Talk:Political consciousness

Original research/Unverified claims

This new article cites no references, so I added the original research/verifiability template.  DOONHAMER | BANTER  19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

True enough, Doonhamer, though I'll reckon you're a bit out of your area of expertise. I assume we'll get this page rolling soon. There's a rather dire need for it, for folks interested in contemporary marxist and post-marxist theory. The existing page on consciousness just ain't the thing. If it's okay by you I'm going to delete that "original research" thing when the time comes. Happy gnoming. --Dylanfly 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed out of my area of expertise, which is why I would not attempt to edit the content of this article. I do, however, have more than enough expertise and experience with Wikipedia to recognize when an article on a complex subject requires reliable sources to back up its claims. I thus felt fully qualified to add the NOR template. I have complete faith in your analysis of the adequacy of the existing article on consciousness, and I completely trust you to have the expertise necessary to provide the needed sources to this article. When you have done so, it will indeed be okay by me if you remove the "original research thing". Indeed, it will be far more than okay by me. Oh, and as if gnoming could be anything other than happy. :o)  DOONHAMER | BANTER  21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Much respect for your gnoming efforts, sir. Without the gnomes, wikipedia would be a mess. And Doonhamer, you're a funny bloke! :) --Dylanfly 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Meant no disrespect. --Dylanfly 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers and likewise Professor. The article is fleshing out nicely and looks like it will be a worthy addition to the encyclopedia.  DOONHAMER | BANTER  23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusing ideology

I like the idea of this article. In my understanding, Marx held the view that the development of productive forces is decisive for state of development of a society, while ideology plays a secondary role. For example, "The German Ideology" First Premises 4. The Essence of the Materialist Conception of History Social Being and Social Consciousness, reads:

The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.

Thus, instead of

That is, conditions of inequality create ideologies which confuse people about their true aspirations, loyalties, and purposes.

from the quote we could (in a formal manner) deduce just a statement like

Conditions of mens real existence create ideologies which are a reflection of material production and material intercourse.

I have problems to find an actual example where Marx really claims that the ruling classes create und use ideologies as a means to "mislead", "confuse" or "beguile" the oppressed classes. --Schwalker 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your understanding of Marx; I made some edits myself earlier, trying to remove the impression that ideologies are intentionally created to mislead people. One thing though that I don't think your proposed sentence gets at is the idea that, in conditions of inequality, ideologies are not just a reflection of material conditions, but a distorted reflection - see the passage about the camera obscura just above the bit of GI you quote. VoluntarySlave 23:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the camera obscura metaphor can be interpreted as a critique of (social and other) inequality. On the other hand side, this metaphor is vague and open for many interpretations, so to avoid original research it seems the article would need a secondary source from an important scholar who delivers an interpretation according to which the metaphor does refers to inequality. I don't know, and was not able to determine via google-search, which Marxists gave what first interpretations of the metaphor (after The German Ideology was published in 1932), so this probably requires to open books. In my personal understanding, the metaphor is a critique of the subject and object categories as such, and by this critique goes beyond direct economical class inequalities. I find it similar to the fourth thesis on Feuerbach, where Marx speaks of the religious duplication of the world.--Schwalker 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Consciousness Disambiguation

Folks, head on over to consciousness and look what you find: a rather limited, neuro-psychological depiction. Don't you think we should dis-ambiguate consciousness? There's artificial consciousness, Political consciousness, Black Consciousness Movement, consciousness raising, and perhaps more. I'm concerned that this discussion of consciousness overwhelms the other common uses. And now we've got political consciousness. I'm new on Wikipedia and would like help proceeding with disambiguation on this topic.--Dylanfly 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps consciousness should be disamgibuated, I have not made up my mind at the moment. The article consciousness seems to have a chapter on philosophy in it. From a "strategical" point of view of Marxists it could appear advantageous not to leave the definition of "scientific" consciousness to neuro scientists and psychologists, but to insist on a unique concept of consciousness.--Schwalker 22:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Right! I mean, I hate the notion (so prevalent in "Western civ") that science is the Real, and other concepts are "political," "biased," or "theoretical." I mean, to me, consciousness is political at all times. That's as real a part of consciousness as one's cerebral cortex. --Dylanfly 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)