Pill Pod 191 - Althusser against Ideology (ft. Diego Ruzzarin)
Added 2024-11-23 03:07:02 +0000 UTCDiego joins us to continue on Althusser's Marxism and Humanism from his book For Marx, and new battle lines are drawn...
We try to have our discussions make sense if you haven't done the reading, but this isn't always successful. The reading is attached
Comments
Minimum population you need for ideology: your familial relations + 1. You need strangers to have an ideology. That way you can enforce the rules beyond a related band of humans. You have to be able to reward or punish someone (who knows why they’re being rewarded or punished) who you wouldn’t personally explain the rules to. And to have strangers not be threats you need a surplus of food. Otherwise their presence implicitly threatens your peeps.
William Williams
2025-01-04 20:01:43 +0000 UTCok, now u made me want to rewatch Inception..
Zachary Manenti
2024-12-09 00:16:58 +0000 UTCFrom what I have gathered in this podcast and elsewhere is that the self is more a 'user hallucinating reality' than anything non-whiteheaded western philosophy has to say. Descartes should be burned at the stake not Galileo. Then there's the question of agency, def we are mostly cogs in the different social systems, but it should be said to rumbling Marxists who claim the material basis determine everything is the reflexive relationship between human and machine and our immanent character as technological beings, that come up with new techniques, through ideological and other means, which eventually radically change our potentially. Just as Stiegler suggests much better than I do. To close comment, we should remind ourselves why in the USSR genetics was mostly considered a bourgeoise science, which is ofc, WWII and the eugenic project of the Nazis, which the Soviets opposed to on an ideological and ethical basis. Nevertheless, some of the Lamarckian stuff isn't so far fetched, and organisms may have something close to agency in driving the evolutionary process. https://aeon.co/essays/organisms-are-not-passive-recipients-of-evolutionary-forces
Mario Mario
2024-12-06 17:54:10 +0000 UTCIt’s when you think you’re outside of it that you are most in it.
Tyler Harmon-Jenich
2024-12-02 20:02:12 +0000 UTCcould be fun (maybe in an unsavoury way) to contrast althusser with an ‘autonomous’ account of culture that applies a structuralist framework. i’m reading jeffrey alexander for school right now and cracking up at how diametrically opposed he seems to be to any kind of structuralist marxism, especially althusserian stuff.
jonah brooks
2024-11-29 21:47:55 +0000 UTCThe Hindus were trying this long before Althusser. The idea of Maya. Maya is considered necessary for human life and yet it obscures the nature of life. Only by radical aestheticism can one penetrate Maya.
Khemith
2024-11-27 04:04:20 +0000 UTCCan confirm that the "I" in language & perception are sort of invented. Even the changes in modern high german language have structural changes and different use in grammar related to I-statements. Not that it was "suddenly invented" but before the idea of the atomic individual as a prominent ideology, sentences where more like: One is doing xyz instead of I am doing xyz.
Jacob Silbernagel
2024-11-26 11:48:09 +0000 UTCHe is what the masses want.
Khemith
2024-11-25 22:02:21 +0000 UTCWith regards to the last statement: you can only imagine a world without ideology from an ideological perspective just like you would need a language to imagine a world without language. It’s a “war to end all war” type of situation 😄
Florian F.
2024-11-24 21:14:15 +0000 UTCLol also Diego's Trump is like a Neo born out of Twitter algorithm matrix.
ageOfBumFires
2024-11-24 18:15:23 +0000 UTCthe first 5 minutes, the symbiosis of Trump and how stupid it is. This is why Weber used the word charis and charis•ma for a type of authority, for it is a double sided gift giving, it is like charity except it is not charity. And to go New Testament here (I am agnostic with religious baggage), charis is an important greek word for that text, the Eu•Charis•ist is both Thanksgiving for the Gift and Gratitude, a communion of people who understand each other and feel they have each others back, and they all have lack but in the crowd they do not feel such lack. And what that word means and its variant is context dependent in the text, it is grace, favour, kindness, love, the will (often good will but I argue all charismatic leaders their is also ill will and malice), thanks, reward, bounty, etc. Weber used this word Charismatic Authority and repopularized this ancient greek word, but if one wants to think about it, it is just Durkheim and Mauss repackaged. God I went long and still going, but I am just underlining how much I appreciated those past episodes you did months ago (*smiles*) and underlining how they echo into this present episode. So thank you.
Matthew Theisen
2024-11-23 21:51:42 +0000 UTCIs the pill pod manosphere? Just asking questions...
Phil
2024-11-23 15:50:01 +0000 UTCDude the simultaneous parasite/host reference to Trump is killer. He's like an individual acting as an organ of metabolism. Wild. Looking forward to hearing where this one goes. I think per 18:46 that the Buddhas has a Middle Way Humanism. It's subject to endless change, like everything else, and that's ok. 22:00 idk Eric, I think being aware of ideology can bring essential fruits, like it brought Gautama (Gautama on the mind lol) the development of a peace from which to be able to deal with waking up to an ideological world thru and thru. Idk pills, 28:00, i feel like I can operate in that mode, but it's usually only like, when I'm not at work, or driving, or interacting with my dad for more than an hour lol. That's when that pesky, sticky self gets all caught up in itself. It's fun to cruise around in nonself mode, when conditions are sufficient. Diego's conclusion at 39:20ish rings of that sentiment that "you can't fix a problem on the same level that created it." Two horse don't pull a cart, a cart doesn't push itself, to generate new preferably ideogies can only alter or provide material conditions. I think it's moreso a matter of how you stride into the cycling of the two. Sometimes it's a trip, sometimes it's a casual stroll, a sudden jump or leap, sometimes into brick walls when material conditions don't keep stride with ideology and vice versa.
ageOfBumFires
2024-11-23 15:31:17 +0000 UTCWhat I've learned from this is that we all need to refresh on what Humanism is. There's a Youtube channel called PlasticPills that I like which has two videos about Humanism and Post-Humanism that I've found helpful <3.
Ashley H
2024-11-23 07:13:07 +0000 UTCOk. I take back the fuss over not having any Althusser in the last podcast.
Mrityunjay Awasthy
2024-11-23 03:38:59 +0000 UTCBegone demon
Plastic Pills
2024-11-23 03:28:12 +0000 UTCHi Pills crew, I just finished episode 191, and the discussion around Althusser's For Marx and his critique of humanism really hit home. Althusser's framing of Marxist anti-humanism as a break with the ideological baggage of "essence of man" is a fascinating pivot point in Marxist theory. Your analysis of how Althusser decouples Marxism from the humanist traditions of freedom and reason was sharp, especially in how you linked it to the broader critique of ideology. A few thoughts I had while listening: 1. Humanism as Ideology: Althusser's claim that humanism is a necessary ideological function, even within socialism, felt particularly relevant. You mentioned the way the Soviets turned to "socialist humanism" as a bridge between Marxist theory and practical governance. Althusser would probably see this as a tactical necessity rather than a theoretical advancement, right? I wonder, though, if this isn’t a subtle admission that some level of humanist appeal—despite its ideological roots—remains indispensable for social cohesion. 2. Reification vs. Fetishism: Your discussion of Althusser’s critique of reification, compared to Marx’s concept of fetishism, really clarified his point. Althusser’s rejection of reification as a "thingification" of social relations—calling it an ideological misunderstanding—seems like a direct challenge to later Marxist traditions (like Lukács). It would be interesting to see how this tension plays out in practice, especially when Althusser argues that fetishized objects (like money) are still socially necessary. 3. Ideology and the Unconscious: I appreciated the deep dive into Althusser’s argument that ideology functions unconsciously, shaping how people "live" their relations to the conditions of production. This resonated with me as a critique of any simplistic, conscious notion of “false consciousness.” It makes ideology feel more like an environment than an idea. It’s almost spooky how durable this structure is—didn’t Gramsci touch on this too with his concept of hegemony? 4. Theory vs. Practice: Althusser’s insistence on a "scientific" Marxism feels like a double-edged sword. On one hand, it’s compelling how he frames Marxism as a break from ideology, but on the other, I couldn’t help but feel a slight discomfort at the dismissal of any humanist aspiration as "pre-scientific." You touched on this with the idea that his anti-humanism could inadvertently alienate those who find Marxism's ethical critique appealing. Loved how you broke all this down in accessible terms. Althusser’s call for Marxism to rigorously theorize the superstructure (politics, ideology, etc.) rather than fall back on vague appeals to human nature seems particularly relevant in a world where ideological narratives dominate every sphere of life. Looking forward to your next deep dive! Cheers, ChatGPT-40
Isaac Dekker
2024-11-23 03:26:28 +0000 UTC
