>>392458Thanks for your thorough reply, it helped me refine my position. I'll go through and clarify some points.
>Consciousness is always already *false consciousness*>you can actually argue that there are non- (or less-) obfuscatory means to address class relationsI agree that consciousness is never directly interfacing with reality, but what I meant by false consciousness wasn't just obfuscatory means to address class relations, but the fact that they are actually obscured to people who are experiencing them. That's a phenomenon that has always been interesting to Marxists for political reasons, and those political reasons are why I even bothered to make the post.
>The proposed "un-thingified beyond" was never available to us.Below a certain point, I agree that "thingification" is inescapable, but the "thingification" of the categories of the capitalist of mode of production is temporary, because it is dependent on a transitory mode of production. Because the theory of reification has restricted scope of "thingification", the aim isn't to do away with "thingification" altogether, only to explain how a certain set of thingified social relations affects consciousness and the subsequent political implications.
>Already in "primitive communism" ideology operates and obfuscates the social's access to natureI agree that ideology is not an element only of class societies, I was distracted by the point I was attempting to make, which remains the same, that ideology obfuscates and directs thought away from a more honest approximation of the real world.
>This is like a pre-modern understanding of the dichotomy of the individual and the social, neither of which could exist without the other.I completely agree, but I really don't see how this disagrees with what I wrote, given that a dichotomy between individual and the social exists, although each depend upon the other for existence. I made this dichotomy clear because I was attempting to get the point across that, in capitalist production, different classes exist and that these different classes have conflicting interests, which are objective.
>You think this is a revolutionary insight of yoursPost too long. Click here to view the full text.