On RedMarx there is an ongoing thread on Capital Volume III, I thought it worthwhile to collect some of what I had written there about ideology for future personal reference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to the first two chapters, the main thing I noted was the explanations of how the surface phenomena of capitalist society are taken by political economy as the essentials, value appears as the cost-price, surplus-value as a markup to the cost price, which relates just as much to the constant as to the variable part of capital, and can be produced by circulation or mutual cheating, and the ratio of surplus-value to the total capital advanced further obscures the essential difference between constant and variable capital, leaving fixed and circulating capital as the only apparently important difference. Political economy functions by taking the appearance of capital for the essential relations and thus begins to mark itself out more and more as an ideology rather than a value free field of scientific inquiry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definite forms of thought correspond to definite modes of life. Political economy, as the ideology of the bourgeoisie, begins with the forms of thought that arise during the daily life of the capitalist, and more or less elaborates this into a system of thought, an ideology. This is the basis on which Marx calls capital a 'critique' of political economy.
As a tangential thought, I think one of the barriers to the acceptance of Marxism in it's undiluted form in academia is the academic division of labour. A work like capital crosses the traditional barriers of history, social theory, politics and economics. Some fields fare better than others, a historian can accept that history has more to do with social class and economic factors than the actions of 'great men' without undermining his existence qua historian, but for an economist to accept that his apparently value free discipline constitutes the ideology of the bourgeoisie par excellence is prima facie impossible without first abandoning his existence as an economist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As the reader will have recognized in dismay, the analysis of the real, inner connections of the capitalist production process is a very intricate thin and a work of great detail; it is one of the tasks of science to reduce the visible and merely apparent movement to the actual inner movement. Accordingly it will be completely self-evident that, in the heads of the agents of capitalist production and circulation, ideas must necessarily form about the laws of production that diverge completely from these laws and are merely the expression in consciousness of the apparent movement. The ideas of a merchant, a stock-jobber or a banker are necessarily quite upside-down. The ideas of the manufacturers are vitiated by the acts of circulation to which their capital is subjected and by the equalization of the general rate of profit." (Marx, Volume 3 pp. 428)
From a bit further on in the text. It's from chapter 18.
One thing I also think is interesting in this regard, is what Marx says earlier in Volume One, in the chapter on the working, day when talking about the connection between surplus-value and surplus labour time.
"Suppose the working day consists of 6 hours of necessary labour and 6 hours of surplus labour. Then the free worker gives the capitalist 6x6 or 36 hours of surplus labour every week. It is the same as if he worked 3 days in the week for himself and 3 days for the capitalist. But this fact is not directly visible. Surplus labour and necessary labour are mingled together. I can therefore express the same relation by saying for instance that in every minute the worker works 30 seconds for himself and 30 seconds for the capitalist. It is otherwise with the corvée. The necessary labour which the Wallachian peasant performs for his own maintenance is distinctly marked off from his surplus labour on behalf of the boyar. The one he does on his own field, the other on the seignorial estate. Both parts of the labour-time thus exist independently, side by side with each other." (Marx, Volume One pp. 345 - 346)
It's clear in this instance that a relation, that between surplus and necessary labour time, which is expressed clearly in the corvée system, is obscured by the capitalist mode of production. Marx makes the remark at one point that political economists are generally unfamiliar with non-capitalist modes of production, to the extent that they are, they attempt to subsume it within their existing categories. Thus, for example, all means of production starting with the tools of pre-historic men are referred to as capital. To an extent it is admitted, for example, that historically there has been a lot of variation in terms of distribution and circulation, ignoring the inner connection of these with production. The epoch of the specifically capitalist mode of production appears thus as simply the removal of certain fetters placed on production by the state and society.
Because capitalist society, in it's inner workings, is an inherently difficult thing to comprehend fully, the ideology of capitalism presents itself as something mundane, as the systematic elaboration of the notions that enter into the heads of the capitalists in their everyday activity. Pre-capitalist societies, on the other hand, are much simpler and more direct. Class distinctions appear as political distinctions between castes and estates, and thus present themselves openly on the surface of society. Ideology in these forms of society thus takes on a much more 'fantastic' aspect than it does under capitalism.
Marx notes in connection with Greek mythology, and this applies to mythology more generally, that it's existence is bound up with a very low level of development of technology and productive forces.
"...is Achilles possible with powder and lead? Or the Iliad with the printing press, not to mention the printing machine? Do not the song and the saga and the muse necessarily come to an end with the printer's bar, hence do not the necessary conditions of epic poetry vanish?" (Marx, Grundrisse pp. 111)
Direct and immediate relations of production correspond to a direct and immediate relation to nature, and hence a generally fantastical or mythological view of existence. Capitalism brings about a huge revolution in the productive forces of society, subordinating nature to humanity at a rate which is exponential compared to all previous productive development. It destroys all fantastical conceptions, it makes the world mundane, and it's ideology par excellence is suitably worldly.
The 19th and 20th centuries saw the growth and propagation of spiritualism and various 'contemporary', 'new age' religions, and these all appear as having an air of ridiculousness in contrast to previous religions. This is not an artificial distinction created by the passage of time, but a real distinction created by the relations of production. Greek, Norse, Roman and more generally Pagan mythologies, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and other 'old' religions were developed in accordance with the general level of their society, they are it's necessary products. But spiritualism emerges to the extent that the growth of production eliminates the basis on which a fantastic ideology was possible. It emerges as a reaction to the growth of the mundane, but an impossible one. In practice the various forms of spiritualism demonstrate the crassest materialism, being a means for the enrichment of their founders, or for selling various essentially useless trinkets.
Communism first emerges also as something fantastic, as a religious movement, or as a utopian idealism. And in general because it opposes the conceptions formed by the 'practical' capitalist in the course of his life, the capitalist naturally assumes that this, and all manner of opposition to his conceptions, is something fantastic. Marx proceeded by exposing the relations that lie behind the conceptions of the practical capitalist, and the falsity of these conceptions. Because of this, Marxism could never be fully appropriated or tolerated by capitalism, in the way that various ethical or religious forms of socialism might be, it always had to be 'corrected', or taken in a piecemeal fashion. The latter anyway usually expresses itself in attempting to form intentional communities, or in various philanthropic schemes which fail to challenge the existing relations of production, and can always be recuperated by capital.
A decent point about ideology drawing on appearances. It's not just 'capitalism.' There was a lot of pressure back on RM, for instance, to merely deal in appearances. That, however, cannot be deeply partisan. To deal is essences is always to take a chance, as you can go there but nobody else need follow. And they can even talk in a more comfortable manner without it, while seeming to deal with the same thing. So much of 'economic' activity appears as mere arbitrariness and ideology, then.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism often waves Marxist banners, so the last paragraph is misleading. Marxism can easily be 'recuperated.'
Nonetheless, it does make this a pressing need, because it seeks to look at 'essences' and so needs to be reduced to something less. However, in some ways this was a general tendency of German socialism, as well as radical Hegelianism, both of which it helped to recuperate in less subversive form. Marxism often merely takes aspects of Hegel, who often posits 'antitheses' if you like to aspects of his work, and treats them as though they were foreign and subversive.
Christianity was based on rather ancient conditions. While we are critical of 'New Age' religions, and especially things like Wicca, Christianity is also based on ancient conditions. Many 'New Age' religions were a result of contact with foreign nations, and also draw on an ancient heritage. Modern Christianity is also always 'modernised,' and often ridiculous. Of course, market conditions reduce most religions to nonsense, and so it is also with many 'New Age' practices and with people like Lana Del Rey claiming to practice 'witchcraft' and religion while singing about Hollywood. One could say the same of, say, the Christianity of the small-business ideologists of Duck Dynasty. Or Christianity generally. People like Kierkegaard were stringent critics of more recent Christianity, noting these tendencies which further degrade it. Things like Catholicism were already mostly trash, by the time 'capitalism' was to appear. They still manage to stand out amongst a pantomime, because they retain old and strictly speaking 'religious' traits. Yet these are almost reduced to parody.
Most 'old' or traditional religions would now be attacked as 'fundamentalist.' Further, it seems that 'fantastical' is in some ways a negative thing here, which would imply that later religion might be more closely tied to conditions. Especially if it were connected to things like Buddhism, or even ancient Hinduism. This anticipated themes such as salvation, etc. Even conventional Hinduism is less 'fantastic' than Christianity, being more clear about its polytheism than the 'Trinitarians.'
To say that feudalism was clearer, and as a result had more fantastical ideology, seems to be putting the cart before the horse. The ideology is expected to respond to the society around it. Ideology is not simply manufactured as convenient, as if the conditions could simply be leapfrogged freely by people in subservience to them.
Feudalism might seem more obvious to people in capitalism, but it isn't. Capitalism is very much a society of immediate needs and seeking them. Hence, looking at past societies is quite besides the point. There are too many other focii. They will instead tend to be conflated with modern trends.
Only after this becomes a modus operandi, can it seem easier to write about 'feudalism.' There is no friction or force against it, either. So if one's hope were to regurgitate capitalistic elements, or some other such stimuli, then to write about it would be 'easy.' This is not, however, to write about it.
"Capitalism often waves Marxist banners, so the last paragraph is misleading. Marxism can easily be 'recuperated.'"
DeleteNot without stripping it of it's essential content. Whereas ethical socialism, even in Marx's time, in Proudhon's credit schemes for example, already served as a defense of capitalist relations of production.
"To say that feudalism was clearer, and as a result had more fantastical ideology, seems to be putting the cart before the horse. The ideology is expected to respond to the society around it. Ideology is not simply manufactured as convenient, as if the conditions could simply be leapfrogged freely by people in subservience to them."
You're right, I probably got slightly ahead of myself there.