I agree, in that the default modes of (what's thought of as) 'consciousness' (esp. when we are not in the middle of upsurges of mass movements) consist of individualism, moralism, and commodity fetishism (of which Kant & Lacan's + Zizek's glosses on Kant are part). That said, I think that we can try to describe and explain what these default modes of 'consciousness' are like, what they do, etc.
>the centralism which made modern Communist ethics possible has often been
>directed precisely against the working class - the subject in theory in
>the 'center' of the ethics in question.
To be honest, I don't set store by any attempt to systematize morality or articulate a priori principles of it -- not even Trotsky's categoric class morality. I fully endorse negative dialectics in this sphere, in combination with critical studies of mores, manners, and moral philosophies.
>How could the 'modern' collective, the working class party, which proclaim
>the catagorical solidarity which Marx spoke so positively about - how
>could that survive after the betrayal of the 1968 French revolt by the
>PCF? After Callaghan's betrayal of the last hopes of Labour in 1976?
>Before the bit of Marx that I just quoted, he says: "The abstract
>hostility between sense and intellect is inevitable so long as the human
>sense [Sinn] for nature, the human significance [Sinn] of nature, and,
>hence, the natural sense of man, has not yet been produced by man's own
>labor." When the 'working class parties' showed that in practice the
>solidarity they offered led no further than the factory floor, how could
>anyone believe in the 'solidarity' that they offered?
>
>The masses remained outside (as they increasingly remain outside the
>factory anyway) and ceased to be catagorical (anyway, there were always
>limits to solidarity - sexism, racism, nationalism, craftism - which put
>limits on the catagorality of working class ethics).
Empirically true in many ways, but my objection to postmodernist philosophers is they are (implicitly) committed to an empiricist ontology. And, if anything, postmodernist philosophers fetishize the experience of defeat & betrayal (of the 'Party,' of the 'Working Class,' etc.), much more so than the masses of workers ever did.
from another post of yours:
>Peter
>P.S. There it is, Yoshie - proof that I'm not polite to everyone all the
>time.
True, but the 'World Socialist Movement' appears to deserve all it gets from you. 'Polite' may not have been a right word if I did put it that way. Let me just say I like your style, along with the styles of other people I mentioned (I didn't mention Carrol, because while I like his style best, it appears it's unwise to emulate it without his range of references).
all the best,
Yoshie