ideologically anon, we have to see ideology as part of the mode of production itself. That liberty for example, its not separated from capitalism and its a need of the subjet under capitalism to imagine themselves as free because themselves are a non dependant free producer of commodities that relates to another that its also a independant free producer of commodities.
>>1157560 This is where Sorelianism comes in. The sorelian conception of the proletarian will and the general myth provides a way outside and base-superstructure interdeterminism and the path towards something new, that is, the idea of the will of classes found in their myth being what forces potentiality of action or events into actuality of existience. If you look at Sorel's pre-Action Franceis writings, you can see these ideas alongside a form of materialism, one with an open dialectic (see: Decolonizing Dialectics) and a syndicalist ethic of freedom and virtue, both of these things replacing Marx's form of blanquism and engel's positivism to turn back the decomposition of marxism. It is a shame that Sorel was disillusioned with socialism and turned towards nationalism. the Young Sorelians (berth and valois mainly) themselves took the later Sorel and dismissed his marxian roots, which ultimately led to Spanish, French, and Italian forms of integral fascism. Sorel himself warns us in his Reflections on Violence that national bourgeoisie creating a myth for their benefit is very very possible. Sadly, he fell into the trap he himself knew was there.
>>1158674 What I would say to all that its that its a necesary form of the competition between the independant producers of commodities, and we have to see nationalism as that and not as "a tool of the bourgoisie" or "A myth" or "Ideology" it is a need imbeded on capitalism as a mode of production. The point that Juan IƱigo Carrera makes its that we need to go beyond capitalism though proletariat action and that proletariat action is a part of capitalism as a historical subjet. This need comes not from an abstract need but a concrete one of capital on its development, and that the state in the hands of the proletariat would need to manage capital first on its national space of accumulation and second on a global scale in order to transform capitalism into what we want wich is socialism.
>>1157560 Marx was wrong to say the superstructure was anything more than a thin veneer on top of the actual engine of history, the base. 99% of a society's behavior can be explained by examine its material basis alone. Objections to this are unironic idealism and cannot be substantiated by historical fact.
>>1157560 The superstructure cannot exist without the base, and is determined by the base. The base cannot exist without the superstructure and is structured by the superstructure. Hence there cannot be a neat separation between base and superstructure. They are both elements that exist in relation to one another. The conclusion isn't that revolution can only come from one or the other, but that the internal development of them can lead to a moment in which the relationship is no longer viable and the relationship must evolve either slowly or rapidly, doesn't really matter. A change in base that doesn't match the superstructure will lead to instability (IMO, USSR), a change in superstructure without a change in base will lead to instability (liberal revolutions).
>>1158854 Liberal revolutions of the xix and xviii centuries were changes in both superstructure and the base. also >The superstructure cannot exist without the base, and is determined by the base. The base cannot exist without the superstructure and is structured by the superstructure. >everything determines everything >nothing determines nothing >lol
>>1158805 No, Marx recognised the need to analise the objetive social relationship under capitalism as a way to generate the conciouss accion of the proletariat towards socialism and away from capitalism.
>>1157560 >Marxism cannot avoid fluctuating between representing the superstructure as the mere reflection of the base, and representing the superstructure as the very determinant of social organization. ??? Neither is what marxism is lmao. >misinterpret basics of marxism >base your entire career on extrapolating this misinterpretation
>>1158883 "ITS DIALECTICAL"
>>1158877 well there you go. The development of society corresponds to the development of the relationship of base and superstructure. And yes, this is basic hegelianism. What's the problem.
>>1158886 You still are saying that everything its being determinated by everything else, sounds tautological to me
>>1158887 Read Hegel :-P There is no origin in the base-superstructure relationship because it is an ongoing process that exists in relation to each other. It's like understanding an ecosystem saying that the cows poop to create grass, ignoring the fact that grass grows to be eaten by cows. If I pointed out that cows and grass exist in a process and depend on each other, you'd exclaim that this is tautological.
>>1158895 >Cows eat grass because they have to poop Na, they eat grass because they are hungry thats why. Thats the argument im making.
>>1158887 >You still are saying that everything its being determinated by everything els Thats what happens when you live in a continuous system where the current state is a result of the previous, buddy. Reality is not some autistic single point in time logic puzzle. Capitalism is determined and formed by machines and feudalism, just like today is formed by yesterday, and tomorrow is formed by today.
>>1158887 > the previous gcc version compiles the new version of gcc < sounds tautological to me
>>1158903 Sounds like theolological nonsence to me. Yes capitalism doesnt exist in a vacuum, it came about because of feudalism need to expand as a consecuence of the crisis of the late middle ages. You are, however, still making a tautological argument.
(29.55 KB 267x377 althussssssssssssssssssser.jpg)
>>1157560 Althusser didn't believe /everything/ was simply overdetermined, though this was a tool in his analytic toolbox. We can see concretely when we look at his analysis of the state as superstructure. The state has relative autonomy from its base - the ruling class - and is not reducible to it. Because it has ideological functions, existing to transform it's violence into legitimacy through its production of laws, it acts to preserve its own foundations, often against the interests of the capitalist class. Hence we arrive at how structuralism disciplines the multiple forces/flows of causality, because ultimately, the superstructure must exist to reproduce the material base. Communists are here to overcome this process. Every action is already based on ideology - what scientific study of capitalist society does is allow us to do is intervene at key points as attempts to force a historical encounter between several structural tendencies of capitalism, creating a new superseding logic of production - communism.
>>1158914 >Sounds like theolological nonsence to me Nigga how is saying that what your material reality is changes your thinking tomorrow, and the actions which you take today change material tomorrow. Litterally, your thoughts and the culture is shaped by the material conditions, and the culture and governance then changes the material conditions. Its not theologic, its not a tautology, it just basic reality. GEt a grip on your autism and realise you can formulate statements which cover more than a single point in time, but a process over time.
This thread teaches the basics of dialectics.
>>1159038 I dislike the notion of "tool box" just like i dislike the "theoretical phramework" here: "It may also appear that the revolutionary powers of the working class cannot spring from the subsumption of the worker in capital but, on the contrary, from outside it. From this point of view, it would seem that if capital were the one that determined the workers' consciousness, if it were the whole in the determination of the working class, it should not find strength to liberate from it. It would thus appear that the ability of the working class to overcome the capitalist mode of production can only come from its "autonomy" from it. However, capital is the general social relationship of the working class, that is, the general way in which it - whether it wants it or not - organizes the social production of its life. And this general social relation of his has been inverted as the concrete objectified subject of social production. Capital determines both the working class and its attribute that it is capable of depriving a growing part of it of its natural life. Thus, in order to have a revolutionary power alien to the capitalist mode of production that could impose on it, the working class would have to be the bearer of an even more general social relationship than this mode of production, from which that power arose. Or, put another way, capital should not be the general social relation of the working class, but a concrete form of a way of organizing the production of human life more generic than itself. As it is more than evident that such a social relationship does not exist, the conceptions about the autonomy of the workers' conscience follow two paths. The first consists in founding the revolutionary powers of the working class in a libertarian or egalitarian spirit, a desire to recover the "meaning" of work, imputed to an abstract human nature. Spirits and desires that are adorned with enough power to bypass the way in which humanity has actually been able to organize its material life up to the present. Thus, the "self-valorization" that Negri proposes to the working class arises by case.10 The second way consists in reducing the supposed autonomy of the workers' consciousness to the condition of "relative". The whole secret of relative autonomy comes down to affirming that the accumulation of capital determines the workers 'consciousness, but that, in turn, the workers' consciousness influences the accumulation of capital, although this determines it in the last instance. Thus, the consciousness of the working class has ceased to be a necessary concrete way of realizing the general social relationship. This unit has ideally been replaced by an exterior back and forth. So much so that the attempt to explain the relative autonomy by the movement of a dog chained to a post can be done. Along this path, it ends up concluding that everything determines everything and, therefore, that nothing determines nothing. Thus erasing all real necessity, one goes on to affirm, as Althusser does, that revolutionary action is one provided with a revolutionary "doctrine", and that this is such if it promotes revolutionary action. capitalist production appears to have its need reduced to the abstract development of consciousness.
>>1158914 >path dependence is woowoo >>1159682 >eschatology is not woowoo
>>1159682 >i dislike shit nobody cares
If John wins four boxing matches against Thomas and loses one match, that means John winning against Thomas is not set in stone, it doesn't make them equal. That it can go both ways doesn't imply equality. Base and superstructure influence each other, but the base is more important than the superstructure. That said: One can ask, even while accepting inequality between the two concepts, did Marx and Engels exaggerate this inequality? Consider that a lot of what they wrote was in opposition to very idealistic people, trying to pull readers away from that. I recall old Engels making a statement to that effect, though I can't give you a citation. I believe there is another reason to focus on the base: There are numbers everywhere in it, which makes it easier to scientifically investigate. one can look at the tons of oil a country sells, but measuring strength of spiritual sentiments or something like that looks tricky to impossible.

Delete
Report

no cookies?