happyandhappy

here is engels' letter to mehring where false consciousness is first mentioned https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1893/letters/93_07_14.htm

"I shall begin at the end — the appendix on historical materialism, in which you have described the main things excellently and for any unprejudiced person convincingly. If I find anything to object to it is that you attribute more credit to me than I deserve, even if I count in everything which I might possibly have found out for myself – in time – but which Marx with his more rapid coup d’oeil (grasp) and wider vision discovered much more quickly. When one has the good fortune to work for forty years with a man like Marx, one does not usually get the recognition one thinks one deserves during his lifetime. Then if the greater man dies, the lesser easily gets overrated, and this seems to me to be just my case at present; history will set all this right in the end and by that time one will be safely round the corner and know nothing more about anything.

Otherwise there is only one other point lacking, which, however, Marx and I always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to which we are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and were bound to lay, the main emphasis, in the first place, on the derivation of political, juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising through the medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so doing we neglected the formal side — the ways and means by which these notions, etc., come about — for the sake of the content. This has given our adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings, of which Paul Barth is a striking example.

Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process at all. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. Because it is a process of thought he derives both its form and its content from pure thought, either his own or that of his predecessors. He works with mere thought material which he accepts without examination as the product of thought, he does not investigate further for a more remote process independent of thought; indeed its origin seems obvious to him, because as all action is produced through the medium of thought it also appears to him to be ultimately based upon thought. The ideologist who deals with history (history is here simply meant to comprise all the spheres – political, juridical, philosophical, theological – belonging to society and not only to nature), the ideologist dealing with history then, possesses in every sphere of science material which has formed itself independently out of the thought of previous generations and has gone through an independent series of developments in the brains of these successive generations. True, external facts belonging to its own or other spheres may have exercised a co-determining influence on this development, but the tacit pre-supposition is that these facts themselves are also only the fruits of a process of thought, and so we still remain within that realm of pure thought which has successfully digested the hardest facts.

It is above all this appearance of an independent history of state constitutions, of systems of law, of ideological conceptions in every separate domain, which dazzles most people. If Luther and Calvin “overcome” the official Catholic religion, or Hegel “overcomes” Fichte and Kant, or if the constitutional Montesquieu is indirectly “overcome” by Rousseau with his “Social Contract,” each of these events remains within the sphere of theology, philosophy or political science, represents a stage in the history of these particular spheres of thought and never passes outside the sphere of thought. And since the bourgeois illusion of the eternity and the finality of capitalist production has been added as well, even the victory of the physiocrats and Adam Smith over the mercantilists is accounted as a sheer victory of thought; not as the reflection in thought of changed economic facts but as the finally achieved correct understanding of actual conditions subsisting always and everywhere – in fact if Richard Coeur-de-Lion and Philip Augustus had introduced free trade instead of getting mixed up in the crusades we should have been spared five hundred years of misery and stupidity.

This side of the matter, which I can only indicate here, we have all, I think, neglected more than it deserves. It is the old story: form is always neglected at first for content. As I say, I have done that too, and the mistake has always only struck me later. So I am not only far from reproaching you with this in any way, but as the older of the guilty parties I have no right to do so, on the contrary; but I would like all the same to draw your attention to this point for the future."

it seems that false consciousness is synonymous to ideology in the modern marxist sense. meaning it applies to all cases where ideology (pure thought no material analysis) is the basis where facts are derived from.

its like a fun little guessing game of what the prompt was lmao like charades

gods work

why werent u impressed

im totally down to do a althusser reading group lmfao im althusserpilled as fuck and he answers the questions the movement has about the superstructure that nobody ever knows we already had these discussions about

copyright striked in my country smh

isnt she a zionist

quid pro quo to win the strike so quickly no?

what does this mean

read althusser's on the reproduction of capitalism: ideology and ideological state apparatuses. its a really really great work that applies marxism-leninism to the superstructure and actually expounds in great depth the specific way that the ideological state apparatuses work.

what you are referring to is the education ideological state apparatus and your analysis is correct. the superstructure is two apparatuses: the repressive state apparatus (cops & laws) and the ideological state appratuses (education, religion, familial, media, news, unions, +). we need to be able to combat our way up the ideological state apparatuses, but our strength within them is only as strong as the level of class struggle that flows around and through them.

its a really great work that anybody with a glancing interest in understanding the superstructure must read in order to actually understand what the superstructure is, where it comes from, and what functions it holds. also makes many critical analyses on the role of ideology itself and the critical importance of the reproduction of ideology to any state.

what the fuck is that national bolshevik party shit?