On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Karl Carlile wrote:
> Karl: The political state, by its very nature, "is a product and
> manifestation of the irreconcilability of class contradictions." It
> is an expression and form of alienation. It is an expression of th e
> fact that the social relations between the producers of wealth have
> assumed a fetishised form. Social relations of production are
> thereby mediated through "things". Consequently people cannot regul
> ate their own affairs in a directly collective fashion .
> Administration and regulation of social relations is thereby
> mediated through a thing-like institution, the state.
The point is to de-mystify the state not to validate it, if one is using
a Marxian framework. Marx's works are to illustrate that though we may
see or believe that institutions are things independent of human action
the truth is that they are not independent of social practices.
Reification refers to the process whereby people PERCEIVE that a said
institution is a separate entity or a thing. This arises out of the fact
that people are alienated or separated from the social practice whether
directly or indirectly. In addition, for those who are participating
within that institution or system their freedom of choice is limited by
traditions or rules which govern how those people make choices. In other
words, their "thinkable thought" about a given institution/system limits
what they perceive has not only acceptable choices but choices are
actually possible. This limitation on people choices, given that they
are or have the potential to make any choice, is a product of
reificataion. Marx's GERMAN IDEOLOGY is my favourite work on this
subject matter, though I also like Lukacs's HISTORY AND CLASS
CONSCIOUSNESS.
> You say that you believe that "humans are capable of creating
> institutions of our own choosing". But the point is that under
> capitalist civilisation people cannot make such choices since they
> are not in control of their the social relations.
We are not incapable of creating new institutions, rather the loss of
control arises because we believe that we don't' have control because we
are alienated, separated from those practices, and have reified our
understanding of those practices.
To argue that we lack any control, in this case potential as opposed to
actual, means that: 1) no change is possible and thus critique is futile,
and; 2) that if we are so immeresed in this system then how is it even
possible that critique exists.
Marx's point was that the system is stable, for the most part, because
people did not appreciate that are not things, reified, but are products
of human effort. His work was to illustrate that society is a product of
people's practices and thus if they were aware of that fact they could
create a society that was more humane. His work is an effort to
demystify our social practices and to show how those social practices are
currently not constructed in the best interests of people.
> You suggest that
> the state is a "coordinating institution". But you miss what is
> specific to the character of the state: Its existence as a
> manifestation o f the reification of human relations. Clearly the
> state has a co-ordinating character and shares this in common with
> certain other social phenomena. But this is not the point. The point
> is its specif icity: how it specifically differs from certain other
> socio-historical phenomena. Capitalism is a system through which
> human wealth is reproduced. It shares this feature in common with
> other forms of production of wealth. However this would be to miss
> the point. It is how the capitalist mode of production specifically
> differs from a particular form of production that is of historic
> significance. Marx and Hitler were human beings. However what is
> significant is their specificity, not their commonality.
I am not sure exactly what you point is in this section.
My point, however, was that given that the state, as an institution, has
generally fulfilled the role of coordinating the activites of a society
and that its "character", the way that it does that, is a product of
human practices, then it is possible to create a new institution (a
better term may be process, as "institution" is a term which seems to
have a conatation (sp?) which means that the practices are reified).
It is important to illustrate how the current way that the state is
organized and takes power away from people (a product of reification) and
that as an institution it is only a product of social practices.
kerry