In this article, I will first reiterate some of the lessons learned from Louis Althusser, which I outlined at greater length in Part 1. I will then explain how his focus on material conditions has certain advantages over the purely discursive analysis of Michel Foucault that seems to have been adopted by certain people in the dissident right and sensible centre. Finally, I will turn to Althusser’s concept of ‘contradiction’ and ‘the weakest link’, derived from Lenin, to think about where the weakest links are today.
Much insight but also blindness in respect of theories of ideology themselves, i.e. their own premisses / 'material conditions of production'.
Ever since the maid laughed at Thales stumbling into the well, the intellectual with his head in the clouds not seeing what's under his feet has become a cliche in our culture.
The supreme power in that culture, West/Christendom, what separates it from the rest, the modern from archaic, a power that transcends all antagonists, and as such a neutral power, is what in England we call the Crown, symbol of state sovereignty, but generically known as the judicial system.
I can already hear the chorus of derision: How could anyone imagine the judiciary to be independent? lol Has it not long been orthodoxy in Marxist academia, hasn't AA himself affirmed there are no 'neutral institutions': such a view being 'ideology', serving "power" in spite of itself, and completely delusional? What 'based' unillusionad right call 'cope' or 'biscuit tin nationalism'.
Clearly the judicial system isn't *politically* neutral today however it might have approached that condition in previous epochs. But in what world outside academia is human conflict or violence mostly if at all political?
Almost zero political violence in England even now, let alone pre-enrichment. Whereas people get robbed, killed. maimed by friends, family members, neighbours, business associates, sometimes complete strangers every day of the week. Mostly over petty feuds or grievances of no consequence to those outside their orbit, even if they make "the news".
Even counting political prisoners, nationalists being stitched up for 'terrorism', terrible as they are, amount to a small fraction of acts of violence considered in their totality. In most if not all polities outside West people get incarcerated without *any* due process. European academics aka Left take for granted that which is most unique: the conditions of their own possibility.
Marxism has been called a power, as opposed to knowledge-directed discourse. To say there's no 'outside' of the goldfish bowl of ideology in effect is to claim property rights over it. None of which is to deny Marxism's truth value, nor the reality of 'soft power', only to register how selective and self-serving are its theories in respect of their advocates. At least to the extent that 'ideology' is true and valid for academics as much as everyone else...
One factor alone keeps a lid on violent escalation and that's the all-pervasive threat of institutional revenge, i.e. a *neutral* arbiter. Blood feuds are the norm in places outside West where no such arbitration obtains; where 'justice' depends on the forces you or your 'fam' can muster - which doesn't necessarily exclude official law enforcement, assuming one has the means to pay and/or inside connections - the price can even be quite low. -
We are shocked by Cose Nostra blood feuds at the movies, which is the only place most of us ever witness them. But pre-Christendom and into the Middle Ages and early modern period in England, where the penalty for trespassing on the King's hunting grounds was greater than for slaying a serf, especially if you *were* a serf, blood feuds were normal. Possibly the most decisive battle in England's history was between blood brothers Harold and Tosti in 1066.
Judicial neutrality colours absolutely everything. Commerce as much as other forms of social life. Try starting a business in most lands outside West and see how you get on, even if you can afford armed security. We are blinded to its force only by its efficacy which rests on what Roger Scruton has called "pre-political loyalties". By which he meant what we normally call ethnicity - he also uses 'We' or 'inherited attachments'.
Even the oldest allegiance in world history are polarised among themselves, like every other culture. That they remain an allegiance, as England has been for centuries despite innumerable internal conflicts, is all he means by "pre-political loyalties": the possibility of polarising dissent but without civil war.
In other words, the precondition of the nation state and by extension anything like a theory of ideology. which has no application beyond Europe/West/Christendom, and couldn't exist outside the material conditions which gave birth to it, namely European academia and all its foundational institutional arrangements which its beneficiaries so easily disdain.
Solid analysis, correct conclusions. The American hegemony leads the West to the dumpster fire for sure. Somehow I still think an Amish ideology can help save some of us. . .
Good article, but it dodges the question of whether the BS matters? Do different BS effect the way that people live or how societies are run? If it doesn’t matter at all, then politics is merely fight amongst elites for who gets to be in charge and reap the benefits.
But if the BS matters and shapes the way that people live and how the rulers act, then ideological discussions matter. Even if we accept that the specifics of the BS will change over time, they are still constrained by the core values of the BS. Despite Leninism changing some elements of Marxism when it obtained power, it remained identifiably Marxist in character, and this had an impact on how it was structured and how people lived.
Reminds me of Maurras, with his idea that all power is personal and familial and can only disappear through falling human population. Force, vitality and practical understanding of human nature would be the basis of power, ideally its purpose should be to instantiate order and beauty. I believe Althusser was a reader of Maurras and other of the French counter-revolutionary thinkers when he was younger.
Much insight but also blindness in respect of theories of ideology themselves, i.e. their own premisses / 'material conditions of production'.
Ever since the maid laughed at Thales stumbling into the well, the intellectual with his head in the clouds not seeing what's under his feet has become a cliche in our culture.
The supreme power in that culture, West/Christendom, what separates it from the rest, the modern from archaic, a power that transcends all antagonists, and as such a neutral power, is what in England we call the Crown, symbol of state sovereignty, but generically known as the judicial system.
I can already hear the chorus of derision: How could anyone imagine the judiciary to be independent? lol Has it not long been orthodoxy in Marxist academia, hasn't AA himself affirmed there are no 'neutral institutions': such a view being 'ideology', serving "power" in spite of itself, and completely delusional? What 'based' unillusionad right call 'cope' or 'biscuit tin nationalism'.
Clearly the judicial system isn't *politically* neutral today however it might have approached that condition in previous epochs. But in what world outside academia is human conflict or violence mostly if at all political?
Almost zero political violence in England even now, let alone pre-enrichment. Whereas people get robbed, killed. maimed by friends, family members, neighbours, business associates, sometimes complete strangers every day of the week. Mostly over petty feuds or grievances of no consequence to those outside their orbit, even if they make "the news".
Even counting political prisoners, nationalists being stitched up for 'terrorism', terrible as they are, amount to a small fraction of acts of violence considered in their totality. In most if not all polities outside West people get incarcerated without *any* due process. European academics aka Left take for granted that which is most unique: the conditions of their own possibility.
Marxism has been called a power, as opposed to knowledge-directed discourse. To say there's no 'outside' of the goldfish bowl of ideology in effect is to claim property rights over it. None of which is to deny Marxism's truth value, nor the reality of 'soft power', only to register how selective and self-serving are its theories in respect of their advocates. At least to the extent that 'ideology' is true and valid for academics as much as everyone else...
One factor alone keeps a lid on violent escalation and that's the all-pervasive threat of institutional revenge, i.e. a *neutral* arbiter. Blood feuds are the norm in places outside West where no such arbitration obtains; where 'justice' depends on the forces you or your 'fam' can muster - which doesn't necessarily exclude official law enforcement, assuming one has the means to pay and/or inside connections - the price can even be quite low. -
We are shocked by Cose Nostra blood feuds at the movies, which is the only place most of us ever witness them. But pre-Christendom and into the Middle Ages and early modern period in England, where the penalty for trespassing on the King's hunting grounds was greater than for slaying a serf, especially if you *were* a serf, blood feuds were normal. Possibly the most decisive battle in England's history was between blood brothers Harold and Tosti in 1066.
Judicial neutrality colours absolutely everything. Commerce as much as other forms of social life. Try starting a business in most lands outside West and see how you get on, even if you can afford armed security. We are blinded to its force only by its efficacy which rests on what Roger Scruton has called "pre-political loyalties". By which he meant what we normally call ethnicity - he also uses 'We' or 'inherited attachments'.
Even the oldest allegiance in world history are polarised among themselves, like every other culture. That they remain an allegiance, as England has been for centuries despite innumerable internal conflicts, is all he means by "pre-political loyalties": the possibility of polarising dissent but without civil war.
In other words, the precondition of the nation state and by extension anything like a theory of ideology. which has no application beyond Europe/West/Christendom, and couldn't exist outside the material conditions which gave birth to it, namely European academia and all its foundational institutional arrangements which its beneficiaries so easily disdain.
Solid analysis, correct conclusions. The American hegemony leads the West to the dumpster fire for sure. Somehow I still think an Amish ideology can help save some of us. . .
Good article, but it dodges the question of whether the BS matters? Do different BS effect the way that people live or how societies are run? If it doesn’t matter at all, then politics is merely fight amongst elites for who gets to be in charge and reap the benefits.
But if the BS matters and shapes the way that people live and how the rulers act, then ideological discussions matter. Even if we accept that the specifics of the BS will change over time, they are still constrained by the core values of the BS. Despite Leninism changing some elements of Marxism when it obtained power, it remained identifiably Marxist in character, and this had an impact on how it was structured and how people lived.
***Leftist Nietzschean nihilism intensifies***
This why it matters if an old church is turned into a leisure centre.
There is no way that is happening. You just made that up to get a reaction I suppose.
Reminds me of Maurras, with his idea that all power is personal and familial and can only disappear through falling human population. Force, vitality and practical understanding of human nature would be the basis of power, ideally its purpose should be to instantiate order and beauty. I believe Althusser was a reader of Maurras and other of the French counter-revolutionary thinkers when he was younger.