Uvod

Opisuje kako se Tea Party u SAD-u predstavio kao prosvjedna, protuestablišmentska opcija, te
su kao takva opcija dobili određenu masovnu podršku. Kako je ovo moguće je osnovno pitanje
prilikom analize ideologije, tj. istraživanja teorija ideologije. 1 – 3.
The protest is arranged in a way that it reinforces
the predominant ideological pattern. Through this two-pronged strategy, those
above succeed in realising its class-rule as ‘hegemony’. Hegemony is one of the
key concepts of Antonio Gramsci’s theory, and means that the ruling class does
not only ‘rule’ but also ‘leads’, in the sense that it generates among its subjects a
kind of consensus (active or passive) to its rule. 3.
Zadatak ideologija-teorija je analiza ovakvih ideoloških inverzija, ovaj termin je stvorio Louis
Althusser 1970ih i ideologiju-teoriju je suprotstavio trima interpretacijama ideologije,
ekonomizmu tj. ideologije kao odraza ekonomskih procesa, teoriji ideologije kao lažne svijesti
koju treba kritizirati iz pozicije prave svijesti, te naposljetku teorije legitimnosti Maxa Webera
koje su ideologiju istraživale iz perspektive dominacije i samoopravdanja. Taking up Weber’s
analyses of ‘rational’ domination,8
Luhmann proclaimed that the complexity of modern societies required a ‘generalised acceptance
of decisions’. What was needed were not motivated convictions, but ‘acceptance without
motivation’.9 The passive acceptance of decisions
made by ‘legitimate’ experts was depicted as an objective necessity, the possibility of
democratisation and participation from below was not even considered.4.
The need for an ideology-theory renewal resulted from the fact that none of
these traditions was able to explain the stability of bourgeois society and its state,
let alone to develop a strategy of democratic-socialist transformation capable of
gaining hegemony. The approaches of ideology-theory attempted to fulfil this
need by inquiring into the social constitution and unconscious modes of the
functioning and efficacy of the ideological. They thereby focused upon ideology’s ‘materiality’,
its existence as an ensemble of apparatuses, intellectuals, rituals
and forms of praxis. 4 – 5.
Ističe da ekonomizam ne može objasniti zašto je prvo Tea Party zadobila veliku podršku a nakon
toga nastao Occupy pokret. Ovi procesi ovise o drugim faktorima izvan same ekonomske krize.
Zato kritička ideologija-teorija odbija ekonomizam. Istraživanjem se fokusira na A major subject
of a critical ideology-theory is people’s ‘voluntary’ subjection to alienated forms of domination,
the consent to conditions restricting their capacities to act. 5.
Ističe da kada ustvrdimo da je neka ideologija lažna svijest mi ništa zapravo nismo rekli o
uvjetima nastanka i razvoja te ideologije. Ključno pitanje koje si moramo postaviti kada
istražujemo ideologije je što je u njima istinito a ne što je lažno. Također kritičari ideologije kao
lažne svijesti često zanemaruju institucije, prakse i intelektualce koji ju šire tj. materijalne
aspekte ideologije, osim toga zanemaruju nesvjesne aspekte ideoloških praksi, te naposljetku
kritika ideologiije često može dovesti do zanemarivanja analize privlačnosti i efikasnosti
ideologije. 6 – 7.
Specifičnosti marksističkog koncepta kritike: This proposal by Ernst Bloch should warn us that
the notions of ‘critique’ and
‘ideology-critique’ can be utilised in quite different ways. In the Contribution to
the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, the young Marx had opposed a ‘vulgar’,
‘dogmatic’ criticism, which ‘fights with its subject-matter’, and ‘true philosophical criticism,’
which does not only show the contradictions of a phenomenon
as existing, but ‘explains them,. . . comprehends their genesis, their necessity’.15
Critique in a Marxian sense, in particular as developed in Marx’s critique of political economy,
does not mean the rejection of a phenomenon ‘from the outside’,
but rather the historical-critical reconstruction of its emergence and inner composition. A critique
of ideology in the sense of reconstruction and ‘determinate
negation’ would thus coincide with the methodological claim of ideologytheories. 7.
Ističe da ovo znači da razlika između ideologije-teorije i ideologije-kritike nije apsolutna. On žei
spojiti ove dvije teorijske struje. 7 – 8.
On kaže da su Marx i Engels smatrali da je ideologija prolazni fenomen i da će u besklasnom
društvu doći do odumiranja ideologije. Kaže da je ML ideologija negirala ovaj element njihove
teorije i isticala ideologiju kao neutralni koncept u marksizmu. 8.

1. poglavlje
One of the basic findings in theories of ideology and
discourse is that the meaning of a term is not fixed
once and for all, but subject to change. At times, it
can even turn into its opposite. This is the case with
‘ideology’. Ovo se dogodilo i s pojmom ideologije koji je nastao kao naziv za znanost o idejama,
a naposljetku postao naziv za ideje koje su suprotstavljene znanosti. U prvobitnom značenju
koncept je nastao 1796., stvorio ga je Destutt de Tracy. Cilj znanosti ideologije je prema njemu
bio rastavljanje ideja u njihove elementarne dijelove i analiziranje osjetilnih percepcija na
temelju kojih su ideje nastale. 15 – 16.
Tracy tvrdi da je ideja isto što i percepcija odnosno opažanje. Ideologiju smatra prirodnom
znanošću. Smatrao je da su sve druge znanosti samo primjena znanosti ideologije, znanosti o
znanju. 16.
Zadatak ove znanosti je, između ostalog, bio i istraživanje i konstruiranje načina upravljanja
društvom koji bi donio najviše dobra i najmanje lošeg najvećem broju stanovnika. Tracy je želio
ublažiti ili neutralizirati društvene sukobe bez promjene društvene strukture, vidimo da je
ideologija tad već imala političku funkciju, Marx ga je nazvao buržoaskim doktrinarom. 17.
Ideolozi su bili grupa istraživača u revolucionarnoj francuskoj koji su imali važnu ulogu u
školskom sustavu. Sam Tracy je bio zemljoposjednik koji je bio za revoluciju no jakobinci su ga
uhitili zbog suradnje s kontrarevolucionarima i od smaknuća ga je spasilo uhićenje Robespierrea.
Opposing the ‘irrational’ Jacobin rule
of terror, and advocating a ‘rational’ bourgeois order, Tracy and his circle occupied leading
positions in the education-system under the rule of the Directory
and strongly influenced its ‘Thermidor’ ideology. Tracy introduced the concept
of ideology into the debates of the Institut National, which was created in 1795 as
a state-institution bringing together leading republican intellectuals for the reorganisation of the
education-system. ‘Ideology’ was thus a post-revolutionary construct. It was ‘the ideology of a
group of propertied intellectuals in power after
Thermidor, who hoped to use it to transform and stabilize post-Revolutionary
France’.16 It was designed to institutionalise the achievements of the Enlightenment and
republicanism at the very moment when Jacobinism was politically
defeated – thereby marking a transition, which could be described in Gramscian terminology as a
‘passive revolution’ (see Section 5.2.).17 It was meant to
conserve republican achievements while ‘evacuating’ plebeian demands and to
establish the principle of ‘representation’ against the ‘utopia’ of a direct democracy. In the brief
period of the Directory, it was accredited with the status of a
state-philosophy. 18.
Značenje koncepta ideologije se promijenilo u vrijeme bonapartističkog režima. Ideolozi su
smatrali da je religija suprotnost razuma i da ju je potrebno zamijeniti ideologijom. Ideolozi su
Bonapartea podržavali u njegovom puču međutim njihovi planovi za izbacivanje religije iz
školovanja su došli u sukob s političkim interesima Francuskog carstva koje je 1801. potpisalo
konkordat s katoličkom crkvom. Napoleon je naposljetku ideologe okrivio i za poraz 1812. 18 –
19.
From now on, Napoleon accused the ‘class . . . of windbags and idéologues’ (de phraseurs et
d’idéologues) of undermining the state’s authority with rationalist and
natural-right abstractions. The idéologues were not only ‘dangerous dreamers’,
but also ‘disguised materialists and not too disguised’, who deprived the people
of religion and salutary illusions and flattered the populace with a sovereignty
that it could not exercise: ‘Always distrusting authority, even when it was in their
hands, they always refused to give it the indispensable force needed to resist
revolution’. 19.
U ovom pejorativnom značenju ideologije kao asptraktnih i nepovezanih ideja pojam je ušao u
njemačke i svjetske rječnike u prvoj polovici 19. st. Ističe da Marx i Engels koncept ideologije
ipak nisu koristili na isti način kao i Napoleon, nisu nastupali iz pozicije moći već je moć bila
predmet kritike iz perpspektive ideologije-kritike. 20.
In this respect, the similarities between the overall project of the idéologistes
and of Marx are much more relevant: they both shared a common interest in
the critical analysis of ideas and images, the conditions in which they emerged,
and their mode of functioning. But whereas the idéologistes broke down ideas
into ahistorical ‘sensations’, Marx referred them to the ‘ensemble of social relations’, which
provided the hermeneutical key to decipher what the ‘essence of
man’ in its concrete reality might be. 20.
2. poglavlje
Marx i Engels nikada nisu formulirali sistematsku teoriju ideologiju, barem ne jednako
sistematsku kao kritiku političke ekonomije. Tvrdi da su Marx i Engels ipak imali specifičnu
metodologiju analize ideologije i da su sva različita korištenja ovog koncepta bila koherentna u
okviru jedne metode. 21.
Kaže da su iz djela Marxa i Engelsa izrasle tri marksističke interpretacije ideologije, prvo smjer
kritike ideologije kao oblika lažne svijesti (Lukacs, Frankfurtska), drugo interpretacija ideologije
koja je i marksizam smatrala ideologijom proleterske klase (djelomično Lenjin i kasnije ML), te
naposljetku teoretska analiza ideologije: and third,
a conception that ranged from Antonio Gramsci to
Louis Althusser, and from Stuart Hall to the Projekt Ideologietheorie (PIT), which
understood the ideological as the ensemble of apparatuses and forms of praxis
that organise the relation of individuals to the self and to the world. These three
interpretations are not always clearly separated from each other, but could also
overlap and be combined. 21 – 22.
Neke marksističke struje poput Projekt Ideologietheorie i Stuarta Halla smatraju da koncepcija
ideologije kao lažne svijesti i ideološke distorzije impliciraju da su mase naivci koje je lako
nasamariti ideologijom, a samo kritički intelektualnci mogu otkriti ovu ideologiju. 22 – 23.
Ističe da kritičari koji optužuju Marxa i Engelsa za ekonomističku mehaničku koncepciju
ideologije ne uzimaju u obzir da je Marx u prvoj tezi o Fuerbachu kritizirao mehanički
materijalizam i isticao da je potrebno u obzir uzeti objekte u njihovom historijskom kretanju,
prijašnji materijalizam nije shvaćao materijalnu stvarnost kao aktivnost ljudi. 23 – 24.
U Njemačkoj ideologiji Marx i Engels tvrde da svijest nastaje istovremeno kao i proizvodnja
sredstava za život, novih potreba i reprodukcija društvenih odnosa. 24 – 25.
It is obvious that this line of argument has nothing to do with an ‘objectivist
fantasy’ (Williams) of human life devoid of meaning and language. Nor is it a
demonstration that language and consciousness only have a ‘secondary’ status.
Instead, Marx and Engels argued against the idealist concept of a ‘pure’ consciousness and
pointed out that consciousness has its social form in language.
What is astonishing is the prescience with which they anticipated some of the
insights of recent linguistic approaches that describe the material and social
character of meanings with the concept of ‘discourse’ or ‘discursive practice’. 25.
Marx i Engels nisu tvrdili da svijest nema utjecaja na stvarnost već da je svijest društveni
proizvod. Oni nisu filozofiju čiste svijesti kritizirali zato što je materijalni život bio primaran u
odnosu na svijest već zato što je koncept čiste svijesti svijest izvlačio iz njenog društvenog
konteksta. 25.
To describe religion as an ‘inverted world-consciousness’28 was by no means a new
idea. Marx had taken it from Ludwig Feuerbach’s concept of projection, according to which the
limited individuals project the potentially unlimited essence
of the human species-being onto religion, where it is presented as omnipotent
God, grace without limits, and endless love. According to Marx’s succinct summary, religion is
‘the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either
not yet found himself or has already lost himself again’. It is ‘the fantastic realisation of the
human essence because the human essence has no true reality’. 26.
Ističe da je Marxova kritika religija ipak bila bitno drugačija od tipične kritike religije kao lažne
svijesti. Kada Marx kaže da je religija uzdah potlačenog bića on zapravo želi osloboditi osjećaje
protesta sadržane u vjerskom osjećaju. Marxove rečenice se u ovom slučaju mogu shvatiti kao
komplementarne, religija je uzdah potlačenih zato što je opijum naroda, ili dijalektički kada
religija postaje polje kontradikcija, sadrži subverzivne i reakcionarne elemente. Its main interest
lay in the deciphering and setting free of the impulses of yearning and protest that are contained
in religious form. 27.
Osim toga Prilog kritici Hegelove filozofije prava je bio apel mladohegelijancima da se prestanu
baviti religijom. 28.
On misli da isto kao što postoji napetost između dviju definicija religije u Marxovim djelima ista
napetost postoji i u njegovoj analizi ideologije u Njemačkoj ideologiji, Marx se istovremeno
kreće unutar mladohegelijanskog diskursa ali ga i kritizira. Marx je razvio novi smjer
materijalističke ideologije-teorije. Kaže da je Althusserova tvrdnja da se u Njemačkoj ideologiji
ideologija prikazuje isključivo kao čista iluzija iz pozitivističke perspektive vrlo jednostrana. 29.
Althusser nije uzeo u obzir teze ŽMarxa i Engelsa da jedino što omogućava postojanje ideologije
tj. misli neovisno o životu je podijela između materijalnog i mentalnog rada. Prvi ideolozi,
svećenici, su nastali zbog razvoja podijele rada u prošlim društvima a ne zbog lažne svijesti. He
took some of Marx and Engels’s metaphors at
face-value, but left out the ‘historical life process’ which was at stake, here: the
‘inversion’ of ideology, its ‘standing on its head’ was considered to be an effect
of the social division of material and mental labour. 30.
On tvrdi da su već Marx i Engels ideologiju shvaćali kao materijalni i institucionalni poredak
društva, te da camera obscura nije bila metafora za lažnu svijestveć za idelističku superstrukturu
klasnog društva: Althusser restricted himself to picking out terms like ‘illusory’ and drew the
conclusion
that ideology, here, was ‘pure illusion’, which showed for him that the concept of
ideology was ‘not Marxist’.51 But as soon as one takes Marx and Engels’s complex
arrangement of gender, class, and state into consideration, one can see that they
had in fact undertaken a decisive shift towards an ideology-theory that, instead
of clinging to a naive concept of ‘false consciousness’, conceived of the ideological as a material
and institutional arrangement in society. 31.
It
is therefore not a particular content of consciousness that makes intellectuals
ideologues, but a specific ‘positioning in the structure of domination’, which is to
be reconstructed socio-analytically, starting from the contradictions in society.56
A similar view was held by Pierre Bourdieu, who took The German Ideology’s
considerations on the divisions of manual and mental labour (as well as of town
and countryside) as a starting point from which to develop his concept of social
‘field’ (see Section 8.2). 32.
On smatra da su Marx i Engels bili pioniri u socio-analytical reconstruction of ideology
from the contradictions of the social divisions of labour. 32.
Kažu da citat u Njemačkoj ideologiji prema kojem su vladajuće ideje uvijek ideje vladajuće klase
nisu bile motivirajuće za istraživanje konstruiranja hegemonije. Međutim Marx i Engels su
također istakli neke važne elemente procesa stvaranja hegemonije, npr prezentiranje vlastitih
klasnih interesa kao univerzalnih interesa. Oni su također primijetili da se buržoaska klasa
podijelila na intelektualni ideološki dio i aktivni dio. 33.
Marx je koncept fetišizma preuzeo iz studija o religiji koje su fetišizam definirale kao primitivni
stupanj religije. Marx ga je prvi put primijenio u raspravi o zakonu o krađi drva, tada je rekao da
je privatno vlasništvo neka vrsta fetišizma. Ističe da je već to da Marx koristi termin iz
istraživanja religije za opisivanje buržoaskog društva značajno za ideologiju-teoriju. 35.
By doing so, their ‘criticism of heaven
turns into the criticism of the earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of
law and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics’.71 Methodologically
speaking, the specifics of Marx’s approach to religion do not, therefore, consist
of substantially defining religion as an ‘inverted consciousness’ or ‘opium of the
people’, but in the very paradigm-shift that reveals ‘religion-like’ inversions in
the law, politics, and the economic alienations of bourgeois society. 35.
Marx je u O židovskom pitanju religiju definirao izrazito općenito kao prizanje čovjeka preko
nekog posrednika, bila to država ili religija. Zapravo je smatrao da je suvremena politika vjerski
fenomen. It splits the human being into an egoistic private individual of
bourgeois-civil society, ‘withdrawn . . . into the confines of his private interests
and private caprice, and separated from the community’ on the one hand, and
in the moral person of the citizen of the political state on the other hand, who is
‘only abstract, artificial man, man as an allegorical, juridical person’ and ‘deprived
of his real individual life and endowed with an unreal universality’.82 At the same
time as the Feuerbachian critique of religion is transformed into a critique of
the form of politics in bourgeois society, the perspective of liberation takes on a
new scope: the objective is no longer merely ‘political’ emancipation, but rather
‘human emancipation’, by which the ‘real, individual man’ no longer ‘separates
social power from himself in the shape of political power’, but rather organises
his ‘ “forces propres” [“own powers”] as social forces’, and thereby ‘re-absorbs in
himself the abstract citizen’, and becomes ‘a species-being in his everyday life’.37.
U Filozofskim i ekonomskim manuskriptima Marx je koristio koncepte iz kritike religije za
kritiku alijenacije radnika. 37 – 38.
But the notion that the abolition of private property will lead
to a return from ‘religion, family, state’ and thereby cause the respective ideologies to vanish by
themselves, is certainly an economistic illusion. The ideological
does not seem to be endowed with any ‘materiality’ and efficacy of its own. 38.
Tvrdi da je Marx s konceptom fetišizma pronašao koncept koji mu je omogućio da sa kritike
religije pređe na kritiku političke ekonomije. 39.
Analizira kontekst nastanka termina fetišizam, ova riječ dolazi iz portugalskog, tim terminom su
portugalski misionari u Africi definirali religiju afričkih naroda kao zaostalu i primitivnu. If one
considers this colonial context, one
can see that Marx’s use of the concept is a masterpiece of ideology-critique. By
taking up this concept, he addresses the contemporary ideologies of European
supremacy that feel so much more ‘rational’ and ‘enlightened’ than those ‘primitive’ people who
worship their own artifacts. Marx turns the tables on them by
demonstrating that it is their modern bourgeois order that harbours the craziest
and most anachronistic fetishism at its very core, an irrational reversal by which
exchange-value rules over use-value, money rules over labour, accumulated capital rules over
life, shareholder-values rule over life-values. 39 – 40.
Kaže da je problem kapitalističke proizvodnje i izvor fetišizma što radnici nemaju demokratsku
kontrolu nad proizvodnjom. 40.
Smatra da je samo korištenje koncepta fetišizma kod Marxa pravi primjer ideologije-kritike koja
ide dalje od koncepcije ideologije kao lažne svijesti. In terms of a theory of ideology, the
Marxian critique of fetishism therefore
assumes a twofold character. As far as it can be considered as a polemical and
subversive response to predominant bourgeois and Eurocentric ideologies, it is
an ideology-critique at its best, namely one by which the ideological phrases
of its opponents are turned over and over until the underlying social meaning
becomes evident. As far as Marx’s critique of fetishism unearths the reified inversions within
bourgeois economy, it goes beyond ideology-critique, at least in the
traditional sense of a critique of ‘false consciousness’. 40.
Benjamin je čak tvrdio da je kapitalizam religijski fenomen. 40.
On smatra da Marx fetišizam pronalazi u činjenici da proizvođači tek na tržištu saznaju da li je
njihova roba proizvedena u okviru socijalno potrebnog radnog vremena ili je premašila to
vrijeme. Glavni uzrok fetišizma je nepostojanje društvenog plana proizvodnje. 41.
Marxova analiza fetišizma se ne odvija na razini svijesti već na razini proizvodnje. Čak ističe da
fetišizam nije izvrnuti oblik svijesti već odraz stvarnosti u kojoj dominira kapitalistički način
proizvodnje i razmjena roba. 42.
On se pita kako onda Marx može istovremeno nazivati fetišizam mističnim ako odražavaju
stvarnost. Ukratko ovi fenomeni su istovremeno invertirani i normalni, normalni zato što
odgovaraju „normalnim“ društvenim uvjetima. Invertiranost se nalazi jedino u naturalizaciji tih
društvenih uvjeta. Marx responds to this apparent contradiction by introducing the concept of
‘socially valid, and therefore . . . objective thought forms’ [objektive
Gedankenformen],109 which are reproduced directly and spontaneously as ‘current and usual
thought forms’ [gang und gäbe Denkformen].110 As Marx has done
with the syntagma ‘idealistic superstructure’, he now combines a term describing
thinking (thought-form) and a term referring to ‘reality’ (objective). As an ‘objective thought
form’, commodity-fetishism is both a form of social life in bourgeois society and a
corresponding form of practice and consciousness, that is,
‘reasonable’ practice as well as practical reason. 43.
Marx kaže da je termin vrijednost rada imaginaran međutim ovo ne znači da je u potpunosti
neutemeljen u stvarnosti, spada u kategoriju objektivnih oblika misli ili „stvarno-imaginarnih“
oblika. 44.
Smatra da je plaća-oblik jedan od važnih faktora buržoaske hegemonije, postavlja određenu ideju
pravde kod radnika i to je jedan od faktora zašto se klasna borba svodi na pitanje visine plaća.
45.
That Marx undertakes both to analyse the sphere of circulation as the real
basis of ‘human rights’ and to simultaneously reveal their restricted and imaginary nature,
illustrates the ingenuity and subtlety (not to forget the extraordinary
literary quality) of these passages: in the transition from the ‘noisy’ and visible
sphere of circulation to the ‘hidden abode of production’, the physiognomy of
the ‘contractors’ changes dramatically: ‘He who was previously the money owner
now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as
his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent to business; the other
is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market
and now has nothing else to expect but – a tanning’.1 46.
Marx continually argued against the spontaneous tendency of a reifying perception of social
relations, pointing out that capital is not a ‘thing’, i.e. not an
invested amount of money, but rather a ‘definite social relation of production
pertaining to a particular historical and social formation, which simply takes the
form of a thing’. 46.
Ističe da se zbog fetzišizma smatra da kapital sam po sebi stvara vrijednost i da je to prirodno.
47.
Tri aspekta Marxove analize fetišizma: There is, for one, the specifics and efficacy of a modern
objectified mode
of domination in which the capitalistic market operates as a higher power that
subordinates not only the producers and consumers, but also the capitalists
themselves, so that the relationship between supply and demand ‘hovers over
the earth like the fate of the ancients, and with invisible hand allots fortune
and misfortune to men, sets up empires and wrecks empires, causes nations to
rise and to disappear’;132 second, the self-mystifying naturalisation of this reified
domination into inherent necessity without alternatives by which specific social
power-relations appear as ‘natural forms’ of social life.133 And finally, there is
the production of consent so that the producers feel ‘completely at home’ in
these ‘estranged and irrational forms’.134 These different aspects – reification,
dissimulation and ‘voluntary’ subordination – are for Marx not only related to
each other, but also immediately inscribed in the material arrangement of bourgeois domination
as ‘objective thought forms’. 47 – 48.
Marx characterised capitalism’s typical mode of domination as a ‘silent compulsion of economic
relations’, which typically operates effectively without applying ‘extra-economic force’, and this
not least for the reason that the working
class acknowledges the demands of the capitalist mode of production ‘as selfevident natural
laws’. 48.
Marx nikada nije koristio termin ideologija u kontekstu analize fetišizma. Međutim stalno koristi
paralele s religijom koje se nalaze i u Njemačkoj ideologiji što može implicirati da su ove dvije
analize bile povezane. Althusser je tvrdio da je fetišizam ostatak mladohegelijanske filozofije i
Marxovog humanizma. 49.
Sebastian Herkhommer tvrdi da je Marxova analiza objektivnih oblika misli osnovna razina za
marksističku ideologiju-teoriju. Neki tvrde da su sami ovi oblici osnova ideologije, a Projekt
Ideologietheorie smatra da su oni temelj integrativne snage buržoaske ideologije no sami po sebi
nisu ideologija, ideologija postaju tek kada ove oblike artikuliraju kroz ideološke aparate. On
ističe da je potrebno povezati objektivne oblike misli i konstrukciju ideologije. 50 – 51.
What is decisive
is not so much how exactly the terminological delimitations are set, but rather
how to find a differentiated method of analysis that links the ‘silent compulsion of economic
relations’, the ways this compulsion is dealt with in everyday
experience and its ‘discursive’ arrangement and ‘processing’ by different ideological apparatuses
and their ideologues, without subsuming the different levels
of social reality to a single logic. 51.
Marx se s ideološkim oblikovanjem objektivnih oblika misli bavio u analizi vulgarnih
ekonomista, prije svega de Trayja kao njihovog najboljeg predstavnika. 52.
There is at least one example where Marx himself was concerned with the ideological
‘processing’ of objective thought-forms, namely in the case of ‘vulgar
economists’ – among them Destutt de Tracy as their ‘genuine luminary’150 –
who do ‘nothing more than interpret, systematize and turn into apologetics
the notions of agents trapped within bourgeois relations of production’, ‘giving
them a certain comprehensible arrangement’.151 It is their ideological function to
‘translate’ the objective thought-forms immediately into a doctrinaire language,
precisely ‘from the standpoint of the ruling section, i.e. the capitalists, and their
treatment is therefore not naive and objective, but apologetic’,152 according to
what is ‘useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient’. 52.
Razlika između Marxa i klasične političke ekonomije: he difference is important, because if one
focuses only on the content (labour) and
takes the value-form for granted, one will miss the specifics of this form and
naturalise it into an ‘eternal natural form of social production’;160 only if one
succeeds in deciphering the value-form can one identify it as a form of specific
social practices (exchange, buying and selling) that epitomises a specific ‘social
formation in which the process of production has mastery over man, instead of
the opposite’. 53.
Klasiča politička ekonomija je tražila od čega se sastoji vrijednost, zaključili su da je to rad i
analizirali su tu supstanciju vrijednost. Marx je analizirao i sam oblik vrijednosti. Koristio je
metodu historijsko-kritičke rekonstrukcije nastanka oblika vrijednosti. 53.
Marxova metoda: In one of his earliest
writings, the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843),
he opposes ‘vulgar’, ‘dogmatic’ criticism, which ‘fights with its subject-matter’,
and ‘true philosophical criticism’, which not only shows the contradictions of
a phenomenon to exist, but ‘explains them, . . . comprehends their genesis, their
necessity’,165 and which also signifies their transitory character and eventual
downfall. 53 – 54.
Kaže da postoje sličnosti između ove metode i metode dekonstrukcije Jacquesa Derride, neki
elementi Derridine dekonstrukcije se mogu integrirati u historijsko-kritičku rekonstrukciju
kapitalističkog načina proizvodnje i njegovih objektivnih oblika misli. Problem je što je Derrida
jezik u potpunosti odvojio od svih društvenih fenomena. 54.
U MLizmu je ideologija reducirana na ideje neke klase, ideologija je stoga neutralni koncept. 55.
On tvrdi da je Marx u prilogu kritici političke ekonomije kada je spominjao materijalnu
transformaciju i ideološke oblike u kontekstu njihova suprotstavljanja govorio samo o
buržoaskoj revoluciji, tvrdi da ovaj dio treba čitati u kontekstu početka 18. Brumairea kako kada
proizvodne snage prerastu društvene okvire buržoaski revolucionari sebe ideološki prikazuju kao
borce za neku davno izgubljenu prošlost no zapravo su posljedice njihove borbe bila uspostava
buržoaskog društva. 55 – 56.
The passage in question says explicitly that in ‘ideological forms’ people not only become
‘conscious’ of the conflict between the
productive forces and the relations of production, but also ‘fight it out’.176 This
indicates that the concept of ‘ideological form’ deployed here assumes a stronger
‘materiality’ and a more independent inner logic than the rhetoric ‘expression’
of class-interests allows. In this sense, the late Engels developed the concept
of ‘interaction [Wechselwirkung]’, and emphasised that the ideological (and in
particular the political and juridical) forms ‘also have a bearing on the course
of the historical struggles of which, in many cases, they largely determine the
form’. 56 – 57.
Većina marksista je naposljetku zaključila da su Marx i Engels konceptu ideologije pristupali
kritički i da su njegov izvor našli u podijeli intelektualnog i materijalnog rada. 58.
Engels je u Ludwig Fuerbach i kraj klasične njemačke filozofije stvorio koncept ideološke moći:
ethnological works of Lewis Henry Morgan. In Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical
German Philosophy (1888) he introduced
his concept of ‘ideological power’ [ideologische Macht]: ‘The state presents itself
to us as the first ideological power over man’, which means that the fight of the
oppressed class against the ruling class ‘necessarily becomes a political fight’. 59.
Ovakav koncept ideološke moći čiji je glavni element država ne može biti isključivo imaginaran.
Ideološka moć je politički oblik koji uključuje razne društvene prakse, Engels ovdje zapravo
ističe da postoje materijalni temelji ideologije: This implies that the state, as the first ‘ideological
power’, conditions an ideological form of the political, which is of course not a mere form of
consciousness, but
a form which social practices and struggles must actually assume. 59.
Althusser would take
up many of these concepts from Gramsci, while at the same time distancing
himself from Marx and Engels, whose ideology theory he erroneously reduced to
a speculative critique of ‘false consciousness’. The Projekt Ideologietheorie (PIT)
took a different path and considered Marx and Engels’s reflections on ideology
to be ‘summarised’ in the late Engels’s concept of ideological powers: ‘Marx and
Engels’s analyses are focused on the connections between state and ideology,
their ideology-critique is oriented towards . . . the withering away of the state’. 59 – 60.