But what is class consciousness anyway? Insofar as it merely refers to one's position in society it is immediately recognizable: the bourgeois knows that he belongs to the ruling class; the worker, that his place is among the ruled; and the social groups in between count themselves in neither of these basic classes. There is no problem so long as the different classes adhere to one and the same ideology, namely, the idea that these class relations are natural relations that will always prevail as a basic characteristic of the human condition. Actually, of course, the material interests of the various classes diverge and lead to social frictions that conflict with the common ideology. The latter is increasingly recognized as the ideology of the ruling class in support of the existing social arrangements and will be rejected as a statement of the inescapable destiny of human society. The ruling ideology is thus bound to succumb to the extension of class consciousness into the ideological sphere. The differences of material interests turn into ideological differences and then into political theories based on the concrete social contradictions. The political theories may be quite rudimentary, because of the complexities of the social issues involved, but they nonetheless constitute a change from mere class consciousness to a comprehension that social arrangements could be different from what they are. We are then on the road from mere class consciousness to a revolutionary class consciousness, which recognizes the ruling ideology as a confidence game and concerns itself with ways and means to alter the existing conditions. If this were not so, no labor movement would have arisen and social development would not be characterized by class struggles


However, just as the presence of the ruling ideology does not suffice to maintain existing social relations, but must in turn be supported by the material forces of the state apparatus, so a counter-ideology will remain just this unless it can produce material forces stronger than those reflected by the ruling ideology. If this is not the case, the quality of the counter-ideology, whether it is merely intuitive or based on scientific considerations, does not matter and neither the intellectual nor the worker can effect a change in the existing social relations. Revolutionaries may or may not be allowed to express their views, depending on the mentality that dominates the ruling class, but under whatever conditions they will not be able to dislodge the ruling class by ideological means. In this respect the ruling class has all the advantage, since with the means of production and the forces of the state it controls instrumentalities for the perpetuation and dissemination of its own ideology. As this condition persists until the actual overthrow of a given social system, revolutions must take place with insufficient ideological preparation. In short, the counter-ideology can triumph only through a revolution that plays the means of production and political power into the hands of the revolutionaries. Until then, revolutionary class consciousness will always be less effective than the ruling ideology.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lo ... pm_iac.htm (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/pm_iac.htm)

Comments & criticism?

I think thats all pretty true, if dressed up in alot of verbiage. I'm not sure its the end of the story, because even where his outline has happened, the revolutionaries have been beat back for the most part.

but poking around that site I found myself a new sig line :)

But what is class consciousness anyway? Insofar as it merely refers to one's position in society it is immediately recognizable: the bourgeois knows that he belongs to the ruling class; the worker, that his place is among the ruled; and the social groups in between count themselves in neither of these basic classes.
...

Actually, of course, the material interests of the various classes diverge and lead to social frictions that conflict with the common ideology.

It is not useful (nor very accurate) to imagine 3, 4, or 5 classes with "different interests" that "come into friction."


In this respect the ruling class has all the advantage, since with the means of production and the forces of the state it controls instrumentalities for the perpetuation and dissemination of its own ideology. As this condition persists until the actual overthrow of a given social system, revolutions must take place with insufficient ideological preparation. In short, the counter-ideology can triumph only through a revolution that plays the means of production and political power into the hands of the revolutionaries. Until then, revolutionary class consciousness will always be less effective than the ruling ideology.

We, the working class people, as the producers of all of the wealth and having vastly greater numbers of potential allies, have all of the power should we choose to use it. It is much easier for the working class to overthrow the ruling class than it is for the ruling class to hold down the working class. The entire struggle is in the realms of ideas, not in "doing something." Class consciousness is not about how to get power into the hands of a "better" few than the ones now holding it - which is the goal of liberals and progressives. It is about recognizing the power we already have and using it. That can never be accomplished if we do not define "we" and if we refuse to recognize and acknowledge the role of power.

Interpreting the world is essential as a foundation for any and every action. It is a false dichotomy to say that we either interpret the world or we change the world. Everything everyone does everyday is influenced by their interpretation of the world. How we interpret the world dictates everything that follows. That we can change. But is is impossible to change the way we interpret the world if we cannot see, or deny, the way that we now interpret it.

"Changing the world" or changing human nature or re-making culture and society are not legitimate nor achievable political goals. There is nothing wrong with people, nothing wrong with human nature, nothing wrong with the culture, nothing wrong with the world. There is something wrong with the way that power is held and used, because the way that power is held and used is destroying people, suppressing human nature, the culture and the world. Politics is about changing power arrangements, not about changing the world or reforming or improving people.

If we imagine (as most liberals do) that we need to change human nature - one person at a time, starting with (and ending with, usually) ourselves - before we can change the world and that we need to change the world before we can change the power structure, and that we need to change the power structure before we can "get what we want" we are in trouble.

"Changing the world" or changing human nature or re-making culture and society are not legitimate nor achievable political goals. There is nothing wrong with people, nothing wrong with human nature, nothing wrong with the culture, nothing wrong with the world. There is something wrong with the way that power is held and used, because the way that power is held and used is destroying people, suppressing human nature, the culture and the world. Politics is about changing power arrangements, not about changing the world or reforming or improving people.

If we imagine (as most liberals do) that we need to change human nature... before we can change the world and that we need to change the world before we can change the power structure, and that we need to change the power structure before we can "get what we want" we are in trouble.

The trouble is that this thinking is backwards to the way things actually work.

Sure human nature will change. As a product of social relations, human nature is malleable and lags the nature of those relations.

Have you seen Megan's new signature line?

The trouble is that this thinking is backwards to the way things actually work.

Sure human nature will change. As a product of social relations, human nature is malleable and lags the nature of those relations.

Have you seen Megan's new signature line?

Yes, this thinking is the opposite of a particular modern idea, especially virulent in liberal circles, as to "how things actually work." However, it is entirely consistent and congruent with the way that most people in the world think, and have throughout history. Yes, I saw megan's sig line.

In the realm of self-help and self improvement (open to only the few) and in the realm of corporate motivational seminars (forced on the many,) in the realm of New Age spiritual pursuits, in the realm of psychology, in the realm of reform movements and religion, yes, human nature is seen as malleable, and pounding people into new shapes and forms is seen as a worthwhile and enjoyable past time (often very profitable, too.) Liberalism consists of a mixture of those things, all of which advance the interests of the ruling class and hurt working class paople. This grab bag of modern ideas and approaches has become the basis for a lifestyle and fashion statement and personal identity for upscale people and their sycophants, and does seem to give meaning and purpose to the lives of some people. It is a club that most of the people in the world do not have the luxury of joining, though.

However, we should not later be surprised when we are politically ineffective and nothing changes, since we started with the premise that "oh well that is the way things actually work. It is human nature and what can we do? It is hard to change human nature and to try to undo centuries and centuries of history. We will just keep chipping away at it, and some day everything will be different and all that is wrong with the world will be gone. We need to start with fixing ourselves, since that is the only person we can change anyway, and that will set an example and kick into action mystical spiritual forces which will magically transform reality when a sufficient number of people have attained enlightenment, and critical mass is reached."

People do not want to change. I don't want to change them. This self-improvement mania, and demands that others "improve" is a national obsession and is insane. It leads to paralysis and confusion, and is oppressive and coercive.

Religion tries to change people to serve the needs of a system. Politics tries to change the system to serve the needs of the people. You can't change the system by trying to reform the people. However, you can change the circumstances for people through politics, and it is their circumstances that need to be changed. This will allow more people to stay the same, to become more themselves. As it is now - whether it is the ruling class, the preachers, the corporations, but most importantly and effectively the liberals - the working class people are being told that the fault is with them and that they need to change or be changed.

I want to see people start resisting these attempts to change them, no matter where they are coming from.

The itch on the part of liberals to change people - to control, dominate, invalidate, steer, convert, and manipulate them - is the problem. Yet it is continually presented as a solution to something.