Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 06:07:06 +0200
From: Ilan Shalif <gshalif-AT-netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: AUT: back to crisis theory


Hi People.
The subject of Consciousness in general, and the Consciousness of
specific identity is one of the most complicated activities of the brain's mind.

All along history people had observed other people behaviors and
suggested explanations.

In the last century the processes involved were studied intensively
by science - psychology mainly. However, even psychologists do
not usually read all the relevant information because of "compartmentalism".

Tahir Wood wrote:

> Sharon's question is huge, since it is the question about subjectivity itself. It was brought to the forefront of various academic disciplines in the 1970s, but mostly within a 'poststructuralist' framework.

It is not the first time that a wrong discipline tried to decipher riddles
belonging to a different discipline... with the wrong tools.

> Of some relevance also is the Gramscian notion of 'hegemony'. One could also do worse than reading Fanon on the Pitfalls of the National Consciousness.

The best description of the results is the fable about the 4 blind persons
who encountered an Elephant and each claim that it is so and so according to
a different part checked.

> On the question of how archaic modes of thought dominate the thinking of the working class, one should take as a starting point, I think, the wonderful opening paragraphs of the Eighteenth Brumaire.

To give a good description of a phenomena, some time a keen observation
is all that is needed. However, the misleading explanation and speculation about the
underlying processes are plenty.

> Religion is only one aspect of this - nationalism, tribalism, ethnicity, race consciousness, the ideology of the family, motherhood, etc. are all part of it. I agree fully that these subjective elements are massive impediments to revolutionary activity

All the above are "opinions" not truth engraved in stone.

> and anyone who fails to recognise this is really dealing with the working class as an abstraction rather than a living reality.

Most people who dealt with that in the past were ignorant about the
processes involved and the dynamics of opinions (believes) in
working people minds.

> There is often a wariness on the left now to acknowledge
> this problem fully, because it sometimes appears as an argument for a vanguard party to direct the revolution.

The ignorance about the dynamics of opinions creation, conflicts and change
in relative prominence, and the role of leaders (formal and non formal) led people to
offer strange theories.

A wise revolutionary well learned in human nature professor - Li Ta Chao
Told his students in 1918 (including Mao) "go to the people and arouse them".
He did not say go and lead them. He had the description of at least 3 big
success full revolutions in China history to draw from.


> But in fact Marxism-Leninism itself has turned into a culture very much like the others that have been mentioned.

It seems that the way people live influence their opinions.... The Marxism-Leninism
was not developed by working people based on their life experience... It was
developed by people who were so brainwashed by the capitalist upbringing
that even when rebelling, still were not free from the elitist derogatory opinions
about the working people.

>>> canito3-AT-earthlink.net 06/02/01 01:57PM >>>

> Here is another question, and one I have to deal with in my dissertation.
> What can you say about the actions, beliefs and deeds of working class
> people, who are aware of class inequality and differences (as the working
> class Jews, especially those from Essaouira that I interviewed), but who do
> not define themselves as working class, but as Moroccan and as Jews?

Self definition is opinion like many other opinions. Instead of searching
for the lost coin under the lighted lamp, better search for it where it was lost.
Read a bit research about the subject in the relevant scientific journal.

In a country that give lot of prominence and prestige to one identity
and derogate another, you need a rebel to choose the less preferred one.

> I suppose that an economist can read the signs of working class resistance
> is stats on employee theft and absenteeism. But that does not mean that
> there is a conscious movement or an organized resistance. And wouldn't it
> take such a movement to overthrow capitalism?

The Leninists claimed that only vanguardist conscious movement can
change working people opinions and only such an elite can organize
its resistance and assault on the capitalist system. I think that Sharon
is peddling again a stale merchandise.

> So the issue of people's
> consciousness and the way they identify themselves, and their beliefs,
> including their religious beliefs, are issues that we need to consider, are
> they not?

Of course people's consciousness - their system of opinions (believes)
should be considered. This is what rebels usually do.... But ignorance do
not help to do it effectively.

Ilan
EMAC (East Mediterranean Anarchist Collective in construction)
http://www.shalif.com/anarchy/
http://www.shalif.com/psychology/



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---