Understanding The State

[jahja]

Hello all,

I was just thinking that in response to the recent heightened rhetorical activity which has been turning our beloved plant into a political demon, it is important for people to have more critical tools available to deconstruct and understand the state, the system of politics and subsequently the system of oppression.

I really believe that it is not good enough just to argue opinion of what we do and do not like, or do and do not agree with. It is much more powerful to have some critical and historical knowledge, if one wants to carry out anything of a meaningful deconstuction of the systems we dislike.

Marxism provides some very interesting ways of deconsturcting the capitalists world and generally power-systems and cultural-systems, and links between the two. Louis Althusser was a marxist theorist who developed the idea of Ideological State Apparatuses, and these provide a very good way of explaining the reasons for and ways in which institutions as large as nations are able to gain and stay in power.

I hope some people will take the time to have a read, please visit hxxp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser and look for his section on Ideological State Aparatuses. Some of it is thick reading, but well worth going at!!

Lets hear what you think!! Anyone else got any interesting thorists (particularly marxist) who they'd recommend?? Franz Fannon is a good guy for anyone planning a revolution ... :wink:

Edited November 30, 2009 by jahja

[Guest weirdofmouth]

interesting but sorry, i'm a lazy anarchist who keeps his intellectual powers for scrabble. i think the world is simpler than Marx made out ... good v evil. we should share stuff and do away with money and be free to grow. that'd do.

[Bartyfartblast]

Ideological State Aparatuses. Some of it is thick reading, but well worth going at!!

L

I know Ive just smoked a fat one but that is more than just thick thats seriously heavy sh*t for the serious intellectual (I am educated ...honest)..... show me where the stoners guide is and I'll give it a go

[jahja]

Ideological State Aparatuses. Some of it is thick reading, but well worth going at!!

L

I know Ive just smoked a fat one but that is more than just thick thats seriously heavy sh*t for the serious intellectual (I am educated ...honest)..... show me where the stoners guide is and I'll give it a go

It is some heavy shit . You can try these for a start maybe : hxxp://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/marxism/modules/althusserideology.html this is a good first guide, but you need to read both pages.

This is a little less focused, but helpful after the first one : hxxp://www.arasite.org/nalt2.htm

Finally if you search 'ideology' on wikipedia, then there is some good background reading and also a section on Louis Althusser.

Thanks for having a look at this Barty, I really appreciate your having a go!! It does get easier with a few-hundred hours of background reading :rofl:

[Arbuscule]

Hiya jahja

I've never been a Marxist in the traditional dogmatic sense and am probably closer to being an anarchist. Marx had some amazing ideas though and I feel influenced/ shaped by his view of history as material and his demolitions of more 'idealist' narratives.

You might like to read the historian Eric Hobsbawm - really quite unlike reading Althusser or other 'critical theory'. A good place to start is Age of Revolution (1st of a trilogy, followed by Age of Capital and Age of Empire)

To comrade Hobsbawm's endless credit the Torygraph said he should 'burn with shame' for his commie views.

Anyway, I digress (I shouldn't even be awake this obscenely early )

Yeah the propaganda against the herb is readily demolished with critical thought as the crock of shit it is Dunno if I'd focus on 'deconstruction' as a tool, it's such a slippery word and too easily abused as a slogan which Derrida wouldn't even recognise.

Cheers for a stimulating post

[Eddiesilence]

Hiya jahja

I've never been a Marxist in the traditional dogmatic sense and am probably closer to being an anarchist. Marx had some amazing ideas though and I feel influenced/ shaped by his view of history as material and his demolitions of more 'idealist' narratives.

You might like to read the historian Eric Hobsbawm - really quite unlike reading Althusser or other 'critical theory'. A good place to start is Age of Revolution (1st of a trilogy, followed by Age of Capital and Age of Empire)

To comrade Hobsbawm's endless credit the Torygraph said he should 'burn with shame' for his commie views.

Hobsbawm =

I'm an anarchist in theory and principle. Marxism, in my view, has two branches - the critique, and the solution. The critique is where I find myself in agreement, but I am unsure about Marx's solutions. I am deeply troubled by the historical attempts to apply Marxist solutions in the last century, although these examples have not been truly representative of Marxism, and it is debatable as to what degree these systems were poisoned by the fact of being under attack.

Another literature suggestion: anarchist historian Professor Howard Zinn. If you haven't read his work yet, you're in for a rare treat. I reckon the best place to start is his autobiography 'You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train'. Otherwise, check out his website:

hxxp://howardzinn.org/default/

[jahja]

Hiya jahja

I've never been a Marxist in the traditional dogmatic sense and am probably closer to being an anarchist. Marx had some amazing ideas though and I feel influenced/ shaped by his view of history as material and his demolitions of more 'idealist' narratives.

You might like to read the historian Eric Hobsbawm - really quite unlike reading Althusser or other 'critical theory'. A good place to start is Age of Revolution (1st of a trilogy, followed by Age of Capital and Age of Empire)

To comrade Hobsbawm's endless credit the Torygraph said he should 'burn with shame' for his commie views.

Anyway, I digress (I shouldn't even be awake this obscenely early)

Yeah the propaganda against the herb is readily demolished with critical thought as the crock of shit it is Dunno if I'd focus on 'deconstruction' as a tool, it's such a slippery word and too easily abused as a slogan which Derrida wouldn't even recognise.

Cheers for a stimulating post

Hey Arbuscule -

thanks for your informative reply, and thanks for taking the time! I'll have to admit to being quite new in the world of theory, and I lean towards literary theorists since this is where my subject of interest is.

I'll have to trust your better judgement about the word deconstruction, no offending Derrida allowed! I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at anyway...Defamiliarisation could maybe cover it more broadly, or helpfully?

I'll have to get my hands on some Eric Hobsbawm. I'm a bit wrapped up in reading at the moment, but its on the list! Got to love offending the Torygraph.

Hiya jahja

I've never been a Marxist in the traditional dogmatic sense and am probably closer to being an anarchist. Marx had some amazing ideas though and I feel influenced/ shaped by his view of history as material and his demolitions of more 'idealist' narratives.

You might like to read the historian Eric Hobsbawm - really quite unlike reading Althusser or other 'critical theory'. A good place to start is Age of Revolution (1st of a trilogy, followed by Age of Capital and Age of Empire)

To comrade Hobsbawm's endless credit the Torygraph said he should 'burn with shame' for his commie views.

Hobsbawm = yep

I'm an anarchist in theory and principle. Marxism, in my view, has two branches - the critique, and the solution. The critique is where I find myself in agreement, but I am unsure about Marx's solutions. I am deeply troubled by the historical attempts to apply Marxist solutions in the last century, although these examples have not been truly representative of Marxism, and it is debatable as to what degree these systems were poisoned by the fact of being under attack.

Another literature suggestion: anarchist historian Professor Howard Zinn. If you haven't read his work yet, you're in for a rare treat. I reckon the best place to start is his autobiography 'You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train'. Otherwise, check out his website:

hxxp://howardzinn.org/default/

Yo Eddie how are you?? Not too stressed over the court case I hope - all and more power to your elbow. You have my fullest of full support, and admiration, but I think you already know this !

I think you may have made me want to get caught for my little grow, so I can stand up with you....but enough of that for now. It's still an almost .....

Anyway, thank you for your suggestion of Professor Howard Zinn. Sounds good to me, and it will also be on the list, once I've got my work-reading out of the way!

Your short piece above suggests that your critical point is more based on an analysis following history? (not sure what the correct term is! Historicist or new historicist? Help! - now wisdom cookie for me ) In a more practical light and general basis, I would agree with what you have said about Marxist systems, which politically have essentially IMHO failed over the 20th century. But that is not to say that on a philosophical basis, Marxist theories cannot be effectively used to break down political/ideological/cultural systems such as nations. I also believe that their potentials have only really been realised in a post Marx era, and sort of after they have been tried. Anyway, I fully respect what you have said, and will definately be checking out Zinn. I'm not quite old enough yet to say I'm a commie or an anarchist, not with any authority anyway. I can definately say I believe in hybridity and endorse it, and hope to see changes, but not where I sit politically.

I would still say to you that if you haven't checked out Louis Althusser, the stuff on Ideological State Aparatuses (which is a development of an understated Marxist idea of Repressive State Apparatuses), is extremely interesting and can provide some good alternative theoretical positions

All recognition to Arbuscule's post though, Hobsbawm could be a more contemporary place to start, and I'm not the best person to take reading tips from!

Thanks so much for replying, it is really good to see that the critical community is alive! Its a great way to challenge the power of shite and misrepresentation, even if it is only on a personal 'enlightening' basis.

Thanks again guys.

[soto]

i think the world is simpler than Marx made out

Trust me Marxism is just the start. Things get a lot more complicated as you delve deeper into social theory and I would say only when you do that, do you start to have a good understanding of what's going on but even then it's not very clear. The key is to remember the age in which these people were living, for example marxism really isn't that good at getting a good understanding of globalisation but then it wasn't really going on during his time, well at least what we think of as globalisation today. I'd say although I don't agree with him a fair bit, Max Weber was a better social theorist than Marx. They say he debated with the ghost of Marx.

Edited December 2, 2009 by soto

[soto]

Take a look at thisi guy's work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas

He builds on Marxist theory whilst incorporating a great deal of others.

Habermas works resonate within the traditions of Kant and the Enlightenment and of democratic socialism through his emphasis on the potential for transforming the world and arriving at a more humane, just, and egalitarian society through the realization of the human potential for reason, in part through discourse ethics. While Habermas has stated that the Enlightenment is an "unfinished project," he argues it should be corrected and complemented, not discarded. In this he distances himself from the Frankfurt School, criticizing it, as well as much of postmodernist thought, for excessive pessimism, misdirected radicalism and exaggerations.

Within sociology, Habermas's major contribution was the development of a comprehensive theory of societal evolution and modernization focusing on the difference between communicative rationality and rationalization on the one hand and strategic/instrumental rationality and rationalization on the other. This includes a critique from a communicative standpoint of the differentiation-based theory of social systems developed by Niklas Luhmann, a student of Talcott Parsons.

His defence of modernity and civil society has been a source of inspiration to others, and is considered a major philosophical alternative to the varieties of poststructuralism. He has also offered an influential analysis of late capitalism.

Habermas perceives the rationalization, humanization, and democratization of society in terms of the institutionalization of the potential for rationality that is inherent in the communicative competence that is unique to the human species. Habermas contends that communicative competence has developed through the course of evolution, but in contemporary society it is often suppressed or weakened by the way in which major domains of social life, such as the market, the state, and organizations, have been given over to or taken over by strategic/instrumental rationality, so that the logic of the system supplants that of the lifeworld.

Notice how he rejects postmodernism and harks back to the Enlightenment as an unfinished project.

Edited December 2, 2009 by soto

[jahja]

Yeah this is very interesting stuff soto - thanks for the reply.

It is another to go on the list for end of term reading!! Cheers.

[soto]

In regards to social theory in general. Have a go at tackling the big beast that is Structural Functionalism. It can get quite confusing but is really interesting and helps to understand some of the reasoning for a lot of the newer social theories.

Edited December 4, 2009 by soto

[Guest grandad]

with the thought that i dont give a sh-t about intelectual drivel, i never bothered to look see what marxist is about, or anarchist, dont know what they are or what they mean. i wonder if so called intelectuals realise, the biggest percentage of the population of the planet just get on with life in there/our own little world, knowing we have no control over our own lives, not able to understand all the tripe dished up by the intelects, who just happen to control our fair and beautiful planet, its all down to control and class.

[Hughie Green]

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

— Isaac Asimov

[soto]

A lot of the problems stem though grandad from the fact that neither the 'intellects' nor the population in general control society. The variation in social theory imo, stops one theory from dominating another and in that sense strives toward equilibrium and against extremism. It's somewhat odd how it seems to do this, as the one thing a lot of people seem to have been searching for is one grand theory that can explain and predict social action and structure.

edit: missed out the structure bit

Edited December 4, 2009 by soto

[Guest grandad]

what is the system, who are these invisible powers that be, oh man did you not know, its us, all of us make up the system, those at the bottom always striving to get to the top, and it just goes round and round and round, making everyone dizzy and confused.