>
> "Mr P.A. Van Heusden" wrote:
>
> > a) The reality of ideology: as Marx said, when sufficient numbers of
> > people believe in an ideology, it becomes a material force. (Gramsci used
> > to quote this all the time when developing his thinking around hegemony)
>
> Just a note. Marx never said this. He said that when *ideas* (not
> "ideology") grip the masses they become material forces.
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Gramsci's 'Prison Notebooks' here - that's where I recall the quote from. I am not certain if he is referring to the same quote you and Charles are.
Carrying on from your second post:
> And to carry one of my points a bit further -- I think Marx's point
> applied *only* to revolutionary theory, and is false when applied
> to ideas in general or, especiallly, when applied to capitalist
> *theory*. Capitalist ideology (in 9 out of 10 of the meanings of
> that term) permeates mass thought and feeling, of course, but one
> of the frustrations often in teaching college courses is that the
> students, while imbued with capitalist ideology, have no conception
> whatever of capitalist theory.
Firstly, I disagree with the first part of this paragraph - I think that people in general apprehend the world through a set of ideas (and also behaviours, but that's another point). When the masses are gripped by a set of ideas which are relatively coherent, then those ideas (and their organisation, propogation, etc.) acquire a material force.
(NOTE: I say 'acquire' - the ideas remain ideas, with no material force - just like the religious 'God' remains an idea with no material force of its own, but through its place in the minds of believers acquires material force)
Secondly, on the distinction between capitalist ideology and capitalist theory, I think reading Gramsci's criticism of Bukharin's popular manual is useful - particularly his points about how the dominant ideology appears in a different form amongst the intellectuals to how it appears amongst the masses - he specifically makes reference to religion, but I think similar arguments could be made about 'science' in our society ('common sense' is parasitical on, but not 'based on' science), and Gramsci himself makes an interesting link between his analysis of religion, and his analysis of the 'religious' kind of Marxism he criticises.
So, yes, the masses are not moved by capitalist theory - but in a sense capitalist theory is after-the-fact justification for capitalist interests (as Marx argues in the first part of the intro to the Grundrisse, where he shows how the interests of the new bosses are buried in the structure of classical economics) and is related to capitalist ideology by being a different moment of the same process - the bourgeoisie's 'making its way in the world'.
And finally, I think this question is probably the centre of our disagreements. (on psychology, on philosophy, etc.)
Peter -- Peter van Heusden : pvanheus at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk : PGP key available Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower. - Karl Marx
NOTE: I do not speak for the HGMP or the MRC.